The constitutional crisis isn't the vote. The constitutional crisis is when the Trump administration refuses to abide by an adverse holding that relies on a vote from Garland (something which may happen anyway) or precedent becomes meaningless because every time the executive and legislative branch has the right composition they expand the size of the SC and add a few new philosopher kings.
Because bad policy and/or policy I disagree with can be changed within our current constitutional structure. Conversely a constitutional crisis can result in a new, worse system. I think it also increases the likelihood of violence, including of the state variety that I worry about most.
Put it this way. I'd prefer we retain the welfare state as opposed to gutting it. However if the democratic process produces something else then I can deal with that, and the solution is to go out and do the hard work it takes to obtain a different outcome. What we may not be able to undo is a situation where the Republicans retaliate by packing the Supreme Court, especially if the long term result is a complete collapse in the legitimacy of the judicial branch and people stop complying with it.
This is what worries me. The Democrats would be completely justified in doing it but I'm not sure I want to watch the next few levels of inevitable escalation. Or maybe Damon's right and we've passed the point of walking back to most or many of the past norms.
I hadn't thought about it in a long time but your comment reminded me of an anti-war rally I went to in college where a substantial amount of time was spent on factory farming. Not saying that isn't a subject worthy of debate but at the time it struck me as totally bizarre. And this was of course back before anyone had heard of safe spaces and identity politics were at a very low ebb compared to now.
They expect a magical day of reckoning when one morning everyone wakes up and fully embraces the entire intersectionality dogma in its most vulgar form. It's more like religion than politics.
I think Kim is right. Between us, the Russians, and other regional actors we are more than capable of ensuring this fight goes down to the last Syrian.
This touches on what I was wondering about. Have the recommended charities been vetted to ensure that donations are going to civilians and not being diverted to and/or supporting belligerents in the conflict?
@saul-degraw I see some support for it among the portion of my social group that is involved in the arts or has followed a less traditional path but virtually none among the more professional/traditional office job circle.
My hope is that this stuff boils down to cultural shibbeloths. If it's something bigger then I do think it's a bad sign for broader liberalism, given how it alienates people without driving any sort of policy improvements.
This sums it up. They're the ones who allow us to make peace with a technocratic middle that unlike the others is friendly at dinner parties and smiles while feeding us all to the cold and indifferent neoliberal state.
QAll I am about to say is purely anecdotal but in my experience I've found that one of the stronger parts (among many, many weaknesses) of the religion I was raised in is a traditon of rigorous interrogation of one's own faith. I have found that tradition to be less pronounced among evangelical Protestant faiths, but much more pronounced in the Jewish faith. I'm not sure if it's cultural or an artifact of religions that are more institutionalized or something else entirely.
It's also possible I'm entirely wrong and my experience is unusual or missing crucial information.
My hope is that, to the extent it's a product of college students getting riled up, it's something that will die down with maturity. I think the answer is to support them when they're right and criticize them when they're wrong. I'm hopeful that eventually most will realize that offense is both subjective and inevitable. Bullets, beatings, and intentional economic exclusion aren't.
This is exactly correct. One set of issues involves measurable harm and potential policy solutions. The other set of issues boils down to hurt feelings and beg no policy prescriptions that are consistent with a free and multicultural society. Binding resolving urgent matters like the former to more frivolous matters like the latter is at best a waste of time and at worst counterproductive since the latter are such non issues.
It isn't even clear to me that 'cultural appropriation' is a thing outside certain cultural corners of the United States. The idea that something as natural as cultural exchange and imitation can be stopped or cast in stark moral terms has always struck me as baffling for all the reasons Freddie laid out.
My understanding is that there is a lot of Turkish bitterness about inability to actually join the EU despite decades of promises that it would be permitted when ready. France and Germany have been the main opponents of allowing Turkish membership. I've read arguments that it's been a contributing factor in Turkey's slide away from secularism and democracy but I'm not familiar enough with Turkey's internal politics to have an opinion of my own.
I dont want to speak for the OP but I think the half measure is because political plausibility is being factored in. I think that adds value to any proposal on reform of the EC. Otherwise it'd just be raging against the existing system.
I think the answer is both and neither and one or the other and something else entirely depending on who you ask.
Again, I think progressive self analysis is good. Successful political parties and movements learn from their mistakes and adapt. Clinton was an almost uniquely bad candidate for the circumstances of this election for the reasons that have been discussed here ad nauseum.
What I don't think is useful is a sort of self indulgent wallowing about how the country is in the grips of some ultra reactionary political force and all social progress made over the last 60 years is right down the toilet. I don't see how you can square that narrative with the fact that had the popular vote been distributed just a little bit differently Clinton would have won. Instead we'd then be discussing how much progress was made by electing the first female president right after the first black person and analyzing the latest obituary for a Republican party that had reached new heights of dysfunction.
I think Clinton's sizeable victory in the popular vote adds a lot of important context to the discussion that keeps being glossed over. I do think that there are cultural attributes to upper middle class coastal progressives that have started to look a lot like classism. Its good that at least some progressives are examining that. At the same time, we shouldn't lose perspective. Clinton narrowly lost a low turnout election in large part due to ignoring jurisdictions she thought she had already won.
Clearly the difference makers in the white populations of those states weren't turned off by Trump's racially charged remarks to the point of not voting for him. However the margin of victory is so narrow I think the idea that some giant racist movement has been awoken is being greatly overstated.
To clarify, I'm waiting to see whether he will be a bad president in the order of previous bad administrations or whether he does something truly unprecedented and awful. From my perspective the latter is a pretty high bar and will require some actual action without recent historical parallels and/or which goes a lot further than, as opposed to just building on, the imperial presidency as it currently exists.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Backup QB Could Try A Hail Mary As The Clock Runs Out”
The constitutional crisis isn't the vote. The constitutional crisis is when the Trump administration refuses to abide by an adverse holding that relies on a vote from Garland (something which may happen anyway) or precedent becomes meaningless because every time the executive and legislative branch has the right composition they expand the size of the SC and add a few new philosopher kings.
"
Because bad policy and/or policy I disagree with can be changed within our current constitutional structure. Conversely a constitutional crisis can result in a new, worse system. I think it also increases the likelihood of violence, including of the state variety that I worry about most.
Put it this way. I'd prefer we retain the welfare state as opposed to gutting it. However if the democratic process produces something else then I can deal with that, and the solution is to go out and do the hard work it takes to obtain a different outcome. What we may not be able to undo is a situation where the Republicans retaliate by packing the Supreme Court, especially if the long term result is a complete collapse in the legitimacy of the judicial branch and people stop complying with it.
"
This is what worries me. The Democrats would be completely justified in doing it but I'm not sure I want to watch the next few levels of inevitable escalation. Or maybe Damon's right and we've passed the point of walking back to most or many of the past norms.
On “Everything Is Our Thing, Our Thing Is Everything”
I hadn't thought about it in a long time but your comment reminded me of an anti-war rally I went to in college where a substantial amount of time was spent on factory farming. Not saying that isn't a subject worthy of debate but at the time it struck me as totally bizarre. And this was of course back before anyone had heard of safe spaces and identity politics were at a very low ebb compared to now.
"
'Not unwanted but unnecessary.' And people wonder why these movements struggle, even when the argument is compelling.
"
That is an extremely depressing anecdote.
"
They expect a magical day of reckoning when one morning everyone wakes up and fully embraces the entire intersectionality dogma in its most vulgar form. It's more like religion than politics.
On “An Open Letter to the Writer Who Wrote the Open Letter to the Female Hat-Wearing Dog from “Go Dog, Go””
Well done. This was hilarious.
On “As the Aleppo Situation Worsens, Now is the Time to Give”
I think Kim is right. Between us, the Russians, and other regional actors we are more than capable of ensuring this fight goes down to the last Syrian.
"
This touches on what I was wondering about. Have the recommended charities been vetted to ensure that donations are going to civilians and not being diverted to and/or supporting belligerents in the conflict?
On “Freddie: no one has the slightest idea what is and isn’t cultural appropriation”
@saul-degraw I see some support for it among the portion of my social group that is involved in the arts or has followed a less traditional path but virtually none among the more professional/traditional office job circle.
My hope is that this stuff boils down to cultural shibbeloths. If it's something bigger then I do think it's a bad sign for broader liberalism, given how it alienates people without driving any sort of policy improvements.
"
This sums it up. They're the ones who allow us to make peace with a technocratic middle that unlike the others is friendly at dinner parties and smiles while feeding us all to the cold and indifferent neoliberal state.
"
QAll I am about to say is purely anecdotal but in my experience I've found that one of the stronger parts (among many, many weaknesses) of the religion I was raised in is a traditon of rigorous interrogation of one's own faith. I have found that tradition to be less pronounced among evangelical Protestant faiths, but much more pronounced in the Jewish faith. I'm not sure if it's cultural or an artifact of religions that are more institutionalized or something else entirely.
It's also possible I'm entirely wrong and my experience is unusual or missing crucial information.
"
I kind of wish I had. The ruthless Catholicism of my youth never prepared me for the True Believer. How ironic.
"
My hope is that, to the extent it's a product of college students getting riled up, it's something that will die down with maturity. I think the answer is to support them when they're right and criticize them when they're wrong. I'm hopeful that eventually most will realize that offense is both subjective and inevitable. Bullets, beatings, and intentional economic exclusion aren't.
"
This is exactly correct. One set of issues involves measurable harm and potential policy solutions. The other set of issues boils down to hurt feelings and beg no policy prescriptions that are consistent with a free and multicultural society. Binding resolving urgent matters like the former to more frivolous matters like the latter is at best a waste of time and at worst counterproductive since the latter are such non issues.
"
It isn't even clear to me that 'cultural appropriation' is a thing outside certain cultural corners of the United States. The idea that something as natural as cultural exchange and imitation can be stopped or cast in stark moral terms has always struck me as baffling for all the reasons Freddie laid out.
On “Linky Friday #195: Pillars of Sand”
There you go again always taking someone else's side. Flanders, the water department, God...
On “Morning Ed: World {2016.12.01.Th}”
My understanding is that there is a lot of Turkish bitterness about inability to actually join the EU despite decades of promises that it would be permitted when ready. France and Germany have been the main opponents of allowing Turkish membership. I've read arguments that it's been a contributing factor in Turkey's slide away from secularism and democracy but I'm not familiar enough with Turkey's internal politics to have an opinion of my own.
On “A National Popular Vote Amendment”
I dont want to speak for the OP but I think the half measure is because political plausibility is being factored in. I think that adds value to any proposal on reform of the EC. Otherwise it'd just be raging against the existing system.
On “How White Working Class Culture Shaped American Politics”
I think the answer is both and neither and one or the other and something else entirely depending on who you ask.
Again, I think progressive self analysis is good. Successful political parties and movements learn from their mistakes and adapt. Clinton was an almost uniquely bad candidate for the circumstances of this election for the reasons that have been discussed here ad nauseum.
What I don't think is useful is a sort of self indulgent wallowing about how the country is in the grips of some ultra reactionary political force and all social progress made over the last 60 years is right down the toilet. I don't see how you can square that narrative with the fact that had the popular vote been distributed just a little bit differently Clinton would have won. Instead we'd then be discussing how much progress was made by electing the first female president right after the first black person and analyzing the latest obituary for a Republican party that had reached new heights of dysfunction.
"
I think Clinton's sizeable victory in the popular vote adds a lot of important context to the discussion that keeps being glossed over. I do think that there are cultural attributes to upper middle class coastal progressives that have started to look a lot like classism. Its good that at least some progressives are examining that. At the same time, we shouldn't lose perspective. Clinton narrowly lost a low turnout election in large part due to ignoring jurisdictions she thought she had already won.
Clearly the difference makers in the white populations of those states weren't turned off by Trump's racially charged remarks to the point of not voting for him. However the margin of victory is so narrow I think the idea that some giant racist movement has been awoken is being greatly overstated.
On “Morning Ed: Politics {2016.11.29.T}”
+1
"
I believe the preferred nomenclature until Obama leaves office is 'kinetic military intervention.'
"
To clarify, I'm waiting to see whether he will be a bad president in the order of previous bad administrations or whether he does something truly unprecedented and awful. From my perspective the latter is a pretty high bar and will require some actual action without recent historical parallels and/or which goes a lot further than, as opposed to just building on, the imperial presidency as it currently exists.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.