I think its less culture war and more normal course of consumerism. What you buy isn't only about the qualities of the product itself, it's what your choice in that purchase says about you as an person. Maybe it's becoming more pervasive but I don't think it's exactly a new phenomenon. The introduction of social justice politics and social media into the mix maybe gives it a nastier tone.

You're absolutely right that everything can't be reduced to economics and Brexit illustrates where believing it does can fail so massively. The biggest mistake the EU makes is trying to paper over the difference between being a German and a Greek or Romanian and a Swede. This isn't to say economics don't matter (they absolutely do) but it takes more than removing trade barriers for governing institutions to earn legitimacy.

Because people on this side of the border finance it, live by its laws, and die for it if it tells them to. They do all of these things because they (at least in theory in a Western democracy) have a say in how its run. As long as the nation-state in its current paradigm remains the primary political entity on this planet then its duty will be first and foremost to its citizens. When that ceases to be the case (or even when it's perceived to cease to be the case) it loses legitimacy and rightly so.

I think you're incorrect when you say they aren't offering plans. The plans they're offering just aren't sensible, plausible, or likely to improve the lot of the people who are being appealed to. However I think even a ridiculous plan, especially one that plays on latent (or not so latent) prejudices sounds appealing in the absence of an alternative.

Some such people can probably never be swayed but insisting that none of them could be strikes me as a dodge, and maybe a tacit admission that the cosmopolitan progressive side of this debate doesn't have an answer either. I'd like those of us doing ok in the current economic order to start coming up with one before the dispossessed of globalization succeed in putting a demagogue in power.

I have no disagreement that there are some really ugly sentiments that come out of that movement. I also don't want to give the impression that I object to calling a spade a spade. What I think is that, if we want to keep those ugly sentiments from becoming a truly dangerous political movement, we need a better answer than 'shut up you stupid insecure racists.'

That racism is wrong can and should be part of the message, but that message also needs to include a plan for how those people are going to have a decent economic quality of life and a stake in the government.

It's a lot easier to call people racists (and no doubt some are) than grapple with the fact that globalization and trade policy is leaving a big chunk of citizens in Western countries behind. If I were British I'd have voted to stay and I certainly don't support Trump. However I understand why someone who lives in some former industrial town where the jobs left decades ago and the standard of living has dropped and low skill work is now done by immigrants for peanuts might see the world differently.

But yes, it'd be racist and xenophobic for the state to ever take their interests into account.

That's my opinion as well. The fact that a referendum may have disagreeable results sometimes doesn't mean they have no place in how government works. It's not like elected officials never craft bad laws or policies themselves.

I'm pretty sure this is basically what happens. The banality of so many of the diplomatic wires that were leaked is pretty good evidence that the government is classifying information that isnt dangerous but is awkward or embarrassing.

I don't entirely disagree, and I tried to speak to that in my response below to Jaybird. I could live with delays in disclosures, or temporary secrecy provided there's a regular system that promptly and reliably, if not immediately, brings things to light. Maybe it's just my attorney ways but there are also times for in person conversations where certain thoughts aren't put to writing. I'm sympathetic to off the record discussions when needed and a good leader should know how to distinguish that.

That said my position is based on my view that our government is too opaque, not too transparent. I'm more worried about citizen ignorance of official activity than I am about a politician or bureaucrat having an embarrassing or sensitive email disclosed.

I think that issue is something that can be addressed with statutes of limitations and normal sunsetting of classification protocol. To me it's more the allergy to any type or accountability that prevents positive change. The government has just convinced us there's something noble in its secrecy, and finding out what it does behind closed doors, even many years later, could jeopardize our safety because terrorism, etc.

While it'd be a great thing for Congress to act on I think ruling class nihilism ensures it will never happen. The last thing anyone wants to do is write a law increasing government accountability. Any Rep or Senator with any ambition knows that it one day might be used against them.

When it comes to those cases my advice is be careful what you wish for. In the current paradigm where overreaction and excessive use of force is a major problem I'm not sure that we want to tell the police they can be sued for failing to intervene. It'd be another incentive to escalate every situation.

'The suspect was behaving aggressively and I feared if I didnt shoot he might attack a bystander and I would be subject to liability,'

I mean, that argument actually sounds better to me than 'I was afraid for my life due to the suspect's furtive movements and fighting stance.'

I think we may be talking passed each other. To the extent anyone buys a piece of property at market value (no government intervention, favors, greasing of the wheels, etc.) and does what they want with it, I have no objection.

I've never advocated for a free for all, and I'm personally very conflicted on the subject. I can't speak to the realities of SF but you and @north are acknowledging that there can be an arbitrariness to this process. We had a thread a few months ago discussing a situation where (if I recall correctly) a city was using zoning to force a mechanic's shop out if an area where the city was pushing urban renewal. That's the sort of thing that bothers me.

Now I agree that restrictons trying to preserve the character of a neighborhood at some given point in history can also be arbitrary and I tend to oppose them. That doesn't mean I have to love the idea of people's homes and livelihoods being subject to whether developers can get their guy on the city council (or strong NIMBYism frustrating needed changes for that matter). From a policy perspective I'm sympathetic to safety rules (it makes sense not to have chemical plants next to residential homes) but less so to zoning that seems designed to keep who is perceived as the wrong type of people out or bring the good type of people in.

The part I think you're missing is the public policy piece. The perception in many places is that local governments are putting their fingers on the scale in various ways (zoning laws, eminent domain, etc.) in favor of the monied interests. If it was purely organic I think the anti-gentrificaton side would have a much weaker argument.

There are police reform advocates out there within law enforcement. Radley Balko interviews/discusses some of them in his book. How we get there from here I think is the challenge. Law enforcement sees themselves (incorrectly in my opinion) as under siege. This episode will sadly only reinforce that view.

Can you really not see the irony in that comment?

Look my preference would be a country where the force of prosecution is used very lightly and with considered, sober restraint. However we don't live there. The bigger concern for me about authoritarianism is the fact that high ranking government officials can do what they want with impunity for their own politial purposes, while people who make innocent mistakes or god forbid act as a whistle-blower are harshly punished.

The fact that BSDI isn't a defense of the Republican party, it's an indictment of what our system has become. The closest I ever came to being a Democrat was during the Bush years until I realized all the opposition to the security state and imperial presidency was really just a ploy to get their guy in charge of the drones. The D's are playing the same game, they're just appealing to a different, more urbane culture since the R's have the jingoistic vote wrapped up.

Plenty of people in blue America realize this. It's why Bernie was able to get as far as he did even if he probably never had a realistic shot at the nomination.

I don't see the hypocrisy of the Republicans as much of a defense of Clinton... just more evidence of Republican hypocrisy. The parallel justice system is what bothers me most. It's always the politician or the banker or the cop who gets the benefit of discretion.

The reaction is what happens when a movement that claims to eschew values in the traditional sense suddenly realizes that not everyone shares theirs.

I don't want to relieve those who voted for Brexit (particularly of the UKIP stripe) or Trump supporters of responsibility for their actions or viewpoints. They're all individuals with agency of their own. However, I do wonder if we shouldn't expect the Merricks of the world, be they in London or Wall Street to take a little responsibility for their own lifestyles and what they ask for as a culture and class. I mean, is there really something so noble about how our economy rewards people in big finance? I won't say that the people involved aren't smart and driven, but it's also the result of a few decades of policy choices, pushed in no small part by the industry and the politicians in their pockets.

Merrick has something that all those rubes wearing "Make America Great Again" hats that are so easy to take pot shots at on social media don't. Money and the ear of the people who make the rules.

I skipped most of this post to avoid spoilers. I am a huge horror fan but did not particularly like the first one. It had some ok jumps but i thought it was just a bunch of haunted house tropes (it did have decent acting, not that horror sets a high bar). With that context do you recommend I see it in the theater or wait until I inevitably come across it on showtime after a night out drinking?

It's one of the best pieces of writing I've ever found online.

@greginak your comment actually reminded me of an essay I came across after Sandy Hook. It's pretty long but lays out probably the best left wing argument in favor of gun rights I've ever come across. Not without flaws but it gets into the issues of fear and irrationality that I think you're alluding to. Worth a read if you're interested.

http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-argument-for-gun.html

@oscar-gordon @davidtc I apologize for taking forever to respond. The beginning of my week went in a very unexpected direction. I will cop to not having that data.