When I took administrative law, Chevron was still working its way through the administrative process, so there was no Chevron Doctrine. There was, instead, a general sense floating around the courts that some kind of deference was due to administrative interpretations, but it was rather ad hoc, depending in large part on the respect in which the particular agency was held and in larger part on how persnickety the particular judge was. When Chevron came down, it wasn't originally regarded as a Big F*****g Deal; it was more of an attempt to articulate existing practice with a few nips and tucks here and there., changing how judges talked more than what they did. I expect rather modest effects from the overruling of Chevron.
The people who respond to this won't be moved by Democrats taking a "moderate" position on LGBTQ issues; they want their real thing. What they want we cannot and should not give them, if for no better reason than that it won't work. But sure, let's pretend that there is some subtle and civilized play here.
This is why I'm skeptical that nuanced distancing on LGBTQ issues would swing significant numbers of votes. Who, exactly, would vote for a Democrat supporting 85% of the agenda when they can vote for the real thing?
But is there a politically significant constituency that will be satisfied by this nuanced and civilized approach and switch votes or come out for Dems rather than stay home? The other side will still throw the red meat out there, and, barring a policy of curb-stomping rather than nuance (which those voters won't believe anyway), it will still work.
In principle, I'm fine with that, but I just don't believe it would work. Such a subtle and civilized approach won't change net votes because there aren't enough subtle, civilized voters we don't already have.
I think what's at the heart of the matter is what's so. What, exactly, would we have to "drop," and is mere dropping enough, or would we have to performatively curb-stomp folks? And would it work? No point agreeing to curb-stomp in advance.
Whatever else can be said about North's views, they are relatively nuanced and civilized. But how many Norths are there? Who, exactly, and how many, would accept his terms and vote accordingly?
And we should fight like hell for access to surgery for people over the age of consent and for equal treatment for trans people in government services and treatment.
If we do that, who will be convinced that our throwing the rest under the bus is for real?
Tell some people that annoy the larger electorate that they need to shut up because they’re wrong. Pivot on a policy or two that’s important and that mitigates a D weakness.
Where is the net vote gain here? Loudly throwing some constituents under the bus will surely cost votes that the Democrats already have. What reason is there to think it will change the votes of significant numbers of Republicans, or drag significantly more non-voters out of the woodwork -- especially since it would be so transparently opportunistic?
As I've said elsewhere, the CIA (and the FBI) are intelligence agencies. They may have sources or insights the scientific agencies don't have when it comes to figuring out the internal workings of Chinese labs. And they may not be able to tell us what those sources are. That's what they're good at, but I'm not aware of any particular spycraft basis for their very tentative, low confidence conclusions. If they are going on science rather than spycraft, the science stuff is more within the competence of our science agencies.
What fun is being sensible and not talking about things when you don't know what you're talking about? Don't you see the value in JAQ-ing off or claiming censorship every time somebody publicly raises a non-standard view that, somehow, we've all managed to hear about?
The CIA might have ways of knowing what's going on in Chinese labs that do not depend on scientific inferences from physical evidence -- spycraft. If their opinion is based on spycraft rather than science, it is worth taking seriously even in the face of more scientific evidence that seems to point the other way. But if it is a scientific assessment, rather than spycraft, there is no reason to take the CIA's assessment over that of the science agencies.
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/3/2025”
I don't believe she's any relation to Andrea McArdle, of Annie fame.
"
Trump is busily defunding the police now.
"
Certain foreign leaders are laughing up their sleeves.
"
When I took administrative law, Chevron was still working its way through the administrative process, so there was no Chevron Doctrine. There was, instead, a general sense floating around the courts that some kind of deference was due to administrative interpretations, but it was rather ad hoc, depending in large part on the respect in which the particular agency was held and in larger part on how persnickety the particular judge was. When Chevron came down, it wasn't originally regarded as a Big F*****g Deal; it was more of an attempt to articulate existing practice with a few nips and tucks here and there., changing how judges talked more than what they did. I expect rather modest effects from the overruling of Chevron.
"
Both things can be true. And in Trump's case probably are.
"
Well, both Dons have a problem with windmills.
"
How can you have "forgotten" it since last week?
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/27/2025”
The people who respond to this won't be moved by Democrats taking a "moderate" position on LGBTQ issues; they want their real thing. What they want we cannot and should not give them, if for no better reason than that it won't work. But sure, let's pretend that there is some subtle and civilized play here.
"
Made-up math makes everything easy.
"
You don't? I checked. He didn't.
"
This is why I'm skeptical that nuanced distancing on LGBTQ issues would swing significant numbers of votes. Who, exactly, would vote for a Democrat supporting 85% of the agenda when they can vote for the real thing?
"
That's certainly modest.
"
But is there a politically significant constituency that will be satisfied by this nuanced and civilized approach and switch votes or come out for Dems rather than stay home? The other side will still throw the red meat out there, and, barring a policy of curb-stomping rather than nuance (which those voters won't believe anyway), it will still work.
"
The college diet has never been particularly healthy.
"
How many condoms is that and how much Hamas f*****g has to happen to make this work?
"
In principle, I'm fine with that, but I just don't believe it would work. Such a subtle and civilized approach won't change net votes because there aren't enough subtle, civilized voters we don't already have.
"
I think what's at the heart of the matter is what's so. What, exactly, would we have to "drop," and is mere dropping enough, or would we have to performatively curb-stomp folks? And would it work? No point agreeing to curb-stomp in advance.
"
Whatever else can be said about North's views, they are relatively nuanced and civilized. But how many Norths are there? Who, exactly, and how many, would accept his terms and vote accordingly?
"
And we should fight like hell for access to surgery for people over the age of consent and for equal treatment for trans people in government services and treatment.
If we do that, who will be convinced that our throwing the rest under the bus is for real?
"
People think Trump just happened. We could probably trace his origins all the way back to Goldwater if we really tried.
Rick Perlstein made a good start.
"
Tell some people that annoy the larger electorate that they need to shut up because they’re wrong. Pivot on a policy or two that’s important and that mitigates a D weakness.
Where is the net vote gain here? Loudly throwing some constituents under the bus will surely cost votes that the Democrats already have. What reason is there to think it will change the votes of significant numbers of Republicans, or drag significantly more non-voters out of the woodwork -- especially since it would be so transparently opportunistic?
"
As I've said elsewhere, the CIA (and the FBI) are intelligence agencies. They may have sources or insights the scientific agencies don't have when it comes to figuring out the internal workings of Chinese labs. And they may not be able to tell us what those sources are. That's what they're good at, but I'm not aware of any particular spycraft basis for their very tentative, low confidence conclusions. If they are going on science rather than spycraft, the science stuff is more within the competence of our science agencies.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/20/2025”
What fun is being sensible and not talking about things when you don't know what you're talking about? Don't you see the value in JAQ-ing off or claiming censorship every time somebody publicly raises a non-standard view that, somehow, we've all managed to hear about?
"
The CIA might have ways of knowing what's going on in Chinese labs that do not depend on scientific inferences from physical evidence -- spycraft. If their opinion is based on spycraft rather than science, it is worth taking seriously even in the face of more scientific evidence that seems to point the other way. But if it is a scientific assessment, rather than spycraft, there is no reason to take the CIA's assessment over that of the science agencies.
"
If you want the "why," the three referenced threads provide it.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.