Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake
wsj.com
wsj.com
At one point I had a chance to speak with the candidate by phone, and I spoke about my concerns about the divisive rhetoric.
The candidate said it was only something they had to do to "fire up my base" and that they would not govern in the way they had campaigned.
Hearing that sent a chill down my spine and I voted against this person.
When you have a two-party system, you get binary outcomes - ie. divisiveness.
It doesn't even make sense to expect something else.
The two-party system problem seems to be a consequence of "first-past-the-post" voting.
For example, some posters in reddit's /r/conservative were very insistent in attacking libertarian voters, pinning on them the responsibility of Trump's election loss. Their rationale was that they felt libertarian voters threw their vote away by voting on a candidate who had no chances of winning, thus robbing their candidate of support that they felt he would otherwise have if no libertarian candidate ran for president.
Consequently, they argued that the only rational approach to the elections would be if all like-minded voters concentrated their vote on not-so-good-but-popular somewhat like-minded candidate so that they could have at least a chance of electing someone who, even though might not be the best candidate in the voter's opinion, was closer to support some of their views.
Without primaries, Barack Obama would have never been President but Donald Trump wouldn't have been either.
> The candidate said it was only something they had to do to "fire up my base" and that they would not govern in the way they had campaigned.
Now I'm currently, what sort of power do you hold that would cause a politician to speak to you in private and not try and pass the same indirection and lies they would most constituents?
I got an sms message from her campaign asking if they could count on my vote.
I replied “stop” to all political SMS except this one.
The worker and I shared a few exchanges about specific rhetoric their candidate had used. I let them know I had voted for the candidate during the primary but would not in the general.
The person offered me a 10 minute call with the candidate, and I took it.
I do not know why the candidate would say this.
Possibly they calculated I was unlikely to repeat this, or if I did it would not break through to affect votes (it was very late in the game).
Oregon is a two party consent call recording state, perhaps they calculated I was not recording or would not share it if I was.
My conclusion is that like Donald Trump, this person is a narcissist. It goes with the rhetoric and even double speak.
But I am very curious about their campaign manager. I have considered asking them for a phone call to discuss the candidates campaign, and to try and sort out what the manager had done versus what came from the candidate.
OR Rev Stat § 165.540 (definition & penalty), § 133.739 (civil damages)
source: https://www.justia.com/50-state-surveys/recording-phone-call...
I was trying to separate the individuals from my anecdote on the upstream point. Also, not draw in daemons for these keywords.
There will be winners who can navigate the hyperpartisan environment (or even thrive in the environment) and losers who cannot or who do not have enough of a grasp of the situation to make the correct decision. An outside observer can determine how fast two bodies are moving away from each other but, from the perspective of the moving body, it can be a lot less clear who is moving and what the relative speeds are.
He's advocating for a comfy middle ground cuz he's won the war and now wants peace and quiet
>In February 2016, Koch penned an opinion piece in The Washington Post, where he said he agreed with presidential candidate Bernie Sanders about the unfairness of corporate welfare and mass incarceration in the United States.[71]
>In June 2019, the Charles Koch Foundation announced the foundation of anti-war think tank Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, cosponsored by George Soros' Open Society Foundation.[72] He is a board member at the Mercatus Center, a market-oriented research think tank at George Mason University.[73]
But.
If you look at where he's been putting his money into supporting candidates, they are overwhelmingly Republicans that align with the former to the exclusion of nearly everything else.
It would have been very VERY easy for Koch to have got bipartisan support for serious criminal justice reform if he had wanted to, but that would have used up political capital (Republicans generally prefer to be the 'tough on crime' candidate) he otherwise used to support his economic interests instead.
That's the main problem I have with libertarians: They lend their wholehearted and deep pocketed support to Republicans on business issues and opposing 'big government', but fail to call them out on social issues (you know, the whole 'equality before the law' thing), and practically never lend equivalent support to Democrats where they would be aligned, just lip-service. It's hypocritical.
Having to date focused largely on feathering his nest, he now wants to put a bit of 'compassionate conservatism' shine on his image and legacy. I'm not inclined to let him gloss over the awful things he's accomplished.
Curtailing domestic warrantless surveillance is another issue that many liberal candidates support.
Libertarians generally dislike military spending as much as they dislike social security, so progressive candidates that would shrink the DOD ought to be a good fit.
Any particular D candidate that I could suggest will also have positions that Libertarians don't agree with, which is part of my point. Disagreeing with conservative stances on non-fiscal/regulatory issues doesn't stop them from supporting those candidates, but the converse practically always stops them from supporting Ds.
It's almost as if they don't actually care about individual freedom and liberty at all, but just about their freedom to make a buck without anyone getting in the way of them exploiting workers, polluting the environment, etc.
Huh. Imagine that.
If they’re with Republicans on reducing regulation, and with Republicans on social issues, they’re just called Republicans.
I note, however, that the Smithsonian put their climate change exhibit immediately outside of their human origins exhibit with his name. I've always wondered if that was some kind of dig.
You don't just go from what he and his brother have done to the US to:
> Boy, did we screw up!
Without an inkling as to how or why they screwed up, there's no way to gauge what, if any, change to expect.
The article would have been improved by at least proving he has changed his mind. Charles Koch is 85. There is a decent chance he is not going to live long enough to see another Republican administration. It would be in the best interest of maintaining some political influence and making some more change for him to change his public position like this. If he were 60, I would have expected him to wait 4–8 years for the next Republican administration instead.
There's a valid discussion to be had about whether Charles Koch is full of crap, but I don't think it's wrong for newspapers to report on what people with power say.
They've not come to Jesus on global warming, they're upset they lost.
It is the loss of control they regret, not whipping it up in the first place.
New rule: if you don't condemn child rape every Monday morning then until you do it is assumed that you are in favour.
Tiny furors like the "who's wearing an American flag lapel pin" are is too often motivated by political opportunity rather than any real question of where the parties stand on topics. And yes, Democrats do it to Republicans as well, just generally not as frequently. Republicans seem to love their mostly meaningless and unsurprising performative doxologies.
Ha, the difference is not nearly so stark as you'd think.
You need to update your views for today's political scene. These conditions were true up til around 2008. Since then, the Democrats are now the party that engages in the performative doxologies.
Need I remind you of all that tone-deaf BLM kneeling crap in DC? Or how about the mask mandates? The face masks are the Democrats' "American flag lapel pin."
Arguments against spreading diseased aerosols based on politics or some personal liberty are simplistic and ignore physical reality.
1) there is a political party in the US, who are using the face mask issue to shame and politically attack another party.
2) this is a reversal of the roles these two political parties played just a decade and change earlier.
Do you really think AOC et al are against it? I've seen so much left-wing justification of punching Nazis etc. that I'd be very surprised if there weren't at least a few Democratic politicians in agreement.
Ilhan Omar calls for complete dismantling of the Minneapolis police department around 1:30 in this vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj3vdaC4F7c Yes, that's complete dismantling, none of this "redirect a bit of the funds" stuff which got retconned (watch the entire video for more examples). So I wouldn't put anything past her.
The Charles Koch was accused of "whipping up a mob" earlier in this thread, but whatever mob he "whipped up" was a very mild-mannered one which didn't light any fires. It seemed worthwhile to highlight the disparity.
I don't think this is a "tiny" furor. (As you illustrate, even if Democrats don't endorse violence, they are very willing to downplay it!) I recommend this video: https://twitter.com/mrctv/status/1297707698788728832
That's why we end up with dead police who walk into ambushes, dead black guys who make the mistake of relaxing in their own apartments when lady cops burst in guns blazing, burned stores, dead little old ladies who go to bible studies while black, and dead walmart shoppers who made the mistake of being minority while looking for a San Antonio Spurs dart board at the wrong time.
Extremists are just dangerous people. We should really be bringing the hammer against all these groups wherever we find them, but again, they are protected by their patrons. So they walk the streets tatted and masked up waving around AR's because they know their benefactors will not allow our counter-terrorism units to do what military sense would demand in a sensible world.
And why did the FBI stop the kidnapping of a governor?
If this theory held true the republican federal government would be fine with right wing terrorists abducting democratic governors
There are enough career civil servants out there that believe in the fundamentals of their roles that they keep the machinery of civilization turning along. I don't disagree with the parent's remarks at all - failure to condemn violent acts really is a both sides problem right now.
I get that you want to come off as an enlightened centrist here but you’re gonna have to be specific. What’s the liberal Koch brothers and what’s the liberal Tea Party?
The funny thing is that "whipping the liberal mob into a frenzy" is a literal thing that happened this year that resulted in riots, looting, civil unrest and a full on "autonomous zone" in Seattle.
To my knowledge, the only real harm the Tea Party accomplished was rolling back environmental/emissions regulations.
I... hm. I don’t think that quite sounds right.
Because that is what a "whipped up mob" is. Not angry citizens demanding responsible and accountable law enforcement and action toward that end from their elected officials and unelected police forces.
The answer is clearly: because his research showed that this particular messaging (this story and the book) was the most advantageous to his political goals. If any part of it was literally meaningful then it would have the explanations you noticed were missing.
But you don't call out a Kock brother on his weak sauce image management in the WSJ, you just promote his book, do what you're told, and avoid making that kind of enemy.
He's got fairly conservative and finance friendly Democrats to influence right now and taking his money can't be too much of a public scandal.
Edit: thanks for the correction, she was 21. However, I still think the blame should fall on Till's murderers.
Thus it brings into question anything they claim and all claims should be treated with skepticism.
Have you paid any attention to the after effects at Fukushima? Do you care to realize that we are pushing radiation with unknown effects into the largest body of water (and one of the greatest repositories of life) on Earth? That the effects will likely reverberate for a 1000 years or more?
What is your solution to the problem of accumulating Nuclear waste?
Has it occurred to you that life has succeeded on the planet primarily by a fantastical luck of getting dosed with EXACTLY the right amount of radiation, carefully controlled by an atmosphere that literal took a millennia of millennia in order to develop? That fucking with that balance by inviting disastrous and unknown consequences into that careful envelope might turn some people off?
No. You must be right.. just a bunch of loony activists that are clinging desperately to the activist identity.
How shallow and unconsidered an opinion. Did it make you feel as smug as it sounded when you typed it out?
Well, no. We aren't in some mystical radiation balance with nature.
Heritable point mutations are primarily driven by DNA polymerase errors and repair failures, not by radiation damage. Ultraviolet light is good at causing thymidine cross-linking, which can give rise to cancers, but this is irrelevant to heritable change. Likewise, higher energy particles can cut DNA, but compared to crossing over events during chromosomal assortment this has approximately no bearing on heritable change.
What does make Earth just right for you to have developed in order to be aware, gain such knowledge, share such knowledge?
Untold eons of carefully controlled radiant energy emitted by our blessed Sun.
The Sun and its ilk are massive emitters of radiant energy. Light is a form of radiation. Heat is a form of radiation. The universe is full of lifeless rocks either burnt by the sun or left out in the cold. In fact, all the ones we know of exist in this state except this one.
I am not advocating some “mystical radiation balance with nature” so much as pointing out that “life” (as we know it) is playing the long game on controlling radiant energy doses. When we muck about with that by playing our dumb little short game without consideration for the consequences we invite disaster upon ourselves. All of this discussion about global warming is pointless if we leave large swathes of the planet uninhabitable by humans.
The atmosphere does a reasonably good job protecting us from the ravages of open space. One of the positive (for us) results of the particular make-up of that atmosphere is to foster life. Absent that protection (or if we were to act to circumvent it) life struggles to find a foothold. Can't think of anywhere life flourishes other than here.
Places that lack this protection tend to get burnt to a crisp or freeze. Lack of energy is a problem. Too much energy is a problem. The wrong KIND of energy is a problem.
What we call "radioactive material" that is the effluent by-product of nuclear fission is all the wrong kind of energy. I won't recount all the reasons why, but the fact that it is the least likely source of scrambling heritable traits in DNA is actually kind of low on the list (especially given the speed with which it scrambles DNA in living entities).
I am suggesting we shouldn't act to circumvent the protection we have been graciously afforded by the atmosphere. Fucking about with fissile material inside the atmosphere and on the surface is stupid and short sighted.
There is nothing mystical about any of this, it is pure science.
Real talk: Which do you think is worse, fukushima, or one atmospheric nuclear test?
Doses of radioactive elements from high atmosphere Nuclear weapons testing persist in trace amounts in all living things on Earth today. Dispersal of radioactive elements would be faster and point source radioactivity thereby reduced by that due to the nature of the medium into which it was released and the very short duration of the release.
Fukushima because it lacks these characteristics.
Blow up all the shit you want.. nuclear energy (when it fails, and every failure is too often) is way more disruptive then nuclear weapons. Evidence? See Nagasaki today vs Pripyat today.
It's an easy fallacy to undercount one thing because it's effects are not localized.
There are plenty of criticisms of greenpeace in the same vain. Being skeptical of any of their claims is healthy.
I do not consider nuclear energy a viable alternative to the hydrocarbon economy. I have considered it and I have dismissed it. You will not change my mind unless you can produce it off planet. I have dismissed it as a non-viable option (apparently the "non-viable" part is inconceivable to you.) This dismissal is not tied to my need to coddle and protect my identity as an activist.
"It highlights the very important point that activist groups will quite often ignore viable solutions. This is usually because they wish to keep on being activists and keep on continuing the fight."
This line dismisses .. pretty much anyone advocating for change. "I proposed a solution that works for me. They don't like it. They must wish to protect the identity." Pure poppycock.
That unlivable area will include most of India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Brazil, etc. Hong-Kong and Taiwan, whether you consider them as part of China or not, will anyway not be livable anymore by then. What do you think will happen when India, a country of 1.3B armed with nuclear weapons, realize it literally has to move somewhere else for survival? Do you think all these people will agree to die in silence, peacefully so as to not inconvenience you?
On top of that grim outlook, agriculture has only been possible relatively recently in human history. Until about 10,000 years ago the climate was not stable enough to reliably grow crops, year after year. That stability is probably already gone. Note that the issue for agriculture (and forests, etc.) is less the actual temperature and more the rain/weather patterns (and evaporation, that links back to temperature).
There is absolutely no guarantee that we will be able to adapt our crops fast enough for agriculture to keep up, especially if there is too much instability around the globe. Without stable crops the number of people that can survive on Earth is not very large. China has recently launched a 'Clean Plate' campaign against food waste. As you can imagine it's not because food is plentiful... but because of excess rain, causing crop failures.
Radioactivity is scary and dangerous in high enough dose. Chernobyl and Fukushima are horrible disasters that should have been avoided, but sadly weren't. But compared to the threat of global warming, risks from nuclear power plants are small, known and manageable. To say it differently, rice from Fukushima may be dangerous, but it's still safer than certain death from lack of rice.
I'm not saying we should be building nuclear power plants everywhere, at all. In any case there's not enough U235 at hand to fill the energy needs of mankind. But I would much prefer we spend fewer resources on closing existing nuclear power plants, and more resources on tackling global warming (looking at my home country, France, and our lignite addicted neighbor, Germany).
Source (in French): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgy0rW0oaFI
The less "1000 year tail of disaster" opportunities we can have available when things start to unravel the better. I am less afraid of us killing each other over rice and water than I am of us forcing those that come in the aftermath to deal with our effluence for 50+ generations.
The world concrete production is a larger source of GHG than the entire world fleet of trucks used for goods transportation, with some margin. And that's only accounting CO2 emitted by the chemical reaction itself, not even accounting for the production of the energy necessary for the reaction, that often comes from natural gas.
That CO2 is not being displaced by nuclear power plants, solar panels, wind turbines or batteries in fancy cars. It's being replaced by not using concrete anymore. My point is that GHG emissions go way way further than just electricity production or gasoline to power cars or planes: it's chemistry (fertilizers, concrete, etc) and metallurgy.
I don't hear much about it, not least because I think it's a very hard problem: right now, using less concrete means less constructions. There aren't enough trees, and they don't grow quickly enough, to do everything using wood, although that could be a partial solution. But the construction sector employs A LOT of people. So the path to less concrete is a path to fewer jobs, and a shrinking economy...
We are in for a very rough ride indeed.
I just don't see any road forward without a horrifying body count. It is not impossible to avert that future, it just seems vanishingly improbable.
Look at the current wave of government collapses and civil wars that are exacerbated by the current crisis (ethiopia, peru, bolivia, argentina, zambia, etc.). It will be way worse.
Then think about places that are relatively safe, ie Europe, and relatively easy to migrate from the ME and Africa to. That's 500+M people trying to make their way over. That spells serious unrest in Europe too. And that's not even talking about Vietnam's sand mining catastrophe.
In the long run I have no doubt that Greenpeace will have caused more damage than the Koch family. We could have clean energy right now if it weren’t for the decades of nuclear fear mongering, and the Koch family isn’t even opposed to nuclear.
Just in case this is somehow contestable, let me highlight a few points
* Climate change deniers oppose solutions that don't involve oil/gas/coal - this means nuclear power * Koch funding > greenpiece funding * greenpeice didn't start nuclear fear mongering, pro-oil lobbyists did - AKA climate change deniers.
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/about/annual-reports-and-fina...
Their expenditures for all their "program services" (their various activism campaigns) was $27.4M in 2019 and $26.3M in 2018. If the Koch Bros. spend about $200M a year on activism, they're actually substantially outspending Greenpeace. Which, well, is to be expected: Greenpeace is a non-profit that's very often taking positions opposing major corporations.
(Greenpeace is actually a collection of quasi-independent groups around the world, but since the Koch's activism is primarily focused in the US, it makes sense to compare them to Greenpeace USA.)
I mean, if we are going to be bringing up a single datapoint then allow me to raise a counterpoint.
Nuclear energy is still safe. For example, it is still safe against possible natural disasters (Onagawa) [1]
[1] https://thebulletin.org/2014/03/onagawa-the-japanese-nuclear...
I really wonder why people are so keen on it. It made sense to build them 40 years ago to deal with global warming. Today it's only financially viable if it's massively subsidized compared to wind/solar.
What is it that makes that extra cost so worthwhile?
Nevertheless, nuclear has some big issues: try to switch to it now and it will take decades for the power plants to be build. Expensive as well and leaves a lot of toxic and radioactive waste.
Either by magical storage solutions or massive continental / intercontinental "smart" grids that are politically unviable (No country will give up energy security by relying on a source hundres / thousands of miles away).
I would rather we start on something we know works now. Perfect is the enemy of good enough and cost is not a critical factor if you believe climate change is an existential crisis to civilisation / great filter.
I would rather have future generations be in a situation where all they have to have to deal with is decommissioning those plants.
A market driven response combined with upgrading grid infrastructure and finer grained pricing will be more than enough and will be cheaper than binge building nuke plants.
Meanwhile we can gradually ramp down usage of natural gas as markets adapt to the new reality.
However I hope I at least demonstrated that it is not always a case of "So they're still trying to make that argument now despite there being better options because they feel wronged."
Nat gas plants that can be swapped out for storage solutions makes the most sense to me to solve that problem.
Point sources like nuclear plants add baseload, but are not flexible in supply.
A more resilient grid will have much more interconnection between sources and sinks and much more dynamic control and feedback loops.
Solar power is currently the cheapest form of new power available, it is limited by the hours of daylight.
Wind power is weather limited, but offshore wind power can provide relatively constant generation.
Batteries and equivalent energy storage (eg pumped hydro) provide the short term grid stability requirements that are currently provided by gas-powered peak plants, but with much faster response time and much cheaper capex and opex costs.
As rooftop solar and household battery (including stationary vehicles) expand, dynamic usage will also capture a lot of the energy market from large baseload generation.
All of these are affordable now, work, and, with investment in the grid/network, scale.
We are talking about a system that is mostly safe, but with a non-negligible probability of a catastrophic accident.
What's even more audacious is that all the money they gained from killing people, a lot of them from cancer, they pretend to be patrons of curing cancer funding cancer research.
The family puts most robber barons to shame.
Humanity will only progress once we deeply realize the reality of other minds, that we are made of the same stuff, that our conscious and identity is only pragmatically separated. You and me are the same stuff; helping myself and helping you are effectively the same thing. Helping my children (or your children) is the same as helping myself. I just can't see through their eyes, but they are all like a part of me, equally alive and thinking, that I just cannot access.
Once (and if) we realize this, then we can hope to go on longer than a few decades.
...And on the pedestal, these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
U.K. food bank use is at record highs [1].
1. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jun/03/record-numbe...
- Parts of both the right and the left would rather not repeat the experience they have had over the last few years. While part of me thinks that the Koch businesses did pretty well during the Trump administration, the relative chaos of his presidency likely didn't let them do a lot of -effective- lobbying.
- Speaking of businesses. Koch Industries historically has had Petroleum and Paper as their Cash Cows. With all of the attention on global warming, as well as their track record on lobbying, Yes I would absolutely agree they are trying to play nice.
- That said, I did find it interesting to note that Koch Industries has fully acquired Infor as of this year. For those unfamiliar, it's a player in the ERP scene and based on the people that I've worked with from there and their stories, probably a pretty good product in that space. So -maybe- they are in fact seeing the writing on the wall and trying to move to more sustainable markets. we shall see.
> Still, his political spending remains almost entirely partisan. Koch Industries’ PAC and employees donated $2.8 million in the 2020 campaign cycle to Republican candidates and $221,000 to Democratic candidates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
A pragmatic choice given that a Democrat just won the White House. He can sit it out, or try to work with them and possibly influence their position.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/11/charles-koch-what-a-...
Can it get any more cynical than this?
His version of "bottom-up" is heavily funding astroturf campaigns as well as more populist groups through which he can control what they do.
Mr. Koch and his late brother David seeded the political landscape with conservative and libertarian ideas, then built an infrastructure to nurture them. Koch-aligned ventures fund more than 1,000 faculty members at more than 200 universities, helped bankroll think tanks such as the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute, and supported the American Legislative Exchange Council (a nonpartisan organization of similarly minded state legislators) to write bills that were introduced and championed by Republican state lawmakers across the country.
You know what would really decentralise the country and create a bottom-up utopia? If no single entity had the resources the Kochs has. But in the world of the Kochs privately funded authoritarianism does not count.
The Koch Family Foundation for Fossil-Free Energy would go a long way.
And go where? As you've said, the Republican party is openly populist. If anything the Republican conservatives will look to the Democratic party, which seems to have become the conservative option. I consider myself a Libertarian and I'm considering voting straight national ticket Democrat for the next decade due to what the Republican party has become. Putting party above country is simply unforgivable.
Trump is a billionaire and a defender of the corporate class. His entire administration consists of ex-corporate wall-street types folks and/or zealot yes-men. You may be right that the "inroads with the working class" are being made, but only in the form of the working class being convinced that their interests are the same as the corporate classes interests... though even that analysis may be wrong considering that Biden won by convincing voters in the rust and sun belt to vote for him.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sa...
I'm just looking forward to a period of relative stability the next four years. #MakePoliticsBoringAgain
I'm worried that insurgent candidate like those in 'the squad' were only allowed to succeed as an olive branch to the left-populists for the purposes of maintaining a coherent anti-trump coalition.
The Republicans ran a reasonably clean primary in 2016, and got Trump, a demagogue completely dismissive of the party's interests, who catered to his base, and only helped the Republicans in circumstances of mutual interests. I don't think the party's leadership will be willing to risk something like that again, if the behavior of the Bush-era cabinet appointees he had is any indicator.
I don't buy that but happy to be proven wrong. I was following AOC's race closely before she won her election (any before anyone had heard of her). They went out of their way to work with and endorse her competitor. It was AOC's hustle and innovative techniques that made up for her huge money disadvantage (~300k at the end of the election vs ~3mil) as well as the fact that her rival was appointed the seat through a loophole (and so never really learned how to run a campaign) that resulted in her win.
The opposition spent 10+ million trying to unseat her since then.
They were an unknown threat before.
Caruso-Cabrera did raise quite a bit of money to unseat AOC, but most of the endorsements I can find seem to be from conservative organizations looking to score some kind of moral victory against the Justice Dems. My estimate is that a political novice with (some) name recognition tried to take her down of her own accord, and AOC's pissed off enough corporations and conservatives that she incidentally (or deliberately) walked into a money pit in doing so.
I may have missed it, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that the DNC has spun up its machinery to truly run a full-throated opposition opp against her.
I'd have to do more research on the rest of them, but I don't believe the squad's faced the kind of push-back that the party's capable of yet.
Much like marijuana legislation finally passing now, i think it will take the previous generation to die off before we start seeing more democratic progressive candidates like AOC. Bernie's numbers were Yuge and dominating with people under 40. Give it another decade or so: if gen Z shares values with gen X and Millenials, which is yet to be seen, i think the AOC type candidates will make inroads in many places in the Democratic party.
That being said, this is only one datapoint, and I also know other people that are far to the right.
If you want not to have Trumps anymore, you need to get rid of the factors that lead to Trump happening, and that's not going to be done calmly given the opposition of the DNC and other established interests.
As a non-american, the best shot you had of establishing long-term stability was Bernie Sanders. The way things are going, the Democrats will continue alienating themselves from more and more of their base and the Republicans will continue ramping up fear and instability.
[0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dnc-raises-debate-requirements-...
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/politics/hillary-clinton-tuls...
[2] https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/28/politics/andrew-yang-claims-n...
See: the makeup of Bidens cabinet, which is a republicans-from-10-years-ago's dream.
In my case, some intern will dutifully take my call. In Charles Koch's case, he will have that congressperson's direct phone line. When he goes to Washington, they'll have a sit down meal together. Hell, if he wanted it, he could have asked for and received a cabinet position or an ambassadorship.
That isn't just free speech -- that is derailing democracy. By limiting contribution amounts, it will make the elected less beholden to big donors.
I personally think Citizens United is the worst thing to ever happen to democracy, but I fear a revolution after a prolonged slide into deep oligarchy might be the only way it ever changes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_(organization)...
It’s a challenge, for sure. And some proposed solutions may cause more harm that good. But it’s absurd to me the level of wealth inequality we have today. That there are individual humans worth over a billion dollars while so many even in developed nations are hungry and overworked.
More cooperatively owned firms and less intellectual property control are two voluntarist ways we can reduce this inequality.
> In 2016, the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers—those with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) below $40,078—earned 11.6 percent of total AGI. However, this group of taxpayers paid just 3 percent of all income taxes in 2016.
> In contrast, the top 1 percent of all taxpayers (taxpayers with AGI of $480,804 and above), earned 19.7 percent of all AGI in 2016, and paid 37.3 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined, who paid 30.5 percent of all income taxes.
I think a flat 20% above a certain rate is probably the most 'fair', but what needs to change is remove most loopholes that exist now. So everyone above a certain income level pays the same proportion of their income.
Of course the tax base ends up really top heavy, if you earn most of the income, you pay most of the tax. That seems fair to me.
....
So why is it that Buffett himself doesn't pay more tax? It's because the bulk of his income comes from dividends and long-term capital gains, which are taxed at a much lower rate than ordinary income.
https://www.fool.com/taxes/2020/09/25/why-does-billionaire-w...
No, "flat tax" is not what I'm describing or advocating.
Did you know that Warren Buffet paid a total tax rate of 17.7%, whilst the average tax rate for ordinary American office workers in his office was 32.9%?
This doesn't take into account taxes, however, which means that we're assuming a 0% flat tax rate. But, you see, what happens is that if you start imposing a positive taxation rate, then all that changes in the preceding argument is the definition of who is "rich" and who is "poor." The general trend is all that matters.
One actual limitation to point out is that this argument doesn't take investment into account. Over long enough time periods, all major asset classes have a positive expected return, so, it doesn't matter precisely what people invest in. What does matter is how much they have to invest, and how long "long enough" time periods are.
IIRC, for the stock market, "long enough" means 15 years or so. Since this is much shorter than a single human lifetime, you see that all someone who is rich enough to invest has to do is just keep shovelling money into their brokerage account, and it will pay off eventually.
Poor people don't even get to that point. The hows and whys of that are myriad, so I won't even get into that. Just imagine that, instead of calling them "poor people," we call them "economically fragile" people. Then, what you start to realize is that a small bump in the road, like, say, an unexpected car repair, can really devastate an economically fragile person's finances.
And, because economically fragile people don't have a lot of money coming in, their expenses are pretty low. That means that even if they follow standard personal finance advice and try to accumulate a 6 month emergency fund, a car repair costs what a car repair costs, so it's going to eat a much larger chunk of that emergency fund for the economically fragile person than the non-economically fragile person.
Oh, and, because economic fragility is relative (meaning if you, and everybody else have 1 quatloo each and I have 10 quatloos, I'm still as "rich" overall as if everybody had 10 quatloos each, and I had 100), that means starting poor and getting rich takes a long, long time, and may not ever happen.
TL;DR: A completely flat tax rate for all citizens implies that the rich will get richer, and the poor will stay fairly poor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_propensity_to_consume
For a just society we should tax working far less than taxing capital and dividend gains, not the opposite.
"The richest one percent of this country owns half the country's wealth: 5 trillion dollars. One third of that comes from hard work, two thirds of it comes from inheritance, interest on interest accumulation to widows and idiot sons and what I do -- stock and real estate speculation. It's bullshit. Ninety percent of the American people have little or no net worth. I create nothing; I own. We make the rules, Buddy, the news, war, peace, famine, upheaval; the cost of a paper clip. (picking one up) We pull the rabbit out of the hat while everybody else sits around their whole life wondering how we did it..."
If you look at the data, i think you'll find that billionaires own a very small proportion of all wealth
Allegedly about 2100 billionaires - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Billionaires
A couple of years ago all the millionaires put together controlled about 45% of global wealth - https://www.visualcapitalist.com/global-wealth-concentration...
Since billionaires are a subset of those, then they cannot possibly control any more than 45%, so certainly less than half.
Can't find a source showing just billionaires, at the moment, but the first source suggests that the billionaires have a net worth on the order of 9 to 10 trillion; if billionaires control 10 trillion, and about 130 trillion is 45% of the wealth, then billionaires are in control of somewhere around 4% of global wealth.
As a rough calculation in sixty seconds, this does appear to support your assertion that billionaires control a small proportion of wealth. If you team them up with all the millionaires, they're up to almost 50%, but just the billionaires on their own; not so much.
Another angle is that Jeff Bezos, richest man in the world, has $184B. That's $550 per American, or $24 per human.
Undeniably a lot of money, but also far from a sum that would change the world if it got redistributed.
There are 19 million millionaires in the US, or 5-6% of the population.
Hhttps://spendmenot.com/blog/what-percentage-of-americans-are...
To pick an extreme and unlikely hypothesis, it could be that if there weren't any billionaires corrupting politics, then the economy would be run in a better way which enabled everyone to become millionaires.
Each registered candidate with more than a certain number of signatures of support should be given a budget of money and pre-paid airtime on all major networks by the FEC, and that's it. Once it's out, it's out. All other contributions (including in-kind) to political campaigns are tantamount to bribery and should just be illegal.
It seems all but impossible to stop billionaires like Koch waging public relations campaigns. If nothing else they'll just buy entire media companies (c.f. Bezos and the Washington Post) and jump in to the fray Fox News style.
It is pretty likely that no-money-in-politics rules would be weaponised against smaller donators. I'm sure there are a bunch of wealthy people who would love nothing more than legal tools to shut down donation-driven groups like the Black Lives Matter website.
Parties are allowed donations, but they can't spend more than x on election campaigns, no matter where the money is coming from. Time on public TV is kind-of regulated. TV ads are not really a thing, mostly billboards and print.
Can be circumvented though, since it requires parties to declare spendings correctly (and labelled correctly). "Oh, those fancy pens that look like merch? For work if course!" "We didn't rent this venue, a party-friend did"
Difficult to enforce with all the possible loopholes.
That doesn't really follow. Why should something be exclusively publicly funded just because it is in the public interest?
>All other contributions (including in-kind) to political campaigns are tantamount to bribery and should just be illegal.
What about completely anonymous donations? If the receiver doesn't know who is giving the money, how could it act as a bribe?
Re: completely anonymous donations, you mean, like Bitcoin? Generally any legitimate business has to report where it’s money came from - even if just for tax purposes - otherwise it’s a whole new crime. Remember, under my model, all contributions would be banned. Then, candidates would have to compete on platforms instead of fundraising.
It would be pretty hard to set things up so that donations were not only anonymous, but non-verifiable (as in, it should be impossible for a donor to prove to a recipient that they were the one who donated). This attribute in voting systems is part of 'coercion resistance' (as in, if you can't prove how you voted even when you want to, there is no point in trying to coerce you into voting a particular way). In a payments system, we can call it 'corruption resistance'.
So me, as a private citizen, should be outlawed from making a sign on my front yard in support of a candidate with my own money? Should I be prevented from making my own website in support of issues and candidates I care about? Can I create YouTube videos with my own money to support issues and candidates I care about with my own money? This is supporting a candidate with funds outside of the public funds -- clearly illegal under your proposal! At what point is it no longer individuals expressing their own opinions in public?
I encourage you to actually read the Citizens United opinion. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310
This last round of elections showed how money doesn't buy elections as easily as you'd think. Democrats massively over-spent Republicans, and what did it get them? A narrow Biden win, a smaller lead in the house, and a smaller gap in the Senate. Bloomberg's image and as businessman and politician is pretty strong, but for all his spending, the only votes he won in the primary were form American Samoa.
https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=...
Total Independent Expenditures: $41,016,106
For Democrats: $92,936
Against Democrats: $8,887,525
For Republicans: $32,035,645
Against Republicans: $0
https://www.opensecrets.org/search?order=desc&q=Koch+Industr...
Edit: Added link showing recent Koch Industry donations
It shows Koch is still very actively making the same mistake.
I mean, these guys are all sociopaths, so what should one expect?
[0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/koch-brothers-network-will-spen...
As the article notes, Trump (who was not Koch-backed) won with very little spending compared to his big-money backed conventional GOP opponents. They decided to step back and spend less in 2016 as a result, since they didn’t support either Trump or Hillary.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-01/billionai...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/10/billio...
Maximizing freedom for myself in a society where there are other people requires limiting everyone's freedoms in some ways.
This tells you all you need to know.
Charles Koch deserves to die and I will celebrate when he does. I hope future generations will piss on his grave.
Alright. I'm persuaded. Never voting for another Republican again.
Seriously what are you thinking? Flagged.
The influence of the Koch family on politics and public opinion has been devastating.
The Federalist Society is a conspiracy against democracy.
Often their picks ignore their "originalist" approach when it would be counter to their desired outcome.
I'm no expert, this is from my general understanding and skimming Wikipedia.
The correlation here is that conservative presidents pick justices who object to rulings like Roe v Wade. The mistaken 'cause' is that it is Conservatism that leads to this objection when in fact it could also be that originalists object to legislation from the bench.
How is it "originalist" to take the 2nd Amendment, which refers to "well regulated Militia," and using it to say there's a Constitutional right to owning a handgun for personal protection (without safety requirements like a trigger lock or safe)? It's not, yet that's what conservatives decided, specifically Scalia in his majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller.
Do you seriously think Scalia cared about protecting people's rights to bear arms beyond the text of the 2nd amendment? Again, what constitutes a true liberal originalist? These justices are not pursuing power but trying to interpret law - and they get accused of undermining democracy...
Whatever rights to bear arms there are, they come from the 2nd Amendment. It is absurd to stretch an Amendment about "well regulated Militia" to mean D.C. can't require people to store a handgun with a trigger lock because it would impinge on their ability to use it for personal protection. Yet that's what Scalia in the majority decided.
> what constitutes a true liberal originalist?
You keep missing my point; if anyone was actually an originalist, some of their decisions would seem conservative, some would seem liberal, because they would just obediently be following what the text says. No judge actually does that and that alone, I'm only aware of conservative judges that claim they do. The term "originalist" was invented by conservatives so that's not surprising.
I am not saying all conservative judges make wrong decisions and liberal judges make right ones. I'm saying conservatives attack outcomes they don't like as not being "originalist" instead of being honest that it's an outcome they don't like. They're hypocrites.
But this is not really relevant to the original claim of the Federalist Society undermining democracy; I think it would go to far to say to be conservative is to be anti-democratic. If the Federalist Society is anti-democratic, it's more in their means than in their ends.
Originalism is a modern invention. It was not even a philosophy of jurisprudence until approximately the 1970s.
And do not tell me those contracts were considered illegal at the time they were written.
Via ye olde wikipedia: 'In the context of United States law, originalism is a concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted".'
This is the start of a very short road to bandying around conflicting subjective interpretations of what the original founders believed, rather than what's in the text of the constitution or the law. You can have rule of law without second-guessing the founders; if you get unintended consequences, update the law and/or constitution accordingly. It's meant to be a living document, right? In the meantime, protections for gay and transgender people based on equal rights laws is a feature, not a bug.
[on edit: To put an even finer point on it, Alito's arguing originalism because he doesn't like the text. That is fundamentally against the rule of law.]
The constitution was not originally intended to be a 'living' document; that theory came about in the progressive era as a way to change the meaning of the constitution without amending it.[1]
Humans are not perfect, and I think all judges can delude themselves with motivated reasoning at times, and all judges have some bad opinions, but having read many SCOTUS opinions, Scalia always struck me as one of the more logical and thoughtful members of the court.
There is plenty of 2nd Amd. scholarship that goes over all of this. Not saying you need to agree with the scholarship, but a lot of people have thought about his stuff and researched it deeply.
Gotchas statements re: "...well regulated...", cars are registered why not guns, restrict people to owning muskets, etc., are unhelpful.
In the view of the theory underlying the second amendment, it is an existential threat to the latter which makes assuring that the State can meet it's internal and external security needs solely through small permanent cadres plus mobilization of the citizen militia of paramount importance.
> Standing armies were the part of the motivation for the 2nd Amd.
Preventing standing armies was, which is presumably why the statement was that having one (and also standing paramilitary forces for internal security, which was actually the abuse that was the biggest fear motivating fear of standing armies) rendered the second amendment irrelevant.
This is inaccurate?
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Federalist_(Dawson)/45
James Madison argues from the assumption of having an standing army, and why an armed populace makes a Federal tyranny unlikely.
There are many (most) things I don’t like about Republicans, but making THIS an issue is something I just don’t understand about Democrats.
Pick your battles.
The founders were obviously concerned with the need for a military to "maintain a free state", but I'd doubt that a centralized military would have been palatable at the time.
There was a mistrust of the Federal government at the time, and it was believed that state militias could act as a check against a Federal standing army which goes rogue.
We have bigger issues than gun control at a federal level.
The relation between the operative clause and the prefatory clause is that, historically, kings had effectively destroyed the militia by forbidding the keeping or bearing of arms. Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller cites a great deal of evidence that the original public meaning of the phrase "the right to keep and bear arms" included keeping and bearing arms for individual self-defense.
Conservative judges, including Scalia, generally don't claim that all arms regulation is unconstitutional, they don't claim everyone has a right to own RPGs. I don't like where they draw the lines and don't think they have good reasoning for where they draw them.
If the first amendment said, "A well read electorate, being necessary to a free state, the right the people to free speech, shall not be infringed," would you say it only covered political speech?
Practically, I don't see how it makes any difference. Handguns are used by every single armed forces in the world. Any militia would need them anyway. If I can't own a handgun, how could I serve in a militia?
I would say the intent is much narrower than the actual text so while "a well read electorate" would call for more than just political speech, such a First Amendment would be allow more laws to restrict speech without being unconstitutional.
People in the armed forces don't own the weapons they use now. Today, the National Guard is basically the "Militia." Even if you think militia needs to include organizations not directed by governors, weapons can be owned by smaller political entities (towns, counties, etc.) or NGOs. In any case, weapons for a militia can be stored in an armory, not in every member's home or on their person all the time.
Yet again, even if some of the weapons were stored in the home, there's nothing unconstitutional about laws requiring trigger locks or other safety measures for their storage.
Justice Scalia rejected the notion of giving much importance to the intent of drafters. His objective was to interpret the text according to its original public meaning.
As Scalia noted in Heller, the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right"; it didn't grant a new right. And although "self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification", "it was the central component of the right itself".
>People in the armed forces don't own the weapons they use now.
That's exactly the system that the framers wanted to avoid. The citizen militia (with their own privately owned arms) was envisioned as an alternative to a standing army in times of peace.
>Today, the National Guard is basically the "Militia."
The National Guard is the organized part of the militia. The unorganized militia has much broader membership. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
>there's nothing unconstitutional about laws requiring trigger locks or other safety measures for their storage.
The trigger-lock requirement wasn't limited to storage. It didn't have an exception to allow removing the trigger lock to use to the gun in self-defense or for carrying holstered on one's person. That's why it was ruled unconstitutional.
Edit: for the downvoters, please let me know how Scalia's religious beliefs were completely compartmentalized and had no influence on him outside of a church: https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/justice-antonin-sc...
http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/08/how-determinate-is-original...
We're not going to settle this in the comment section of HN, but I happen to agree with this opinion:
As the Warren and early Burger Courts faded into history, originalism drifted away from its critique of judicial activism. The political conservatives who had disliked the countermajoritarian output of the Warren and early Burger Courts developed a fondness for judicial activism once there was a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Originalism was thus transformed from a shield against what its proponents saw as illegitimate liberal decisions striking down laws adopted by conservative lawmakers into a sword that could be wielded by conservatives to strike down laws adopted by liberal lawmakers.
Originalism coupled with judicial restraint could not invalidate affirmative action, campaign finance regulations, or gun control. Abandoning judicial restraint led to an "unbound" form of originalism that licensed conservative judicial activism, even as judicial conservatives continued to complain about liberal judicial activism in cases involving such matters as abortion, the death penalty, and gay rights.
http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2019/11/why-not-to-be-originalist.h...
Do you have a non-activist originalist argument for Alito's on-going stance against legal protection of gay marriage? In Obergefell v. Hodges he stated that the Due Process clause protects only rights "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition". He's making up a justification to allow a minority of conservative opinion to prevent gay people from getting married. How isn't that activism?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage
So I turn it on you - I'm not an expert so help me understand - how is Obergefell v. Hodges not legislation from the bench when it changes the meaning of these laws unilaterally?
My personal opinion is that I don't care whether others think it's (liberal) activism.
My beef is that Alito is also engaging in (conservative) activism but claiming he is not by hiding behind originalism. I won't belabor this point further because I've already cited a source that makes the argument better than I can.
Disclosure: I want our government to use every tool at its disposal to make the world a better place. Of course the constitution should be interpreted in line with modern values in order to extend rights and protections to people. The declaration:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Those are our stated shared values. Those align with my values. Not allowing gay people to marry is contrary to those values.
That five judges found a constitutional justification to extend the right of marriage to all, I'm glad for. If people want to call that "activism" so be it. Now, Alito still wants to take that right away. Indeed, he wants to be able to express that view and not be called a bigot for it. I find it deplorable to try to hide that view behind a legal theory called originalism.
Any originalist argument against "Obergefell v. Hodges" could equally be applied to "Loving v. Virginia."
https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/05/constitutional-interpreta...
https://ahousedividedapd.com/2020/10/15/originalism-and-the-...
For a counter-argument (with which I don't agree):
https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
The role of a judge is to sort through these contradictions to decide which principles are more important than others, even though they are all mentioned in the constitution.
So I don't see how there is an objective concept of "originalist": you have to pick some principles over others. Which ones you pick are a lot more guided by your own ideology than by the words on paper.
Not just the Constitution, either. Other contemporary writings - the Federalist Papers, etc. - are often quote-mined to determine "intent". As you identify, these offer a lot of opportunities to pick and choose stuff in favor of whatever ideological decision you'd like to make.
- A much stronger view of the Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. That means no searches without a warrant, period. No general surveillance. No "drug exception". No "exigent circumstances" exception. Wiretapping, on a court order only. Which is where the US mostly was until the 1960s or so. This means going back to "We have you surrounded. Come out with your hands up".
- Much more use of jury trials. Anything that involves even a day in jail, or a fine over $20 (might allow for inflation adjustment) means a jury trial. No treating six months in jail as a "petty offense". Longer sentences for demanding a jury trial would be considered a major Fifth Amendment violation. And no "civil forfeitures".
- Religion is just another business. No tax break, no restrictions on lobbying, no exemptions from other neutral laws.
- Corporations are not "persons". The history of how corporations got constitutional rights is strange and interesting. See Southern Pacific Railroad vs. County of Santa Clara (1886). Until then, corporations did not have constitutional rights; only their employees did.
That's originalism.
The original intent of the 2nd amendment was to allow a 'well regulated militia' to be adequately equipped to fight off an invading army, which in modern terms would mean that the 'well regulated militia' would need to be able to own tanks, fighter aircraft, warships, missiles, and nuclear warheads.
Contemporary originalists, however, both completely discard the mention of a 'well regulated militia' in the 2nd amendment and have re-interpreted the right to encompass only small arms.
Legal originalism is not an ideology predicated on good faith. It is a figleaf to misuse the opinions of the authors of the US constitution to defend the beliefs of contemporary conservatives.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/13/us/samuel-alito-religious...
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/13/934666499/justice-alito-pande...
You can watch the whole thing for yourself here:
The speech is an attack on science, expertise, and common sense. It’s a MAGA hat with a thin veneer of respectability.
It’s not clear to me to what extent such judges believe in this ideology, or whether they’re simply craven and exercising a will to power, but the Federalist Society has spent the past several decades working to place lawyers with fringe jurisprudence into the judiciary, and the Koch brothers wrote the checks.
So like a MAGA fedora?
There should be a term limit for everyone in government like presidents do - mayors, congressmen, senators, judges...
Can't you just make it so it's x years appointment, but you can't be reappointed?
An example of this is in agencies like the FTC, where people leave the regulator and end up in well paid jobs in the companies they are supposed to be regulating. Even if there was no bias in their decision making people point to it and it undermines confidence in the system.
After being on the SC, they'd be set with high-paying speaking and book deals for life, along with deals as paid commentators on all sorts of issues and platforms.
To quote NYT: "Casinos were limited to 50 percent of their fire-code capacities, while houses of worship were subject to a flat 50-person limit."
It seems reasonable to me that both should be limited to a 50-person limit, or perhaps a people-per-area limit (although I do understand that Churches are higher risk because singing spreads the virus much more than silently sitting at a slot machine).
Grassroots democratic action = people pursuing political ends I do like
"$TYCOON_I_AGREE_WITH is a shadowy oligarch undermining democracy with dark money" = unfounded conspiracy theory
It's a hour of ranting against democracy. He didn't even hide the fact that he doesn't care that gay marriage or other issues were approved by voters; he would judicially end gay marriage in the name of "religious freedom." But this freedom only extends to particular forms of Christianity, as Alito is quite comfortable with restricting the religious practices of Muslims and Wiccans.
Does anyone have a link to the transcript? I can only find video clips of the keynote speech.
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/11/12/video-and-transcript-of...
The Federalist Society's entire annual convention was just broadcast online this past week,[0] and it's pretty typical of the Society's activities: hosting panels, debates, and speeches on the law featuring a wide breadth of views. If the Federalist Society is some kind of "conspiracy"—one that you can join today, for fifty bucks!—then so is pretty much every other civic organization in existence.
[0] https://fedsoc.org/conferences/2020-national-lawyers-convent...
If there was a political, legislative will, "the people" could pass an amendment to the law specifying that gay marriage is not allowed or protected.
Roberts, Gorsuch, Kennedy, O'Connor and Souter all switched sides on major issues. Conservatives switch sides a lot more often, but perhaps because the court has been tilted towards Republican nominees.
When it comes down to real decisions by SCOTUS, they usually come out more moderate and narrow than you might imagine.
Among the Democrat appointees, Kagan has a more independent record than Sotomayor but came afterward.
I know there are counterexamples but my point is that there's not an obvious trend toward more partisan justices, or at least no evidence has been presented so far in this thread.
Two sides of a conservative position.
The US, in general, does not have any non-conservative judiciary. Stare decisis by itself ensures that there is a strong conservative streak in the available pool of jurists. So yes, the Supreme court has center-left (Sotomayor), centrist (Breyer, Kagan), center-right(Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch), and reactionaries (Alito and Thomas), but nobody as far "left" as it has "right".
Historically, for example, William O. Douglas was about as left as the court has gotten, and he was more in favor of environmentalism and ending the Vietnam war than really aggressive left wing concepts.
Now you're bringing up a different claim, which is that the two major parties don't really represent a variety of ideas. That's a fine claim to make, but it doesn't contradict my point.
The other major shift is actually more along the axis of social libertarian vs authoritarian, which is not as clearly divided as "republican vs democrat", especially considering the late RBG was clearly an authoritarian in some respects, despite being fairly left of center.
Taking any of this as evidence that the court is non-partisan is pretty incorrect: They're consistently partisan in clearly obvious ways, even controlling for other issues.
Are any of them arguing for an ethnostate? For shipping non-whites "back to where they came from"? For re-establishing anti-miscegenation laws?
Your perspective is absurd. Of course the court has a left wing. It's just not radical enough for your liking and, similarly, the court's right wing isn't radical enough for David Duke's liking.
Don't kid yourself. This is exactly what they're after. Another couple of elections of the likes of Trump and they may get it.
The only debate among conservatives is over whether they should be overtly racist, like Trump, or covertly racist, like his predecessors.
If they get enough power, the velvet glove will slip from the iron fist.
For people like me, I don't care what "side" a justice is on. The justices literally choose which cases they accept... Of course there will be some debate on them.
What I find absolutely horrid is that the courts are packed with nominees hand selected by a group of US senators who not only cannot represent the majority of the US population/citizenry, but are also actively antagonistic toward people's will to determine their own future (see obstructionism by McConnell during the Obama years).
Part of the job of the Senate is to represent the minority. They typically aren't the starting place for major legislation, but often slow down or heavily amend it.
You could argue that the minority should have no power at all, I suppose. Democrats used a similar argument to remove the judicial filibuster, which was a great idea right until they became the minority in the Senate.
That's really the big lesson that people never seem to learn about democracy: you'll be in the minority at some point, so get protections/obstacles in place while you're in the majority, or you'll regret it sooner than you think.
Sure, this is a lesson about democracy. It's a lesson about how to subvert democracy.
The math is transparent.
The filibuster is just something the senate made up. It does not exist in the constitution, so it is not a true obstacle. The R senators would have gotten rid of it anyway. It doesn't even protect the Senate "minority".
And the Senate's job is to prevent people from determining their own future. It was championed by anti-democracy activists like Alexander Hamilton. I hope it no longer exists by the time I perish.
Plenty of things are conspiracies in the "conspiracy to commit murder" sense, without being conspiracies in the "conspiracy theory" sense.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/01/how-the-federali...
From the Federalist Society website:
" Law schools and the legal profession are currently strongly dominated by a form of orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform society. While some members of the academic community have dissented from these views, by and large they are taught simultaneously with (and indeed as if they were) the law.
The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities.
This entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law. It also requires restoring the recognition of the importance of these norms among lawyers, judges, law students and professors. In working to achieve these goals, the Society has created a conservative and libertarian intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community."
This text at least implies that such lists produced will be candidates favorable to libertarian or conservative ideologists.
The connotation of secrecy with the work "conspiracy" is only one definition. "Conspiracy" and "conspire" have the same root:
> 1. the act of conspiring
* https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy
> 2. to act or work together toward the same result or goal: The wind and rain conspired to strip the trees of their fall color.
* https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspire
> A civil conspiracy or collusion is an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal rights or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal objective.[1] A conspiracy may also refer to a group of people who make an agreement to form a partnership in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member and engage in planning or agreeing to commit some act.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(civil)
> This is a list of political conspiracies. In a political context, a conspiracy refers to a group of people united in the goal of damaging, usurping, or overthrowing an established political power. Typically, the final goal is to gain power through a revolutionary coup d'état or through assassination. A conspiracy can also be used for infiltration of the governing system.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_conspiracies
It's an argument especially relevant to the startup community because great startups disrupt the economic status quo. Take away the system that enables that and you are left with top-down/autocratic economic systems. They have their benefits, efficient use of resources, so long as it benefits the regime, but over time, since autocratic regimes are optimized to keep people in power, they can't innovate as well. The highest profile example recently, was Jack Ma's attempted IPO that got shut down because he offended Xi in a speech. Loyalty to the top trumps all.
Republicans in power: Use every loophole
Democrats in power: Preach bipartisanship and the importance of fairplay.
Personally, I think the president has far too much power (especially in war-powers), but Biden will need to deploy a ton of executive orders to get anything done with the legislative branch he's about to get - and he won't do it because he (along with his party and Obama) believe in fair-play, norms and institutions. The issue is that their opponents don't.
Republicans will win back the house in 2024 in no small part due to Biden being precieved as having done nothing due to his reluctance to use executive orders to legislate from the oval office like his predecessor did.
What he's asking for here is for Democrats to accept his lack of opposition to social liberalism, and bend themselves even further towards his fiscal conservatism.
Yes, exactly. The thing is, as a putative libertarian he ought to have been supporting socially liberal policies (and candidates) all along.
Merely offering a 'lack of opposition' isn't really any change at all, as he's never opposed it.
After eating 900 mice, the cat is going on a pilgrimage.
However, I'm not sure how to answer your question in the general case.
I'm not sure I would have noticed this link unless you had replied to me, I guess now I know to search for "archive.is" in comments...
Or political play after it looks like the dems will win the election?
It's almost as if, at the deepest level, we're all one.
It's more like political divestment, as the costs of polarisation have increased.
His actual values - basic libertarianism like open borders and free trade and limited government - haven't changed at all. That's precisely why he never backed Trump, and instead continued plugging the values he espoused even as that drew fire from Republicans.
For instance: note that he donated a lot more to Rep candidates than to Dem candidates, but it was almost exclusively where the relevant contest involved a pro-markets versus anti-markets debate.
As Republicans have moved away from markets into populism, his spending is less and less partisan.
He wanted the country to burn to the ground in mindless squabbles, so that the Right Wing can ascend to the dominant viewpoint.
Mission Accomplished.
Isn't that what all the republicans are saying now that their presidential candidate has lost? Now that they've lost a modicum of power, now is the time for partisanship and teamwork? Where was this spirit of cooperation before?
This seems like a good way to spend money on his interests, while pretending he's building bridges, and blaming the other side when anything goes wrong.
FYI, the Koch network did not actively support Trump in either 2016 or 2020. So calling Trump as “their presidential candidate” could be misleading.
Charles Koch talked about Trump vs Hillary in 2016 as cancer vs heart attack and said publicly hillary might be a better president.
> FYI, the Koch network did not actively support Trump in either 2016 or 2020. So calling Trump as “their presidential candidate” could be misleading.
Sure, they didn't support Trump directly. But they really only supported GOP candidates, and whether those candidates in turn supported Trump doesn't seem to have ever been a factor. They certainly never explicitly supported any opposition to Trump, not even conservative opposition such as the Lincoln Project.
Had a non-Trump candidate won the 2016 GOP primary, they would have backed him or her in the presidential race - they canceled their plans to do so when Trump won.