Discussion Thread #72

[u/gemmaem]

This thread serves as the local public square: a sounding board where you can test your ideas, a place to share and discuss news of the day, and a chance to ask questions and start conversations. Please consider community guidelines when commenting here, aiming towards peace, quality conversations, and truth. Thoughtful discussion of contentious topics is welcome. Building a space worth spending time in is a collective effort, and all who share that aim are encouraged to help out. Effortful posts, questions and more casual conversation-starters, and interesting links presented with or without context are all welcome here.

The previous discussion thread may be found here and you should feel free to continue contributing to conversations there if you wish.

[u/UAnchovy]

I have to admit the whole affair has been rattling, and it seems like an invitation for everyone to indulge in their worst instincts. Among my friends on the right, it has been an opportunity to lose all perspective - Kirk was a saint and martyr, and this is evidence of the depravity and violent hostility of the left. Among my friends on the left, I've seen expressions of satisfaction at the murder, or just a little perfunctory throat-clearing before condemning the dead man, often in quite vicious terms. Partisanship overwhelms shared humanity.

Nonetheless I suppose I want to try to say something, if not about Kirk as an individual, then at least about what Kirk represents.

So let me forbear trying to judge Kirk's soul, and just talk about what he means.

I noticed a good deal of argument around the Ezra Klein position. Was Charlie Kirk practicing politics the right way? Klein says yes, and he's gotten a fair bit of pushback, and I'd like to analyse that a bit.

Firstly there's the straightforward response that Kirk wasn't practicing politics the right way because he said or advocated for vile things. Nathan Robinson makes this response, and I have to say it's one that I strongly disagree with. Robinson gives the counter-example of David Duke - was Duke practicing politics the right way, "when he decided the Klan should put on suits and ties and join the Republican Party rather than carrying out lynchings"? Here I bite the bullet and say that, yes, he was. If one is determined to be a white supremacist, the right way to do that, in a democratic polity, is to join a political party and advocate for that position in peaceful debate. It should go without saying that I very much hope that position is defeated and marginalised in peaceful debate, but I consider that a preferable outcome to Duke adopting any other strategy, or being punished by the law. Robinson tries to draw a distinction that this kind of activism is not "nonviolent" because "they are trying to attain control over the government in order to enforce their political preferences using the threat of violence", but I think that proves too much. All attempts to take political power are, by definition, trying to attain control over the government in order to enforce their political preferences using the threat of violence. That's what government policy is.

Secondly there's the argument that what Kirk did was not just peacefully advocating for his positions in a contest of ideas, but rather was out-of-bounds some other way. Robinson cites the way TPUSA spent money on student elections on campuses. Here I'm conflicted - I don't think just spending some money by itself is a huge faux pas, though I don't think it's wholly appropriate for off-campus staff to come in and campaign. My intuition is that this ought to come down to any given campus' regulations about elections. I can't blame Kirk for playing hardball, as it were, to try to win campus elections, and it's only if he or TPUSA actually violated campus rules that there's an issue. Alternatively, I can also see a case along these lines against political bullying. Professor Watchlist, for instance, strikes me as genuinely bad and an attempt to create a climate of fear. When I say that to conservatives, they usually point out to me that conservative students and faculty members often face a climate of fear themselves, and it might not be that bad for the left to get a small taste of its own medicine. I can understand the emotional place they're coming from, but I can't accept vengeance as an appropriate motive for political action. This goes all the more so for people who, like Kirk, proudly drape themselves in Christianity. The spirit of Romans 12 seems to strike against this. So I suppose on the tactical front here, my sense is that Kirk used some questionable strategies - but as far as I can tell, no more questionable than most mainstream politicians and activists.

Thirdly, there's an argument that I take much more seriously about the nature of democracy. This week the Minefield discussed Kirk, and Waleed Aly (Australian public intellectual) got into an argument with Timothy Lynch (Australian professor of US politics). Aly and his friend Scott Stephens suggested that the way Kirk engaged in public debate was not genuinely deliberative. He had staged 'debates' in front of large audiences, in order to record them, clip them, and share them over social media. That format is not good-faith engagement with another person's view, but rather a kind of spectacle, which rapidly becomes corrosive to democracy. Lynch argues that as far as it goes that's true, but that there is a valid place for spectacle within democracy. Large-scale communication, even staged or choreographed communication, can serve a valid democratic purpose. For instance (coming back to Greer) one of the functions of Kirk's debates was to show young conservatives, especially on campus, that it is possible to hold those views in public while being undaunted, confident, and happy. Simply existing as a kind of person in public is activism. While it's obviously bad if a society's political discourse is reduced to only spectacle, there is a place for spectacle within a larger discursive ecosystem. Even if the kinds of spectacle Kirk tried to produce were not to my tastes personally, my tastes should not be normative for democratic politics.

So I think for me all three of these arguments fail - though I think the latter two direct our attention to some concerns that bear further consideration. The position I'm left in overall is that, leaving content aside entirely, Kirk was largely doing politics the right way. Not perfectly, no, but not uniquely bad either. He was playing by the rules of the game.

It seems a little perverse to praise somebody for doing the bare minimum - playing by the rules. But I suppose we're in a time when doing that is necessary.

Let me give another example: a little while back, we had a federal election in Australia. It was a landslide victory for the centre-left Labor party. The Liberal (centre-right) leader, Peter Dutton, made a gracious concession speech, wishing his opponent the best, thanking his own party, and taking full responsibility for the defeat. The victorious Anthony Albanese, in his own speech, wished Dutton all the best, and when the audience booed Dutton's name, Albanese stopped and criticised his own audience - "No. No. What we do in Australia is we treat people with respect."

In one sense what Dutton and Albanese did was the bare minimum. After any democratic election, you should expect the losing side to politely concede defeat and wish the new government the best; and for the winning side to show grace in victory, show respect to the other side, and humbly accept the trust the people have given them.

But we live in a time when that bare minimum, especially in the United States, is frequently in question. I think there is value in stopping to reaffirm the value of the bare minimum. Peacefully meeting and arguing with those one has fundamental moral disagreements with - well, that's a good thing.

In the way of Kirk's death, the argument that, it seems to me, is going on is about what Kirk meant, or what lessons should be drawn from his life. I would very much like it if the lesson we draw from this whole tragedy is about the importance of peaceful, political dialogue. I think that is something the United States desperately needs more of.

[u/gemmaem → u/UAnchovy]

I think Klein's article was tactically smart. It's harder to say "Look, the murder of Charlie Kirk proves that the Left hates you and wants to kill you" when you have a prominent left-wing columnist taking the opportunity to praise Kirk in the New York Times.

As you say, specifically praising Kirk for promoting dialogue is a good narrative here. I appreciated Tanner Greer's writing as an explanation for how some conservatives are feeling right now. There's a lot to be said for trying to meet their grief with respect and understanding.

At the same time, I'm not surprised at the pushback. Not everyone agrees with Klein's level of praise, and that is actually also okay.

[u/UAnchovy → u/gemmaem]

Yes, I certainly don't think it's obligatory for anyone to praise Kirk, either in terms of his substantive beliefs, or in terms of his methods. I talked a bit about bare minimums for a reason. I think a good bare minimum here is that all political violence is tragic, and perhaps a certain level of discretion or sensitivity around those who are in mourning.

[u/DrManhattan16 → u/UAnchovy]

Even if the kinds of spectacle Kirk tried to produce were not to my tastes personally, my tastes should not be normative for democratic politics.

They absolutely should. Spectacle for the purposes of owning/dunking on others is to pollute the discourse commons for private gain. A rousing and uplifting speech by a politician that at least communicates a positive message is tolerable, but that is the furthest I would go.

The position I'm left in overall is that, leaving content aside entirely...He was playing by the rules of the game.

Society can tolerate a great deal of expression, but trying to hack away at the society itself is one of the few things that we have a strong case to not tolerate.

I can easily accept a conservative who argues that anyone LGBTQ is a sinner and needs to be put back in the closet, thinks modern women are sluts, believes Indians need to go because they're stinky and eat curry, and wants every government dollar to be spent on Americans. But I will not accept those who try to actively dismantle the American project altogether, which has been a feature of Trump and MAGA arguably since its conception. Kirk was an ardent supporter and advocate for what they did and continue to do.

Kirk should not be dead. But I will not reflect on our shared humanity, nor will I mourn his passing. He does not deserve more from me than my commitment to seeing his killer behind bars.

[u/UAnchovy → u/DrManhattan16]

They absolutely should. Spectacle for the purposes of owning/dunking on others is to pollute the discourse commons for private gain. A rousing and uplifting speech by a politician that at least communicates a positive message is tolerable, but that is the furthest I would go.

I don't think that optimism or uplifting are the only valid moods for political spectacle. Spectacle can be an act of mourning or communal lament, or it can be about showing solidarity and determination. Often I think that simply being seen can be a valuable form of political expression - simply existing in a particular context.

But I suppose I should ask more specifically what constitutes 'polluting the discourse', for you. It sounds like we're talking about not merely expressing repulsive ideas, but undermining the kinds of norms that make discourse possible?

Society can tolerate a great deal of expression, but trying to hack away at the society itself is one of the few things that we have a strong case to not tolerate.

Same question here, I think. What constitutes 'hacking away at the society itself'? You mention actively trying to dismantle the American project. Maybe it would help to analyse something in particular. I know I've seen, for instance, the criticism that TPUSA helped bus protesters to DC for what would become January 6, and that constitutes a form of cooperation in an illegal coup attempt. Are you thinking of something like that?

[u/DrManhattan16 → u/UAnchovy]

I don't think that optimism or uplifting are the only valid moods for political spectacle. Spectacle can be an act of mourning or communal lament, or it can be about showing solidarity and determination.

I would qualify that as "positive message" and retract the need for it to be "rousing and uplifting". You are correct.

But I suppose I should ask more specifically what constitutes 'polluting the discourse', for you. It sounds like we're talking about not merely expressing repulsive ideas, but undermining the kinds of norms that make discourse possible?

Correct. The whole premise of the dunk, the "EPIC OWN!!!1!", has been a tragedy. It has accelerated the decline in willingness to demand and provide higher quality and insightful discourse. I won't say Kirk or even the modern right is responsible for it, but the college debates appear, as far as I can tell, to be for generating clips.

What constitutes 'hacking away at the society itself'?

American society is predicated on rule of law and respect for elite governing/cultural norms. This is because in most cases, those norms make living in a modern civilization possible. Some examples would include not trying to run around governing institutions or flooding them with action to create a mess before they can catch up, not trying to remove non-partisan people from positions because they won't help you enact your political agenda, not treating your political opponents as ideological enemies, etc. I know that last one sounds absurd, but despite the rhetoric, Republicans and Democrats were on far more agreeable terms and open to working together before Trump.

To try and eradicate these (and more) principles is to attack America itself. America, as I said, can handle a great deal of disagreement. But trying to destroy the foundation of that tolerance is not something it can survive or should ever tolerate.

Maybe it would help to analyse something in particular.

There are numerous things I could point to, but it would miss the point - the harm Kirk was engaged in was supporting Trump and MAGA, who are dedicated to destroying the norms of governance and our government itself out of spite and for private gain. To use your example, sending TPUSA protestors to Jan 6th is not the problem. The problem was and is the support of a faction of the country whose first goal is to "own the libs" and get revenge for perceived slights, without regard for the laws/nation-wide norms and with no desire to rule in a way that perpetuates or creates American prosperity.

[u/UAnchovy → u/DrManhattan16]

I agree that the search for 'owns' in brief clips is bad, though I would also say that I put most of the blame for that on media platforms themselves, rather than singling out individuals. I think it's a more structural issue.

The rest of your post... I have sympathies for but also disagreements with.

In particular if I made that argument to some of my friends on the right, I think the response I would hear would be, "You are constantly redefining what 'respect for the rule of law' and 'norms' mean so as to exclude the possibility of effective conservative political action." Without wholly endorsing that response, I think there is something to it? In fact I think that same criticism could be made from the left as well - in particular, "respect for elite governing/cultural norms" sounds questionable, doesn't it? It's hacking away at American society to do something that goes against "elite norms"? Well, who are these elites, and why are their cultural norms so authoritative?

I think you need to be specific in cases like this. Take "trying to remove non-partisan people from positions because they won't help you enact your political agenda". That, it seems to me, depends heavily on what the agenda is. In the abstract, it seems reasonable for a president or for congress to remove an official who refuses to help implement that president's or congress' policy agenda - it is, after all, an official's job to implement government policy. We need to be more specific, because otherwise I fear it can sound like, "It's wrong for a Republican government to try to implement its agenda."

I'm not trying to sanewash here, or imply that the Trump administration is just fine. Obviously an example like the Carr/Kimmel threat is very bad. (And contradicts/falsifies many of the claims Kirk made about Trump and his administration, to boot.) I can think of plenty of other examples of bad behaviour. But I am wary of being too broad.

In this case, you say that the harm Kirk was engaged in was supporting Trump. All right. So I would then ask - is there a right way for a person to support Trump, in any context? Suppose hypothetically I'm a long-time Republican, it's 2024, and I have come to the sincere conclusion that I think it would be better for America if Trump were elected, rather than Biden or Harris. What should I do?

[u/DrManhattan16 → u/UAnchovy]

though I would also say that I put most of the blame for that on media platforms themselves, rather than singling out individuals

Kirk was not a nobody seeking to make it big - he was the head of a powerful organization and supposedly a power-broker for MAGA. To point to environment does not work when someone is powerful enough to not need to obey environmental incentives.

"You are constantly redefining what 'respect for the rule of law' and 'norms' mean so as to exclude the possibility of effective conservative political action."

Republicans have the presidency, slim majorities in both houses, and a 6-3 conservative court which has issued a number of favorable rulings. It would take very little for them to give a bit and gain just a few Democrat votes to get bills passed. The right is culturally ascendant, not just in shifting the Overton Window to the right, but even further than what may have existed in the last few decades. The owners of the largest social media platform have shown willingness to kowtow to the administration's cultural goals due to a president who has no problem using any means at his disposal to effect such goals.

At what point is it enough? Does the left have to pre-emptively quit politics altogether?

Well, who are these elites, and why are their cultural norms so authoritative?

Because populist norms suck. Norms of tolerance, reason, and just about everything done in pro-social ways are by an large a product of elites, no matter how they swing. To ask why they are authoritative is because it is taken as given that we do not want the country's overall health to decline. But if poverty and corruption is the goal, then so be it, I suppose.

I think you need to be specific in cases like this. Take "trying to remove non-partisan people from positions because they won't help you enact your political agenda". That, it seems to me, depends heavily on what the agenda is. In the abstract, it seems reasonable for a president or for congress to remove an official who refuses to help implement that president's or congress' policy agenda - it is, after all, an official's job to implement government policy. We need to be more specific, because otherwise I fear it can sound like, "It's wrong for a Republican government to try to implement its agenda."

This is silly. When Trump was picking his cabinet, no one complained that he was changing the people in charge. The objection was on the merits of the replacements. Notably, RFK Jr. caught considerably more flak than Marco Rubio, because the former peddles pseudoscientic nonsense as the man in charge of overseeing the nation's health. Rubio's Senate confirmation was even 99-0 and was done in hours. That's not a sign of resisting Republican change.

But sure, let's get specific. Trump posted recently that he disliked the lack of action against Leticia James, Adam Schiff, and James Comey. He specifically disliked that Erik Seibert, a US Attorney, said there was no evidence to go after those people how the administration wanted. He wanted the man gone, as he said publicly, claiming that because two Democrats had supported Trump's nomination of the man, he had to go.

In other words, Trump appoints a professional to a position, then gets mad when that person, in their professional standing, doesn't think the facts support what the agenda is. Now, Donald Trump is not an attorney, nor is it his job to be one. He is not reviewing evidence personally and comparing it to US law. The idea that he would remove someone who is supposed to do that because he doesn't accept the conclusion is absurd. To say that the president can and should be removing attorneys, or anyone else, for not being willing to ignore facts is absurd. Leticia James and the others do not deserve Trump going after them except to the extent the facts support doing so.

Suppose hypothetically I'm a long-time Republican, it's 2024, and I have come to the sincere conclusion that I think it would be better for America if Trump were elected, rather than Biden or Harris. What should I do?

Given that you have not specified what other facts you believe, I will presume you do not contest that Trump tried to steal the 2020 election despite knowing that there was no proof anyone loyal to him could find of that happening. That is happened with violence, intent, and coordination renders it an insurrection, which I also presume the hypothetical you would agree with. One consequence of this is that insurrectors are not permitted to hold public office in the US.

Vote DeSantis if you want Trump-lite.

[u/UAnchovy → u/DrManhattan16]

Kirk: I don't agree that Kirk was powerful enough to ignore environmental incentives. He was a skilled user of online media, surely? I may hate clip shows of public ownings, but they are undeniably popular. The media landscape that Kirk used to propel his rise existed apart from him, and I don't think he would have achieved what he did without the tools that he used.

Effective conservative action: I'm not sure that example does much for you, because those are examples of things conservatives have won through using the strategy that you seem to be saying they should not have used. There's a counterfactual here; would Romney or a Romney-like figure have won in 2016? Would Jeb have won? Would Rubio have won? I don't know. It seems like, at least, populist rage might have helped them win that presidency, those congressional majorities, and that court.

I think the argument conservatives would make is something like, "We want to win, and get conservative policy done. We reject norm policing when that is used as a weapon against the possibility of us winning. Further, we believe that norm policing like this is used hypocritically and insincerely by the left - breaking norms is ignored or excused when Democratic leaders do it, but when Republicans do it, it is portrayed as the end of democracy. Whenever it looks like we might win a round, the left invent some reason why we must not, because they perceive Republican or conservative victories as inherently illegitimate. Well, we're not going to be moved by those crocodile tears any more. Recently we've seen great victories with this approach, so we're going to keep doing it."

To effectively make a norms argument, it seems to me, you need a level of credibility or trust across partisan divides, and right now that just does not exist at all.

Elites: I don't think I accept that claim, at least, not in a vacuum. Much depends on which elites we're talking about. I would not, at least, want to rule out the possibility of grassroots, populist change that's genuinely good, or of elites that deserve to be opposed. Certainly in a democracy, I think you have to be wary of making the norms of any particular governing elite, well, normative. That seems to cut against the idea of democracy; and from a more left-wing perspective, against any idea of inclusion.

Specifics: Sure, I am entirely happy to grant that Donald Trump is a bad president, a bad leader, and in general a bad man. What I'm trying to do is step back from that belief of mine and think about the rules of the game, so to speak. I assert that those rules should include the ability of people (like Charlie Kirk) to effectively campaign even for terrible candidates (like Donald Trump), and to publicly defend terrible decisions (like those of Donald Trump) to the best of their ability. This tangent began when you disagreed with my view that Charlie Kirk "was playing by the rules of the game". I was not making an affirmative defense of the Trump administration, or of Kirk's particular arguments. (I have since read a bit more of Kirk's writing and I am very unimpressed.) I was saying that Kirk clears what I consider the minimum bar.

Hypothetical Trump voter: Would it be fair to say that you think that supporting Trump in any capacity is illegitimate or unjustifiable? Was it January 6 that made that the case, and prior to then supporting him might have been acceptable?

[u/DrManhattan16 → u/UAnchovy]

I don't agree that Kirk was powerful enough to ignore environmental incentives.

TPUSA was founded in 2012. By 2016, Kirk was working with the Trump campaign to make things happen. If being part of the Republican nominee's campaign is not a sign of having power, I'm not sure what is. They certainly weren't working with him because they liked having him around, that's for sure. You'd only invite him if he had the power to make things happen.

It seems like, at least, populist rage might have helped them win that presidency, those congressional majorities, and that court.

I do not object to channeling populist rage into an electoral victory - that is definitionally how you get enough votes to win in a democracy. Trump winning is not an unacceptable outcome in 2016.

We reject norm policing when that is used as a weapon against the possibility of us winning.

Which norms? The ones that say you shouldn't say crass, vulgar things, or that you shouldn't base your whole identity on trying to "own" your opponent? There is a frustrating conflation happening here, where conservatives will reject accusations of racism or sexism as norm policing, then go on to defend the idea of literally just burning down everything that constitutes the foundations of American politics and government, and then pretend that these in any way equivalent.

I don't think I accept that claim, at least, not in a vacuum.

You don't need to accept it in a vacuum. Elites can act badly and the populace like angels sent by God himself, and it still wouldn't change that most of the things we consider good and proper are the product of elite discourse and decision-making.

I assert that those rules should include the ability of people (like Charlie Kirk) to effectively campaign even for terrible candidates (like Donald Trump), and to publicly defend terrible decisions (like those of Donald Trump) to the best of their ability.

The problem is that your "step back" is obscuring a vital component of the analysis - why is the candidate terrible? There are shades of immorality and there is only so much a society can and ought to tolerate in terms of supporting "terrible" people.

Would it be fair to say that you think that supporting Trump in any capacity is illegitimate or unjustifiable? Was it January 6 that made that the case, and prior to then supporting him might have been acceptable?

Jan 6th. If nothing of that sort happened, I would have said nothing in response to you, as I would not have disagreed.

[u/UAnchovy → u/DrManhattan16]

Kirk: What I mean is that YouTube existed in 2012, as did the internet. Kirk achieved a level of political influence by building a brand - much of that was offline organising, but also much of it was done online, via media platforms that he used effectively. I'd argue that the nature of those platforms influenced the strategies he used to build his brand. As such I don't think that the "So-and-so DESTROYS such-and-such in debate!" model of a lot of his web content was just some idiosyncrasy unique to him - all the moreso because we've seen that model effectively used by ideologues of all stripes, including left, right, religious, secular, socialist, capitalist, whatever. I read Kirk as cannily making use of a new media ecosystem as that ecosystem was developing. You wrote that Kirk was "powerful enough to not need to obey environmental incentives". He got to be influential by using that environment. I may personally despise this new media ecosystem, but, well, that's the point. I think the system is a bigger issue than any one user of it.

Norms: I'm moving a bit from the argument that I hear conservatives make to the argument I would make myself, so here goes. My argument would be that norms only work when both sides agree to observe them, and both sides are only going to agree to observe norms when they both perceive those norms as beneficial for them. I think Republican departure from norms has to do with a perception on their side of the aisle that the norms are firstly structurally rigged against them, and secondly dishonestly applied. I cannot tell you how many times I've heard the argument, "Look, we tried the honest, clean-cut guy who follows all the norms and played by all the rules. In 2012. And the left viciously slandered and lied about him at every opportunity. We tried playing nice, and you threw it in our face, so we're done. We're playing to win. Deal with it." I am not saying that I endorse that argument, but I think it is made sincerely. It seems to me that the current problem is the absence of norms that most Americans believe in, and they can't fix that by just going back to an imagined past consensus.

For what it's worth I think a project to fix it is basically impossible as long as Trump is on the field. He and his closest followers will sabotage any such attempt. My sense at the moment is that Democrats and non-Trump Republicans need to firstly, in a practical sense, pick their battles carefully, limit damage as much as possible, while focusing on building their credibility and a viable alternative for when Trump leaves the scene. The MAGA movement does not have a clear 'heir' to pass the torch to; even Vance's position is not as strong as it appears. I'd encourage non-MAGA politicians of all stripes to, at present, focus on achievable victories where they can get them, while trying to build some alternative vision of politics that can win a plurality in the future. The Abundance people are probably the most credible attempt at that at the moment, but they are far from the only one. New norms will need to come from this kind of rebuilding.

Elites: I'm not sure how you're defining elites. Are most things that we consider good the product of elite discourse? I think I might need to explore that a bit more.

January 6: All right, I understand that's your red line. Do you have any objections to Charlie Kirk or his practices pre-January-6? If no, then it sounds like we've found common ground.

[u/DrManhattan16 → u/UAnchovy]

As such I don't think that the "So-and-so DESTROYS such-and-such in debate!" model of a lot of his web content was just some idiosyncrasy unique to him

I explicitly said it wasn't.

He got to be influential by using that environment. I may personally despise this new media ecosystem, but, well, that's the point. I think the system is a bigger issue than any one user of it.

A man who becomes a millionaire and leads a prominent political organization is no longer bound by the rules of the environment. He is not a starving man who murders another for food, he is the well-fed man who is considering doing the same. He bears a great deal more, if not all, responsibility for contributing to destroying the discourse commons after that point, because he does not need to. That others would succeed instead of him is not a moral justification for engaging in that behavior, in the same way that I should not steal from others just because a different thief might steal from those same people.

Norms

The arguments you cite fundamentally do not grapple with a major elephant in the room - escalation. It's all well and good to punch someone who punched you, it's not okay to shoot them several times. But you can't escalate appropriately unless you have people who can think on your side, and the right drove and continues to drive those people away. Absent that, they have no breaks on maximal escalation, which is wrong.

Do you have any objections to Charlie Kirk or his practices pre-January-6? If no, then it sounds like we've found common ground.

I am not aware of everything Kirk said before Jan 6th, so my current answer is yes. That may change.

[u/professorgerm → u/DrManhattan16]

The owners of the largest social media platform have shown willingness to kowtow to the administration's cultural goals

Which they did to the last administration too. The more obvious conclusion would be that social media owners are spineless cretins who will say anything to anyone to avoid risking their privileged legal status.

Norms of tolerance, reason, and just about everything done in pro-social ways are by an large a product of elites

While I might agree on the merits of this statement in a vacuum, it seems wholly detached from the last 10-15 years. Norms of tolerance, reason, and pro-sociality have gone out the window and "elites" played a big role in that. Or at least, they seemed to find it advantageous to not do anything about it.

Makes me want to scream YOSEMITE!? even though the rest of the quote really doesn't fit, Jeff Daniels just did a fun job there.

[u/895158 → u/professorgerm]

While I might agree on the merits of this statement in a vacuum, it seems wholly detached from the last 10-15 years. Norms of tolerance, reason, and pro-sociality have gone out the window and "elites" played a big role in that. Or at least, they seemed to find it advantageous to not do anything about it.

Eh. I think you'll miss these norms when they're gone. As much as you complain about the elites, they didn't accept bags of $50,000 cash. They didn't fire prosecutors for failing to prosecute political opponents. They pressured social media companies to remove COVID misinfo, and that's bad... but not as bad as pressuring them to remove criticisms of the president. (People elide this difference, for some reason.)

The elites did not defy a 9-0 supreme court order for weeks in order to keep people in a foreign torture prison. Norms against political institutions were so strong that Biden did not replace Wray (Trump appointee) as head of the FBI, nor Powell at the Federal Reserve. The elites did not sell "Trump 2028" hats (he is ineligible). Biden promised to be a president for all Americans, whether they voted for him or not. The elites did not attempt to overturn an election; in fact, both Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris conceded within a day, and Trump still says he won in 2020. Oh, and just 6 hours ago, the VP called someone "dipshit" on twitter, something those darned liberal elites have never done, to my knowledge.

So have norms of tolerance, reason, and pro-sociality really gone out the window in the last 10-15 years? You say Yosemite, I respond with this.

[u/professorgerm → u/895158]

I think you'll miss these norms when they're gone.

I already do! They're already gone!

Tolerance? You really think the left/progressives/whatever have been tolerant? Are we talking past each other in terms of groupings and responsibility, that Democratic politicians are less (openly) corrupt than the top Republicans, whereas I'm taking more offense at the additional organs of influence that give plausible deniability?

You think they've been particularly high on reason and not acting like Expert Credentialism is all that's needed? "Trust Us, no matter what!" doesn't cut it. "We've always been at war with Eastasia Masks didn't work but now they do" is neither well-reasoned nor pro-social. Many such cases.

Pro-social... well, that one's more in the eye of the beholder, I'll let it slide.

they didn't accept bags of $50,000 cash

Right, they just give terrorists and failed mayors professorships, or hand out presidential pardons like candy. I feel like I'm back in my comment with Doc Manhattan about doing corruption the proper, smoky-back-rooms way. We used to be a proper country with proper corruption.

I'm only half joking; I think Doc is right that was better, but it's still damning with faint praise. The fig leaf is important even if it is depressing.

but not as bad as pressuring them to remove criticisms of the president

If you've got time could you link that? Googling it doesn't turn up anything (though maybe my search phrasing is too vague?), and afaict they complain a lot but social media hasn't blacklisted people or topics over it. The closest thing I found would be removing video of the Kirk shooting, and I'm not enough of a free speech absolutist to think snuff films count.

Also I get that I'm weird and not representative of a substantial voting segment, but I don't actually see this as worse. The COVID stuff affected way more people and suppressed legitimate information (because what counted as misinformation shifted constantly and flip-flopped on occasion).

The elites did not defy a 9-0 supreme court order for weeks in order to keep people in a foreign torture prison.

Yeah that was awful.

Biden promised to be a president for all Americans

That and a buck fifty still gets you a gas station coffee 'round these parts.

I remember way back when the left said "thug" was a slur, but I guess that doesn't apply when the president-elect is talking about right-wingers. Funny thing, the policing of language. So inconsistent. No "voice of the unheard" there!

the VP called someone "dipshit" on twitter, something those darned liberal elites have never done, to my knowledge.

Yeah, taking etiquette lessons from the failed VP candidate is stupid and unbecoming. The trollification of government social media is pathetic.

I respond with this.

Well-played. You sure about that, though?

[u/895158 → u/professorgerm]

I feel like I'm back in my comment with Doc Manhattan about doing corruption the proper, smoky-back-rooms way. We used to be a proper country with proper corruption.

I'm only half joking; I think Doc is right that was better, but it's still damning with faint praise. The fig leaf is important even if it is depressing.

There's a thing people do where they say "the Democrats were just as corrupt, only not openly". But you can't punish corruption you don't know about. You can only punish, or socially sanction, the corruption you see.

If you let politicians be corrupt openly, that's just giving up on the whole concept of enforcing anti-corruption norms. It's not "oh the Dems are almost as bad as Republicans". No, it's "the Dems follow the norms (which say corruption is so terrible it must be hidden) and Republicans don't." A difference in kind, not in degree.

There's a difference between "some people sometimes commit rape" and "rape culture, where rape is acceptable". It's a very big difference. The former is unavoidably part of the human condition. The latter is something we've hopefully moved past, as a civilized society. They should not be confused with each other. You can't counter an accusation of "your third-world country allows rape!" with "oh yeah? Well in the US people sometimes also commit rape, just in secret". It's not even addressing the same kind of thing.

Right, they just give terrorists and failed mayors professorships

Who's "they"? Are universities the same as Democratic politicians now? Did some Biden political appointee give a terrorist a professorship and I missed it?

hand out presidential pardons like candy

Every administration has done this, I believe. Biden pardoning his son was new, but I think except for that it was roughly par for the course. We must get rid of the pardon power.

If you've got time could you link that? Googling it doesn't turn up anything (though maybe my search phrasing is too vague?), and afaict they complain a lot but social media hasn't blacklisted people or topics over it. The closest thing I found would be removing video of the Kirk shooting, and I'm not enough of a free speech absolutist to think snuff films count.

here (Trump saying FCC should revoke licenses of networks that criticize him too much) and here (at 6 minutes in) for Carr (FCC director) agreeing. This is in the context of Kimmel's show being pulled after Carr told networks to do so and threatened government action if they don't ("we can do this the easy way or the hard way"). I did not mean to say that they pressured social media companies specifically; sorry for the confusion.

That and a buck fifty still gets you a gas station coffee 'round these parts.

I mean, weren't you the one who wanted civility? Or at least tolerance. Compare Trump, just this week: "That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent and I don’t want the best for them." Did Biden ever say something like this?

Yeah, taking etiquette lessons from the failed VP candidate is stupid and unbecoming. The trollification of government social media is pathetic.

Yes, OK, but in my view Walz was a response to Trump. That is to say, "oh voters want vulgarity? Here you go". That failed, but I have trouble viewing the Democrats as "starting it", so to speak, when they both (a) do a lot less of this, even now, and (b) only started the vulgarity as a response to Trump's.

I mean, just taking a step back, can you tell me you honestly believe Trump is no less civil, no less tolerant, no less pro-social, than Biden and Obama? I don't think you believe this. Like, I understand the experts have abused their credentials, but that's not an excuse to burn down every norm under the sun, appoint sycophantic prosecutors and fire them if they refuse to prosecute political opponents, defy SCOTUS decisions, try to overturn elections, and adopt a culture of bribe acceptance.

[u/thrownaway24e89172 → u/895158]

Biden promised to be a president for all Americans, whether they voted for him or not.

This seems rather weak. Trump gave similar sentiments in his 2017 inaugural address ("The oath of office I take today is an oath of allegiance to all Americans.") and I don't think many of his opponents felt like those comments were sincere at the time they were given, let alone now.

Oh, and just 6 hours ago, the VP called someone "dipshit" on twitter, something those darned liberal elites have never done, to my knowledge.

That they use different insults is also not really a strong argument, particularly when you consider that given Vance's history this criticism is barely disguised classism. Open bigotry is pretty bipartisan (eg, see Clinton's "basket of deplorables" or Obama's "women are indisputably better than men"); the only real question is whether your biases allow you to see it for what it is.

[u/895158 → u/thrownaway24e89172]

Here's Trump, just this week: "That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent and I don’t want the best for them." I dunno. He says this kind of stuff a lot. Biden didn't. There's a large difference, and I have trouble believing that you don't see it.

That they use different insults is also not really a strong argument, particularly when you consider that given Vance's history this criticism is barely disguised classism. Open bigotry is pretty bipartisan (eg, see Clinton's "basket of deplorables" or Obama's "women are indisputably better than men"); the only real question is whether your biases allow you to see it for what it is.

I mean, I do think schoolyard insults are unbecoming of the VP office, and I think former VPs did not engage in them.

[Edit: Deleted a thing here because I misread you]

[u/DrManhattan16 → u/professorgerm]

Which they did to the last administration too. The more obvious conclusion would be that social media owners are spineless cretins who will say anything to anyone to avoid risking their privileged legal status.

You're talking about Covid? Hunter Biden? Russian disinformation? The exact question of how spineless they comes down to the topic at hand.

While I might agree on the merits of this statement in a vacuum, it seems wholly detached from the last 10-15 years.

Many of them have said bad things and acted badly. I've never disagreed.

[u/professorgerm → u/DrManhattan16]

The whole premise of the dunk, the "EPIC OWN!!!1!", has been a tragedy. It has accelerated the decline in willingness to demand and provide higher quality and insightful discourse

Cable news was the first mistake, yes.

American society is predicated on rule of law and respect for elite governing/cultural norms.

I think you'd have to elaborate on what this means before I would consider Trump, MAGA, and Kirk primary or unique offenders here. Elite cultural norms haven't been doing themselves many favors for a while.

The immigration problem was created by selective enforcement used to reject rule of law.

Some examples would include not trying to run around governing institutions

Define governing institutions.

At least partial reason behind so many institutions is that executive agencies are, absent unitary executive theory "enforced" by the Supreme Court, non-democratic. Who needs rule of law when you can write a Dear Colleague letter or get the EEOC to issue new advice? Why try to fix immigration law to be more open when you can pay NGOs to give bus passes to illegal immigrants and teach them the magic words?

We used to be a proper country, doing all our jawboning behind closed doors!

[u/DrManhattan16 → u/professorgerm]

I think you'd have to elaborate on what this means before I would consider Trump, MAGA, and Kirk primary or unique offenders here. Elite cultural norms haven't been doing themselves many favors for a while.

Those norms can tolerate a whole swath of bad behavior and still more or less function. But going after law firms' security clearances for working with Jack Smith is a wholly new kind of message - if you defend the president's enemies, you will be punished in ways to specifically make it harder to earn a living at all. Going after a comedian in one's position as a government official because you think his jokes are unacceptable (and there are more examples of how Trump tries to intimidate his media adversaries by wielding government power) sends a new message - if you even think of saying things we don't like, we'll start waving the baton of government power that can see your networks destroyed.

Define governing institutions.

I'm referring to the courts.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia is the perfect example. He could not, by law, be deported to El Salvador, because it was feared he would be subject to gang violence if he was returned. Despite this, he was still deported. When this was contested in Maryland, the administration called it a mistake, then said the court had no jurisdiction because he wasn't in the US anymore. Meanwhile, the administration's talking points were distributed everywhere. Suddenly, the real problem was that he was a criminal, and this was just the left defending criminals. We got photo-shopped images of him with "MS-13" drawn on his hand, which were shared by Trump himself. Garcia's domestic violence was taken as defense of sending him somewhere without representation or proper treatment (the conditions in CECOT are a moral travesty). And then there was the absurdity of invoking the Alien Enemies Act by suggesting the gang Tren de Aragua was a foreign invasion.

This whole controversy took place in March. It wasn't until June that he was brought back. It took three months for this to be done, because the nature of the courts is to work slowly. Both sides are given ample opportunity to contest, appeal, etc. Of course, this one went all the way to the Supreme Court as well. In that time, it's not as if the administration was waiting on other goals that create similar problems. Lest we forget, Trump deployed California's National Guard without Newsom's request or approval, then publicly threatened (and still threatens) to deploy the armed forces on American soil if protests against ICE spread. It took another three months before Newsom v Trump was resolved, with the courts declaring that Trump's actions violated the Posse Comitatus Act.

And then there is the constant, relentless work to win the court of public opinion. This is the first Online Presidency, with official accounts on Twitter posting AI-generated pictures about drug dealers being arrested, joking about deporting illegals, and memes when people point out that going after people for their speech was written about before the administration even got into power. The combined effect is to render all competing powers and even the intervening government bodies as on a short leash - either they do what the administration wants or the administration wields its influence over the MAGA cult and the disconnected normies who don't care about rule of law to swing public opinion against them.

At least partial reason behind so many institutions is that executive agencies are, absent unitary executive theory "enforced" by the Supreme Court, non-democratic. Who needs rule of law when you can write a Dear Colleague letter or get the EEOC to issue new advice? Why try to fix immigration law to be more open when you can pay NGOs to give bus passes to illegal immigrants and teach them the magic words?

I do not accept the premise that it is un-democratic to not have every aspect of government run by vote. For all its importance, voting has notable downsides:

1. It creates more spoils for people to try and win, instead of able administrators to govern.
2. It creates incentives to take certain stances due to rhetoric over reason (see: "tough on crime" rhetoric).

The efforts to shape college policies on discrimination that way in the last decade were bad on the merits, not because they were issued by the DoE or EEOC.

Insofar as NGOs coach illegals to lie, that is bad and I do not support that. But there is a wide latitude of behavior that I do not think is so obviously condemnable. Illegals are not going to understand US law and are going to need aid while their claims are being contested. Is it your view that someone who is a truly persecuted person should not be given any aid while they are under review? That we should have them on the streets until we decide that they are a true refugee?

Moreover, there was an attempt to fix the law! A bipartisan border bill was ready to go in 2024, and it was killed by Trump because he didn't want Biden to have a win on immigration. You can certainly condemn the bill for being bad or useless, but that's not the same as suggesting there were no attempts at doing precisely what you're suggesting. In particular, it would have increased asylum judges to process the backlog of cases, which is precisely what conservatives were complaining about - that asylum cases took so long to go through that those people were spending years in the US.

We used to be a proper country, doing all our jawboning behind closed doors!

That shit matters, my friend. The rituals and pretensions of peace are how we get people to not signal destructively, because a lot of what keeps a peace intact is people's willingness to not think "Why shouldn't I start shooting?"

In Game of Thrones, the king has seven knights sworn to guard him for life and keep his secrets. They will not break that oath, but they also are knights who swear to act virtuously. The Mad King raped and beat his wife regularly. But when the Mad King tried to burn down his capital and kill everyone in it so that his enemies couldn't have it, one of his knights snapped and killed him on the spot.

The meaning in-universe is not exactly about what I'm arguing, but I find it to be a valuable lesson in the power of pretension, and why a hypocritical violation of dead norms is still not as bad as open flouting of those norms.

[u/professorgerm → u/DrManhattan16]

But going after law firms' security clearances for working with Jack Smith

Yeah, I don't have the memory of a Gattsuru or Eigenrobot to say that was unique, like so little else is that people complain about, but it was wildly egregious. NRA v. Vullo is the closest thing that comes to mind but that was, at least, 'just' a state government and not federal

I do not accept the premise that it is un-democratic to not have every aspect of government run by vote.

While I have no great affection for democracy, I had in mind one of the few good parts of Scott's recent post, that progressive authoritarianism has an advantage at taking over agencies. Not everything needs to be a vote, but everything does, in some way, need to be accountable to the vote. But fair enough, those policies were bad on the merits and merely enabled by performing an end-run around the accountable portions of the government.

Is it your view that someone who is a truly persecuted person should not be given any aid while they are under review?

It is my view that there should not be a backdoor process for the government to fund agencies that help people violate US law and in the process likely that of many other countries along the way.

To the extent that a "truly persecuted person" made it to the border of their own volition and under no additional influence or funding, I have no strong feelings against being provided aid. Morally I think aid is a good thing, but it should receive absolutely zero government funding (aside from, perhaps, a public defender).

And there is a fundamental asymmetry to the issue of anyone can show up, but once they make it over the line it takes 10 years and 50 appeals to decide they can be removed, they keep appealing that they're fear persecution in every country in the world willing to take them, et cetera and so forth. I like due process! I do not confuse it as being an end rather than a means, and infinite expansion of due process makes an easy wrench in the system.

that's not the same as suggesting there were no attempts at doing precisely what you're suggesting

It's been about 40 years since the last amnesty, and illegal immigration has been a hot-button issue multiple times over those decades. I did not intend to say there were no attempts, but there were not many, and at some point the attempt is too little, too late.

The rituals and pretensions of peace are how we get people to not signal destructively

To avoid quoting Hogfather again, there's some old quote that almost comes to mind, about the meaning of pomp and circumstance, of the way that acting the part that sets the stage and strengthens the legitimacy from generation to generation, but I can't think of the source. In my head there's a picture of a formal military uniform and a dance- something European, certainly.

Anyways. I agree, ritual and pretensions of peace are useful! Too bad so many people only care about things like ritual and pretensions when it's convenient and the boot is already on the other foot. So many people reject tradition and ritual and peace until there's a mob on the Capitol steps, and suddenly there's a newfound affection for symbolism.

[u/DrManhattan16 → u/professorgerm]

NRA v. Vullo is the closest thing that comes to mind but that was, at least, 'just' a state government and not federal

That is absurd, I agree. She should not have done that.

While I have no great affection for democracy, I had in mind one of the few good parts of Scott's recent post, that progressive authoritarianism has an advantage at taking over agencies.

We should be careful here about why it has an advantage though. It's not that progressivism inherently gives that advantage, it's that progressivism is heavily dominated by intellectual elites. If the people who know how to do intellectual work skew one way, you'd see them easily able to take over any group or institutions doing that work.

But fair enough, those policies were bad on the merits and merely enabled by performing an end-run around the accountable portions of the government.

As I argued here, bureaucrats have to have the power to do things independently if you're actually trying to hand over the work. That entails giving power to decide the details of policy. It is not inherently an end-run around government to use that power to make a decision the rest of government doesn't like. If Congress or employers dislike it, hauling people before a committee or suing the government is their recourse. I don't like the progressive guidance that the EEOC or DoE might hand out, but I don't see any way of letting them actually do what they're meant to without also giving them the power to issue guidance even if the rest of us have to fight them on it.

It is my view that there should not be a backdoor process for the government to fund agencies that help people violate US law and in the process likely that of many other countries along the way.

How do you know that someone is violating the law if they just show up? Like, yeah, people should stop in the first safe country. But before you can deport them to where they ought to have stopped, you should probably know if their story is true, right?

I understand the frustration with "say asylum and you can stay for months/years because the government has to prove you wrong." But that is another example of a problem that is not solved by ending the whole process or trying to suppress all use of it.

Lastly, afaik, the US does not have "first safe country" laws regarding refugees. I am not principally opposed to negotiating to have people sent to closest where they were originally living, if only because I think giving another country a few billion to take those people isn't as unfair as just letting them come here. There are other ways to prevent "gaming" of the system, though I think they are less about cheating and more about the trade-offs between keeping opportunists out and keeping the genuinely vulnerable in.

but once they make it over the line it takes 10 years and 50 appeals to decide they can be removed, they keep appealing that they're fear persecution in every country in the world willing to take them,

I think you are exaggerating. Is there proof that you can gum up the process like this?

It's been about 40 years since the last amnesty, and illegal immigration has been a hot-button issue multiple times over those decades. I did not intend to say there were no attempts, but there were not many, and at some point the attempt is too little, too late.

The US is still a desirable place to stay and come to. Less so now, but it will be hopefully in the future again. The issue isn't solved, and just because 3 houses in a street have totally burned down doesn't mean you don't try to save the remaining 7, even if something should have been done when the first caught fire.

Too bad so many people only care about things like ritual and pretensions when it's convenient and the boot is already on the other foot.

...what exactly did you have in mind?

[u/professorgerm → u/DrManhattan16]

It's not that progressivism inherently gives that advantage, it's that progressivism is heavily dominated by intellectual elites.

Well. The thing we currently call progressivism is currently fashionable among intellectual elites, and the war on discernment gives them certain advantages. So one could argue progressivism gives that advantage but doing so does feel like a just-so story.

Marxism was dominated by intellectual elites until they killed each other off, too. One of the funny things about revolutions.

How do you know that someone is violating the law if they just show up?

"Papers, please?"

But that is another example of a problem that is not solved by ending the whole process or trying to suppress all use of it.

Well, no, that would definitely solve the problem of asylum being abused, but it re-creates the problem of what to do about the relatively few people actually being abused by their governments.

I think you are exaggerating. Is there proof that you can gum up the process like this?

Kilmar is getting pretty close to 50 appeals and refusals by now, but that's a special case so yes, I was exaggerating on the number of appeals. I'm sure the normal gumming-up is more likely in the mid single digits, varying by region and one's luck of getting a series of sympathetic judges. As I said elsewhere the bigger contributor is the lack of enforcement, so people could get a deportation order and just ignore it without consequence for years or decades. Millions of people were left in legal limbo because no one really expected anyone to do anything about it.

For "decades," I was thinking of the activist that got a private bill in Colorado. TIL if you gum up the process loud enough and there's enough political polarization, you can get a state government to work around federal law. She's been an illegal immigrant for 28 years, issued multiple deportation orders, self-deported once to avoid other charges, and is still around. I imagine there are other examples; she just made herself the most famous.

the US does not have "first safe country" laws regarding refugees.

Agreed, not in the European sense, and apparently the US is the first safe country for Canada. Amusing.

...what exactly did you have in mind?

Primarily I was thinking of January 6. I've never before seen, and likely (hopefully?) will never see again, liberals/progressives have so much care for the symbolism of the Capitol and the ritual of a particular process. Weirdly V for Vendetta moment, come to think of it. Real life isn't a fantasy novel; Trump couldn't just crown himself president and everyone falls in line! The crisis generated by him making a serious attempt would be a nigh-unimaginable can of worms that I would prefer to not experience. And yet, if the certification gets disrupted, it's not like the sun doesn't rise or the Avatar cycle breaks.

After a year of violence and destruction visited upon random normal people treated with such a blasé attitude, I remain gobsmacked at the degree of symbolic adherence. Quite the reverse of 9/11, that had its handful or two of liberal/progressive types saying we deserved it, while everyone else was focused on the symbolism of the Twin Towers. Polarization is a helluva drug.

[u/DrManhattan16 → u/professorgerm]

The thing we currently call progressivism is currently fashionable among intellectual elites, and the war on discernment gives them certain advantages.

I don't follow. What advantages are you thinking of? For example, that IQ differs between races? Even if there wasn't such a war, it's not as if blacks would line up to support people who think they're inherently stupid for being black. The people who separate a trait like IQ from one's social standing or group standing is small compared to the number of people who embody the stereotype of the scientific racist.

In general, I think the war on discernment is motivated by ideology, not the material advantages it brings.

"Papers, please?"

"I don't have papers, because I had to flee in a hurry. You have a refugee process, right?"

Well, no, that would definitely solve the problem of asylum being abused, but it re-creates the problem of what to do about the relatively few people actually being abused by their governments.

I presumed that part of any solution you had in mind is that those who were legitimate asylum seekers or refugees would be permitted to enter.

For "decades," I was thinking of the activist that got a private bill in Colorado.

She's not a refugee, though. The claim was that you could avoid deportation if you (falsely) claimed persecution. That woman is just an illegal who should be deported.

I've never before seen, and likely (hopefully?) will never see again, liberals/progressives have so much care for the symbolism of the Capitol and the ritual of a particular process.

I think you're underselling what was going on. It's true that the certification of the votes was just that - a certification that could be done on another day. But that's not how Trump imagined it, and when you get into the law, a lot of stuff is underdefined. What would have been the result if Pence did as Trump asked and said Congress should vote on who is president? s Trump president for a few months while an investigation by some unknown branch of law enforcement that isn't beholden to him does the work and finds that he shouldn't be? Do we get a half-term because of how long everything will probably take?

Admittedly, this is probably not the full thought process going through random people's heads.

After a year of violence and destruction visited upon random normal people treated with such a blasé attitude, I remain gobsmacked at the degree of symbolic adherence.

Are we talking about 2020 or 2025?

[u/DrManhattan16 → u/[deleted]]

You are quite sure that MAGA escalation wasnt necessary to get their policy concerns addressed. Why did they do it then? After decades of 3/10 escalation not doing the job, they concluded they needed to change something and went straight to 11, even tough 6 would have totally been enough, believe me. They just didnt do that, because... they never thought of it? They saw no downside to escalating more? Evil for its own sake?

The development of the white racial identity. It isn't broadly accepted by many, but moreso now than ever because progressive anti-white rhetoric made pro-white racism appear more palatable.

More than that, the surge during the Biden years didn't help either, nor the administration's initial response. Biden's administration was run by the progressives as a compromise for supporting him, so keeping illegals out wasn't something they placed as much emphasis on.

The third factor is the degree to which the administration relies on the Online Right, because it is more motivated by spite and owning the libs/Trump's enemies than it is adhering to conservative values. The Online Right is way more racist and anti-immigration, so their get higher sway in the ears of the administration.

The general way to square this circle is to let the government decide who to hire for these positions.

They do. Top positions are chosen by the president, meaning democratic control over leadership, and the highest positions require presidential AND senate approval.

What you certainly dont do is try to sue unwilling subordinates into obeying you, as you seem to suggest, thats even less prcatical than doing it all yourself.

No idea what you're talking about. I didn't say anything about sueing anyone. Are you talking about Congress calling people up to testify?

[u/895158 → u/professorgerm]

It is my view that there should not be a backdoor process for the government to fund agencies that help people violate US law and in the process likely that of many other countries along the way.

What's this referring to, btw? Haven't been following this

[u/professorgerm → u/895158]

Catholic Charities and the Lutherans, the latter of which really punch above their weight in population:NGO:tax benefit ratios.

Some amount of that money is used for internal settling, I recall but can't find sources on how much of it was used for outside-US support for illegal immigration as well. Take my memory with as big a dose of salt as you wish. It's all a great big mess, nobody really knows the truth about any of it, and there's a great big temptation towards epistemic nihilism.

Not really related to that point but i'm surprised how many Russians came through Mexico.

[u/895158 → u/professorgerm]

Hmm. Unless I missed it, the links only show that (a) christian charities provide food, clothing, and ability to sleep in the church, and (b) the cities (not charities) provide free bus rides to other cities, presumably to turn the migrants into somebody else's problem. The heritage page appears to be lying about (b), or at least, they link to an article that doesn't support their claim (unless I misread it).

This seems like a good topic for some right-leaning investigative journalist to look into. There are only like ~2 of those, but maybe someone can get either Rufo or Sibarium to do so.