4
votes
Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of October 17
This thread is posted weekly - please try to post all relevant US political content in here, such as news, updates, opinion articles, etc. Extremely significant events may warrant a separate topic, but almost all should be posted in here.
This is an inherently political thread; please try to avoid antagonistic arguments and bickering matches. Comment threads that devolve into unproductive arguments may be removed so that the overall topic is able to continue.
Voters See Democracy in Peril, but Saving It Isn’t a Priority
It's interesting seeing this person talk about "both sides" not agreeing on facts, when really the issue is that the new GOP simply refuses to accept facts. Facts aren't something you negotiate and decide to agree on. They simply exist.
Yeah, no, elections are a good example of why naive realism like "facts simply exist" doesn't work. Election systems are complicated because it's often hard to agree on facts. For example, manual vote counts, and allowing partisan observers for the vote counting, are ways of hopefully gaining consensus that the votes were counted correctly.
Agreement on facts doesn't simply happen. People need to do work to make it happen, and cooperation makes it easier.
The problem is that once they are counted correctly, there's no reason we should be still having a conversation with republican election deniers about the 2020 vote. Biden won, and that's simply a fact. And yet here we are going into an election where the majority of republicans running refuse to acknowledge a fact. The fact that Biden won does simply exist.
I mean, it's like you read my post explaining why it's not simple, and then ignored it.
This feels uncharacteristically uncharitable of you, skybrian.
@FrankGrimes isn't saying "agreeing on facts is easy when both parties are interested in the truth" -- he's saying that there won't be any arrival at truth when one party has discarded the concept of truth in the first place.
A strong majority of Republicans still reject the results of the 2020 election. A majority of Republican nominees for the 2022 midterms have denied or questioned the outcome of the 2020 election.
Furthermore, these groups have not meaningfully shifted in the face of a preponderance of evidence that the election results were accurate -- nor have they produced meaningful evidence to the contrary.
If multiple parties are mutually interested in arriving at truth, then the type of work you describe can be meaningful and productive. However, if even one party in that group has rejected that value, then the type of work you describe is counterproductive. It provides legitimacy that falsehoods are valid positions to hold or are merely differences of opinion. Furthermore, it exhausts limited resources in an attempt to achieve an outcome that the party in question was never actually willing to arrive at in the first place.
Consensus cannot be achieved unless all people involved value both truth and the good of the whole group itself, and the Republican party has chosen to discard both of those. This is not a political hot take. This is the current state of our country. Close to half of us have become completely unmoored from truth and democratic values. We will not solve that with good faith cooperation.
I love your clear & well articulated thoughts.
Looking at 2020, I agree with you. Absurd claims require a preponderance of evidence, and the claim that many Republicans stood by while an election was stolen in favor of Biden is absurd.
Looking forwards, I agree with @skybrian. When election deniers control the count, the certification and the adjudication of disputes, I'm not sure how reliable the facts will be.
I didn't think about it from that perspective. That's a really good point.
Also, sorry @skybrian for pouncing on you.
Thanks! (Still thinking about what I want to say.)
You're describing the process of discovering facts (counting votes with observers), where I'm saying once a fact exists, there's no more cooperation or agreement needed - it simply exists (completed vote count with a winner). If I get into an argument with a flat earther, I'm not going to have a back and forth until we both eventually compromise on the earth being a square.
(I'm responding to @kfwyre as well, but I'll just write one post.)
What's a "simple fact?" I think that in practice, it's something you can look up without much worry about getting it wrong. If you want to know the state capital of California, you can do a search, get "Sacramento," and stop there.
What kind of fact is this? It's not a physical fact; rather, it's the result of a political agreement. You were saying that it's "not something you negotiate and decide to agree on." But the state capital was determined through a political process, and there were several state capitals before it became Sacramento in 1854. (Although, it seems San Francisco was briefly the state capital in 1862 due to flooding.)
I think what you meant to say is that it's not something anyone can negotiate now because the election is over. One of the main advantages of democracy is that there is a process for the losing side to accept that they lost, without anyone getting killed. When that trust breaks down and losing is unacceptable, people will want to fight on regardless, which can go on indefinitely in extreme cases. (See Israel and Palestine.)
Though it looked iffy for a while, that didn't happen in the US in 2020. I think it's unlikely that anyone is confused about who is in the White House. Whether Biden "won" isn't really the thing being disputed.
But "was the 2020 election fair" isn't a simple fact you can look up. (Gripes about the electoral college would be one reason to see US presidential elections as unfair, though that's not a gripe expressed by Republicans.)
Kfwyre cites a PolitiFact article that cites a survey where people were asked whether they "agree that Biden was legitimately elected." Since it's a survey, we don't know what people meant by "legitimate" but this is unlikely to be interpreted in a legalistic way. People who are still upset about it aren't going to say he's legitimate. And they're going to support political candidates who also express this sense of grievance.
It's a matter of escalating rhetoric that some people say the election was "stolen," as a way of expressing a grievance. I'm not sure it should be taken any more literally than religious "facts?"
I think a more straightforward case of denying a fact was the Obama "birther" conspiracy, but I think it was also done out of a sense of grievance. (And perhaps trolling.)
So yes, I think in some cases it's like arguing with flat earthers, or like arguing with people about their religious beliefs. But abandoning your religion isn't a simple thing. It's not like one day people decide to look up the answer in Wikipedia and discover that their religion is a sham.
Generally speaking, if it's someone you want to have a relationship with, I think it's better to talk around the problem and to look for things you can agree on, rather than confronting people on whatever you think is weirdest about their beliefs. I'm not an expert on election procedures and I'm not sure what I could say to change people's minds. (Futhermore, I don't really want to do a deep dive on election procedures.)
I appreciate this clarification, skybrian.
I don’t disagree with anything that you’ve said. Facts and truth aren’t necessarily easy to come by. I think that where we don’t see eye to eye is that I still think there’s a vast gulf between the kind of good-faith doubt that you describe and the bad-faith lies and misinformation that I have seen directly from the Republican Party.
I don’t think the idea that truth is hard excuses deliberate or malicious untruths, and that is what much of those beliefs are built on. I see it especially with anti-trans rhetoric from the right. They are not saying “hey, we have some understandable doubts and confusion on this complicated and complex topic”. They’re saying “we’re absolutely certain” about things that are certifiably wrong.
In fact, and I hope I don’t go to far in saying this outright, but I think they take advantage of people like you in particular who give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that their position comes from a reasoned, intellectualized thought process rather than just outright prejudice. It incentivizes you to post lateral defenses of their behavior like you have here because you genuinely are principled and think through your positions deeply and earnestly.
Likewise, I hope this is not too forward of me, but I also think it’s important to note that, in doing so, you end up laundering some hatred or misinformation for them and making it sound more palatable than it actually is (not intentionally, of course). If what we were witnessing were genuine doubt about the election, we wouldn’t see it in such strong numbers, we’d see it wane over time, we’d see less of a partisan slant, and we’d see it appear in previous elections that used the same methods as well.
Instead what we’re seeing is grievance, which is what you identified, and the grievance of much of the right is based in hatred. Not all of it, of course, but a whole lot of it. That was Trump’s whole schtick and is why he’s still so beloved by so many: he gave permission to people to indulge their hatreds.
Also, I feel that I have to point out something that’s bothered me for years on this topic (and this is not at all specific to you, skybrian): there’s always a fundamental imbalance when it comes to the whole left vs. right, anti-Trump stuff. It’s this: pointing out extremism gets seen as alarmism, while actually being extremist gets softened by compassion.
Because it’s a good thing to be open-minded, caring, and understanding, I’m expected to be kind and thoughtful regarding people who are actively voting to take away the rights of me, my friends, and people like us across the country. I’m expected to take a stroll in the shoes of people who are eroding our dignity and fomenting hatred towards us. I should really consider their perspective, you know?
This. Is. Not. Reciprocated.
There is not a comparable expectation on them to do the same. I look like an asshole if I don’t do it, but they get a pass and escape scrutiny.
It’s especially bad when there’s specific actions I can point to — like passing an anti-trans bill. If I simply point out exactly what they are already doing in plain language, the judgment tends to fall on me for some reason. I’m either a Chicken Little who’s making a mountain out of molehill, or I’m an unkind, close-minded asshole who can’t even consider someone else’s feelings for once. It can be hard to accept trans people, you know?
Meanwhile, 23 states have introduced anti-LGBT bills this year. 13 more have actually passed them.
This year.
EDIT: Woke up to this. A proposed national “Don’t Say Gay” bill.
Its sponsor, a Republican in the House:
This is the kind of shit I’m talking about.
Those bills are not a product of doubt or the difficulty of arriving at truth. Anyone supporting these bills could be informed on this topic easily if they chose to. They’re also not coming from a place of thoughtful consideration for my beliefs, opinions, and experiences — the kind of thoughtful consideration I’ll be judged for if I don’t give it to them.
Those bills are coming from a place of malice that’s buttressed by prejudice and emboldened by an imbalance of scrutiny.
That indictment is not true of every Republican out there, of course, but it doesn’t have to be every one of them. It just has to be a small, select few that make the laws and then a much larger coalition that goes along with them. Not everyone — maybe not even most — of the people in that group are explicitly hateful.
That’s little salve to people like me though, because if the outcome based on that hatred is achieved, then it doesn’t matter how many people genuinely believe in it. The effect is the same either way.
I think this is where we differ so much in how we look at this. I don’t want to speak for you, but I can’t help but imagine you might feel similarly if they were voting on you directly. What I’m about to ask is not a challenge or some flashy rhetoric to make a point — I’m hoping for the same intellectual compassion you offered in your comment and am trying to ask this as earnestly as plain text will allow me to convey: If you found out that 13 states wanted to make life harder for you so much that they passed laws against you specifically, would you look at that as simply a misunderstanding or a difference of opinion on their part?
I've talked about interacting with people who are election deniers, but here on Tildes, I don't think the reciprocity argument directly applies because we're not interacting with them. Seeking to understand the world better is something we can do for ourselves.
I'm wary of partisan caricatures because I suspect they're often inaccurate. In particular, there's a tendency to demonize the enemy. The example that particularly comes to mind is the story about Iraqi soldiers ripping Kuwaiti babies out of incubators, which was used to justify the US invasion of Iraq.
During the early days of the Russian invasion of Ukraine I was particularly wary of this; I figured that it's in the Ukrainian interest to exaggerate Russian atrocities, and who will care about defending Russians? So I was looking for more solid proof of things. (It's still in the Ukrainian interest to exaggerate somewhat, but evidence has piled up.)
I think there are plenty of reasons to exaggerate about Trumpists so I tend to push back against sweeping statements. That's not evidence, though, it's just wariness about our own bad tendencies. Yes, making people seem more reasonable than they actually are is inaccurate too; better to round towards uncertainty when we don't really know.
Although my own curiosity is limited, I suspect that people who are still curious and are trying to understand are going to do a better job of it than people who really aren't anymore. (This would be true if you're studying religious believers or flat earthers too. I think it's true of just about anything.)
So, that's what I look for. What can we learn from people who are still curious? That's the sort of discussion that I'd like to promote. I get irritated by what seem to be curiosity-stopping declarations, though showing my irritation probably doesn't help either.
My direct evidence of what Trumpists are like is pretty limited, though, due to my own hermit tendencies, particular since the pandemic started. Meme-sharing on Facebook only goes so far, and my memories from growing up with conservative friends and relatives are pretty out of date.
I do tend to compare what I read to what I remember about them, though. Back when it was Fox news and Rush Limbaugh, I don't remember them being curious about the world or careful about evidence either. That doesn't mean they had no moral compasses, though they were often quite faulty.
I think that politicians who are trying to pass terrible laws are proposing them because they think they will be popular with their base. I think it's also good to remember that many laws are proposed that have no hope of passing, for political reasons. (Consider the many failed "attempts" to repeal Obamacare.) Also, sometimes these politicians overreach, as we saw when the Kansas abortion referendum was defeated.
More attempts may yet succeed. It's not something I'm actively interested in tracking, but it would be useful to read about their chances from reporters who know how the politics really works in various state capitals and Washington.
It seems similar to how we can talk about the situation in Ukraine with both an understanding that the invasion is a terrible, ongoing atrocity and an understanding that, although there is a lot of idiocy involved, the Russians aren't complete idiots.
Ideally we'd have more discussions like we do about Ukraine. There are a lot of people who really want to know what's happening there, so we can read about it too. But what gets attention is going to depend on interest.
Edit: I realized that I never answered your question. I think that malice exists and such laws are probably evidence of malice. I also think that the conditions resulting in support for such things are fed by ignorance and misunderstanding and deliberate myth-making; at a basic level there is the creation and spread of nasty memes and other nonsense to and by people who are receptive to such memes.
Not ignoring this; I mean to respond later, but I'm thinking over what was a pretty off-the-cuff reaction.
No worries - I re-read the whole thing - I think we may be talking about two different ideas, hence the crossed wires.
Google “hanging chad,” there young’un.
As bogus as the Supreme Court's ruling was, that debate was never seriously about the facts. Everyone agreed the election was tight, there were an unusually large number of votes that could swing the election in a recount, and that the uncounted votes were not counted due to hanging chads.
In fact, I am increasingly sympathetic to the Supreme Courts (legally bullshit) argument that they did not want to bog the country down in endless appeals and have the courts be the final arbitruers of truth, in the case a recount swung the election the other way due to hanging chads.
Edit
I think there is an important yet subtle distinction between 2000 & 2020. In a large, complex system like America's, there is always a margin of error. A recount will change the facts. But only a little. The entire process for finding facts is designed around this simple assumption.
2000 was a legal debate about if this process should even play out. The Supreme Court said, yeah, we are happy our guy won, lets move on, but this in no way sets a precedent, so if our guy doesn't win next time our ruling won't constrain us with any precedent. That isn't a debate about facts.
2020 introduced wild, unsubstantiated claims that America lacks a free and clear electoral system. Also not a debate about facts, curiously enough, because one side simply ignored the facts and focused on unsubstantiated allegations on the internet.
Some random midterm related news:
Body Cam Footage Shows Confused Floridians Arrested for Voting as DeSantis Cracks Down (RollingStone)
Georgia breaks first-day early voting record, nearly doubles figure from last midterms (CNBC)
Covert network provides pills for thousands of abortions in U.S. post Roe (Washington Post)
[...]
[...]
(It's a long read with stories that I've left out here.)
Previously: Banning abortions will not stop abortions
Prosecutors want Bannon sentenced to six months
Possibly of interest. Tyler Cowen is a libertarian economist who attempts to explain the New Right (they are not his beliefs):
Classical liberalism vs. The New Right