I don't get how France can function at all with this simplistic presidential election system where the candidate with the most votes wins the election.
Laugh all you want, but the media's using maps to push the red-blue concept, among other factors, has helped a lot of people get a very wrong impression of how the two-party electoral system works.
I mean even the founders thought the Senate was a bad idea. It passed by one vote, and a lot of the yeas were from people who didn't like the setup either.
A million tiny behavioral changes in mass personal behavior induced via weird experiments--sure beats big policy shifts annoying to gigantic monopolies!
On nudges and climate change. (Note: These will hardly do all that needs to be done, but "Better is good," as former President Obama likes to say.)
@BarackObama
Hope Hicks's texts on Jan 6, as reported, tell the story of the kind of alienation that had people like her working for Trump in the first place: she's infuriated only that her future job opportunities may now be tanking.
Nobody knows what's going to happen--obviously a replacement could lose--but the current situation is so unprecedented that there can't be any historical evidence for the political prediction asserted as ironclad fact in the quote. Where are historians getting this stuff?
"If you change a presidential nominee at this point in the game, the candidate loses."
@HC_Richardson
weighs the aftermath of
@JoeBiden
’s disastrous debate, and argues that excessive coverage eclipses the fact that his opponent is "trying to destroy our country."
Many historians and others have been pointing out that you can judge people like Columbus harshly--by the standards of their own day--if you only widen the frame and include judgments made in the day by the oppressed.
When people say "the founders deliberately raised a number of barriers against majorities," they're right, putting it mildly; the Senate itself was one such barrier. Subjecting the Senate to supermajority procedure wasn't part of it, through.
You could speak your mind in the 50s as long as what was on your mind was God, Mom, apple pie, and killing Communists. How does anyone not remember this.
I linked to this depressingly ten-year-old piece on how to read the
#SecondAmendment
the other day--just reposted it on BAD HISTORY, with a few new notes.
There's no percentage in arguing against the "it's a republic, not a democracy" line when what the right is really attacking are the basic structures of republics.
The "reasonable citizens" thing sounds good--a feature, let's face it, of the civics education a lot of us got--but being reasonable isn't really how the country got here, or persisted, and going on dreaming it is may be at least as dangerous as whatever he's warning us about.
Conservative author Andrew Sullivan says the January 6 insurrection, "is a huge warning to how unstable our system can be if we remain tribalists in a system that's supposed to be designed for reasonable citizens."
Sullivan talks with Scott Pelley, Sunday
A system where massive policy decisions regarding people's individual rights to control their own bodies comes down to whether one aged, ill person dies or retires at the proper moment is justly the envy of the world.
Democrats after 2016, when Trump lost the popular vote, were posting the red/blue map of the country and screaming on social media that we're now an embattled minority drowning in red.
"When citing precedent means groping at some hegemonic national spirit, supposedly moving in history, the purpose of history goes chillingly wrong and the idea of precedent, invoked so sententiously in the legal profession, turns into a sick joke."
The crimes evidenced during the hearings on the events of Jan. 6 are indeed crimes against democracy--but they're also crimes against the most conservative definitions of republican government itself.
This tuneless tune with the lamest imaginable lyrics, generically adequate playing, anticharismatic performance, and flat-out awful vocals has libs and rightists agreeing that it's aesthetically good so they can argue about the politics.
Maybe Congress's abdicating its authority to the other branches means we've been in a dissociated state of constitutional crisis for longer than we can remember.
"This book reveals a knockdown, drag-out, and often violent class war that hid in plain sight over what kind of economy America should have. It makes for as riveting a story as any hip-hop Broadway musical."
-- Rick Perlstein (Nixonland and Reaganland)
It's not just historians. It's like this whole generation of US intellectuals have decided they'd prefer to be political consultants to presidential candidacies and use their ability to publish to do nothing but audition for that job again and again and again.
Tom Lehrer predicted this. Either they think a "no-fly zone" is a force field that can be installed to disallow flying, or they think they can cover a bilateral war between the US and Russia, or both?
Todd: Why rule out the no-fly zone? Why not make Putin think it's possible?
Blinken, after a long explanation: "...For everything we're doing for Ukraine, the president also has a responsibility to not get us into a direct conflict, a direct war with Russia, a nuclear power..."
Everyone who follows me on here must already know that American independence passed the Congress on July 4 1776 only because a working-class coup overthrew the duly elected government of Pennsylvania, but for God's sake tell your friends!
The best-informed people seem uninterested in connecting Hamilton's and Madison's explicit anti-minoritarianism regarding voting processes in elite-elected procedural bodies with their manifest anti-majoritarianism regarding expressions of the will of the whole people.
Re the founders'--not concerns about--but full-on opposition to democracy--an opposition not to "pure" democracy but to representation of the wrong kind of people--it's not that they randomly hated it but specifically that it was threatening their vast pecuniary ambitions.
Great Compromises, while possibly necessary, will always come back to bite you in the ass. That's why they shouldn't be unamendable, like the equal suffrage of the Senate.
If you want to get all originalist about gun rights, you'll find that originally--like in the days of William and Mary and the English Bill of Rights--they were meaningless then, too.
Objections to this post equate stuff outside judges' houses to MAGA COVID-rule protests of 2020. I actually say it can be hard to tell peaceable from intimidating--but man, if there were ever a bright line, it would lie between those two phenomena!
It's been almost overwhelmingly challenging to transform institutions explicitly founded in the US for the purpose of defeating democracy into democratic institutions. Given that, we've done amazingly well, but there's only so far it can go without snapping back.
Pretty damn interesting after all these years to see open conflict between the old Clinton-GWB-Obama Hamilton-cult economic affairs people and the policies of the current administration.
“Now, I conceive that the President ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic.” —George Mason, 1788
People conceding--or asserting--that the guy can sing has become the only thing that freaks me out about the song. It's as if nobody's heard country and folk vocals before and has nothing to compare it to--but I know that can't be it.
Wrote about rich men north of Richmond, ‘authenticity,’ Jason Aldean and how triggering the libs about country songs feels a bit like the right trying to do their own gangster rap. Also, pointed out that Oliver Anthony can really sing.
Pretty sure there's not another venue on earth but the Lehmann TNR that would have paid to publish--and brilliantly edit and fact check--my long piece on the long impact of the post-WWII consensus view of the US founding.
I keep thinking people have gotten terrifyingly stupider--like the deputy commissioner with the terrorism book--but remember that in the '50s HUAC called in a Group Theater member and asked if Christopher Marlowe was a member of the Communist Party.
On the hot mess that always was the Second Amendment, I'm going to test the patience of the paying subscribers of HOGELAND'S BAD HISTORY and do an exclusive digging a bit deeper into the specific grammar and history that Scalia got so wrong--coming later this week.
@HotlineJosh
In his own time, Columbus was investigated for atrocities by a Spanish court official, Francisco de Bobadilla, who was so appalled he had Columbus arrested and shipped back to Spain in irons. The Crown then stripped him of his governorship based on the reports of his cruelty.
"What was "rooted in tradition" was women’s inequality. Abortion on demand went to those roots and cut them. . . . In the United States in 1973, that is, came a critical moment in an epochal shift. So there’s some national history."
"Federal judges’ invoking history by quoting the Federalist Papers—in the real past a propaganda effort—as if they were authoritative on the Constitution’s meaning is totally ahistorical."
“The Constitution vests the power of declaring War with Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject, and authorised such a measure.”
—George Washington
So maybe this is good, in a sad way. It's out in the open now that the system is what it is and democracy is something you have to advocate for. A lot of powerful interests have never liked it.
Why isn't there good TV drama about the founding period? I think it's because "dark" and "offbeat"-- qualities prized in prestige streaming and characteristic of the period, raise anxieties here.
I mean obviously G. Washington wanted peaceful transitions. But not everything he had to say about government made a ton of sense. One way you have peaceful transitions is to have rival political parties, not rival armies. Britain had already gone through that.
Christopher Caldwell's got a piece saying the original crimes in Watergate really weren't that big a deal, and that's partly true compared to say Iran-Contra, but his backstory totally leaves out RMN's crime in the '68 election, which starts the whole break-in culture.
I've got this idea that if "checks and balances"--so often just a wildly imbalanced check on the economic interests of the people--has validity and can work for people's betterment, then it means that in crises like this, the branches have to threaten one another's tranquility.
#OTD
in
#history
, 1786, Daniel Shays led a rebellion of farmers, veterans, & debtors that sent shockwaves across the
#USA
. Though in
#Massachusetts
, its cause was rooted in the failures of the Articles of Confederation: an imperfect government that inhibited a more perfect Union.
Williams of Claremont: "...the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was meant to fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence for Black Americans coming out of segregation." Reflexive reference to the Declaration, non-ref. to post- Civil War amendments.
@jbouie
I'm really pretty sure that the answer, while crude and sweeping, is that none of it makes any sense and was all created in the context of disingenuous political efforts to get certain things done in the short term.
When John Adams disparaged Hamilton's birthplace as a remote speck on the map, for example, he was being preposterous. Compared to freakin' Quincy, the British Caribbean was the center of an economic universe.
Look at it my way, we might finally be able to let the authors of the Declaration off the failure-of-ideals hook. But we'd also have to accept things' being even worse, in 1776, than we like to imagine.
The reason I get why experts on the Civil War see current politics through the lens of the Civil War is that I see current politics through the lens of the Whiskey Rebellion.
Washington's farewell address was published on this date, launching what later came to be taken as a two-term tradition, made law after FDR broke the tradition. But it wasn't GW's intention to start such a tradition, according to some interesting scholarship by Bruce G. Peabody.
Hello, newcomers. Before I lose you with my actual tweets, let it be known that I write page-turning ripsnorting dissenting, character-driven narratives of the nation's past for general readers:
Whether the founders' Constitution was essentially antislavery or baked the institution into the national founding kind of depends on...how you look at it. That is, what features you emphasize and then argue from, and why. The nature and purpose of the argument becomes the thing.
All this "better angels" stuff is from the speech where Lincoln said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
Teachers union president does NOT know her history. Jefferson, among others, questioned slavery. The 3/5 rule was actually the anti-slavery position. The south wanted to count those they enslaved fully so as to gain more representation in the House and continue their oppression.
Tomorrow, I will be interviewing
@robert_zubrin
, president of The Mars Society & author of "The Case for Mars" for
@Quillette
. Questions for my guest? 🚀🧑🏽🚀
Good stuff: "...is it a privilege to depend on credit cards that are charging you twenty-two per cent interest? . . . [parsing the minutiae of people’s respective privilege is] not actually helpful."
For Labor Day, I complain about the Constitution, remembering that the majority opinion that the founders wanted to check and balance meant the opinion of labor.
@MattZeitlin
But the musical emerged *from* the party's process beginning in the Carter administration, developed explicitly in Clinton-Rubin's "third-way" ethos repeated by Obama, of shifting aspirations away from labor and toward a supposedly racially equitable high finance corporatism.
Right now, the President and the House *should* be going totally over the top in outrageous exercises of the power of their branches to chip away at the sweeping nature of Court's decisions. *That's* checks and balances.
I don't know what planet it is where the mayor of NYC thinks it's his job to pursue the policy, regarding students attending university in NYC, that "we can't allow our children to be radicalized."
"To fight antisemitism we must crack down on the rootless, Soros-backed cosmopolite Cultural Marxists who have infiltrated our great American institutions" is a new one on me, I admit. Luckily, wasn't born yesterday.
This tweet and the explorations and exchanges throughout the replies raise a lot of interesting and possibly pretty urgent questions about nationhood, shared public experience, unity and disunity, and even whether the US can be said to be a nation.
Nations require common, shared experiences and the "history wars" are a proxy for the bigger problem that Americans haven't had a shared experience since World War II. No amount of revising curriculums will change that.