Balkinization: Brexit, Farage, Mississippi, and secession

Comments:

I suspect the implications re: Brexit and American secession movements are probably too subtle for your general Trump voter. OTOH, to the extent they are aware of Brexit, I feel confident that they understand it precisely through the lens of "animosity toward the European Union" and no doubt appreciate that the vote was "based substantially on xenophobia and racism." Thus, what Farage brings to our contemporary discussion is not so much a substantive element, as a a non-subtle nod to those very forces that animate Trump's ardent supporters.

# posted by

Drogon Saurischian : 7:19 PM

Squid Vicious inks well " ... the message that ... [is] being sent by the entrance of Nigel Farage to the contemporary American political stage." It's encouraging that the first comment is relevant to the discussion Sandy seeks with this post.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 7:52 PM

Do you have any idea, any idea at all, just how tiresome this is getting? I mean this whole phenomenon of it not being enough to think your candidate on net better, but also insisting on denying the opposition candidate every virtue, and attributing to him every vice?

It's not enough to disagree with his policies, he has to be a fascist, a bad businessman, personally loathsome, with bad breath and athete's foot. Honestly, I picture you frothing as you shout at the monitor while typing this nonsense.

I realize it's something of a time hallowed tradition; Every Republican nominee from Wendel Wilkie to this day has been denounced as another Hitler. But I'm starting to get the impression you actually believe it! And that worries me.

# posted by

Brett : 7:53 PM

That said, (And, yes, it had to be said.) yes, we are not unclear about the implications of Brexit for American secession. America is a federation, and federations work best with a large dose of subsidiary. If those who claw their way to the top can't bear the thought of not making all the decisions for everybody, perhaps we should peacefully part ways.

# posted by

Brett : 8:02 PM

I think Squid answered the question correctly in the first comment.

America is a federation

Damn, I've been saying the Pledge of Allegiance wrong all these years.

# posted by

Mark Field : 9:32 PM

First of all Nigel Farage is a coward. Once winning Brexit and decimating the UK economy, he and Boris Johnson stepped down from their previous leadership positions in UKIP and becoming Prime Minister respectively. It internationalizes the Alt-Right, or by its proper name: white supremacy. It hearkened back to Ronald Reagan deliberately starting his presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi mere blocks from the site where three Civil Rights workers - 21-year-old black Mississippian, James Chaney, and two white New Yorkers, Andrew Goodman, 20, and Michael Schwerner, 24 - were murdered for registering black voters. From info please: "They had been working to register black voters in Mississippi during Freedom Summer and had gone to investigate the burning of a black church. They were arrested by the police on trumped-up charges, imprisoned for several hours, and then released after dark into the hands of the Ku Klux Klan, who beat and murdered them. It was later proven in court that a conspiracy existed between members of Neshoba County's law enforcement and the Ku Klux Klan to kill them."

As much as I disdain Donald Trump, it is unethical for any medical or psychiatric professional to diagnose anyone with a malady or disorder that is not their patient. We can have an "opinion" Trump is a Narcissist, but even boors like him and the rest of us deserve the right to seek help in confidentiality and due process.

The biggest problem with Trump is allowing him to dissemble and obfuscate without question from the main stream media and enabling from right-wing media. Once he brought in Steve Bannon and the alt-right, his denial of bigotry should be aggressively challenged and exposed for the evil on our republic that it is.

# posted by

physics4thecool : 6:08 AM

"Damn, I've been saying the Pledge of Allegiance wrong all these years."

No, you've probably been saying it right, it's just that the Pledge itself is a lie. Go look at the definition of "federation", and then read the 10th amendment. The US is a federation.

The idea that it's a nation, and joining it was irreversible, has been promoted by opponents of secession. But it really has little basis beyond naked assertion. Nothing in the Constitution actually speaks to the matter, except the 10th amendment by implication. (The Constitution being silent on the matter, secession is thus a state power.)

# posted by

Brett : 6:44 AM

"Do you have any idea, any idea at all, just how tiresome this is getting? I mean this whole phenomenon of it not being enough to think your candidate on net better, but also insisting on denying the opposition candidate every virtue, and attributing to him every vice?"

Brett, are you really so unself-aware that you would make this statement unironically? You don't get that you're the mirror image of what you're describing? The guy who almost turrets-like has to yell 'multiple felon' at the trigger of hearing Hillary's name, who insists that the fact that she's not been jailed is the end of the Republic, etc? Wow.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 7:49 AM

I wish more conservatives would come out publicly against the Pledge of Allegiance.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 7:50 AM

As to the subject, I think here's what the invite means to Trump: Trump sees himself as an anti-establishment outsider who has and will defy the prognosticacians of the elite, he sees the Brexit vote as a similar phenomenon, so he likes to connect the two. Anything deeper than that is giving him far too much credit for depth.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 7:52 AM

I've never accused Hillary of being a bad mother, for instance. I'm rather dubious about the idea that she has some enormous medical problem she's hiding, beyond just being elderly. I'm sure she has her own set of virtues. She just happens to be a criminal. Some people are, you know.

Here's the thing: The Clintons have had this stench about them from their days in Arkansas. They've been embroiled in scandals from the time they were just local pols. They claim that it's because the GOP early on decided to run an enormous decades long smear campaign against them. But, why only them, if the GOP was capable of that sort of thing?

The simpler explanation for why there's the stench about them, is that they stink. Political corruption is a thing, you know. It happens. So the idea that the Clintons just happen to be continually embroiled in scandals because they're corrupt isn't some out of the blue fantasy. It's the reasonable conclusion from the evidence, which Democrats simply reject for partisan reasons.

Trump, by contrast: Who thought he was a sociopathic fascist with BO, before he got the Republican nomination? Nobody I know of. It's just so predictable: EVERY Republican nominee suddenly becomes a monster once the primaries are past. No exceptions.

It gets a little more traction this year, because the Republican establishment are pissed off that for once they didn't get to dictate the nominee, and so want Trump to go down in flames, and help with the smears. But it's all so predictable.

I'm tired of it.

# posted by

Brett : 8:25 AM

Brett, who professes to be a professional engineer (as well as an anarcho libertarian and a 2nd A absolutist), provides the alt/right con-federation view of the Constitution which replaced the Articles of Confederation, utilizing like legos his "implications" of the 10th A to restore the federation to nowhere. Recall the requirement of the Articles for 100% agreement by the states for amendment, and thus by "implication" no secession otherwise.

Brett has olfactory problems. In my youth Lifebuoy provided a solution. But Lifebuoy cannot address that deep hatred within Brett..

Before Trump became a candidate in 2015 for 2016, many thought of Trump as a sociopathic narcissist - not specifically as a fascist - as set forth in a recent NYTimes Book Section review of several books on The Donald pre- and post-candidacy.

Rather than the Republican establishment, it is Brett who is all so predictable, going back to his youthful days in his racist Northern Michigan community Some never wean, rather they become whiners. So, will Brett lead a SCar second secessionist movement?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 9:02 AM

I appreciate the two new voices even if one pushed back on the label. The professor wants to focus comments, which is appreciated, but it's somewhat of an uphill battle especially when not everyone is going to support his strong language.

It's his blog, but just saying. Anyway, I also think the first response and Mr. W. both have some truth to them.

# posted by

Joe : 9:51 AM

BTW, Trump was a candidate for a bit in 2000 (for Mr. W's Reform Party) & William F. Buckley had a few adjectives that sound familiar. I'll cite that for something else -- it's not something many would know from the coverage.

# posted by

Joe : 9:53 AM

Did anyone not see that Brett's response re: his constant carping about Hillary's shortcomings would be 'but in her case it's deserved!!!!' Thus say all partisans, every four years, about the other side's candidate...

There's an archive of posts here, aren't there? Did Sandy refer to Romney as a narcissistic sociopath and a fascist four years ago? I don't recall him doing that. And look, if you can't see a difference in the tone and substance of Romney and Trump I don't know what to say (in fact, I'm betting you not only see such a difference but see it as an important feature, not a bug!). I've said before I don't think of Trump as either a sociopath or fascist so far, but I'm not going to pretend that he's a very different kind of candidate, one who is bound to be unusually offputting and threatening to many. That's his entire schtick!

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 9:55 AM

pretend that he's not a very different kind of candidate, that is

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 9:57 AM

You see, this is why secession is becoming a live option: The left is no longer capable of accepting that there are good faith disagreements, that it's possible to disagree with them without being a monster of some sort. That there are legitimate viewpoints apart from their own.

And so, the left, viewing this as a crusade against absolute evil, has to prevail on everything. Losing on anything is simply inadmissible. And in the war against absolute evil, any tactic goes. There's nothing you can do that doesn't leave you better than the opposition.

I don't see how coexistence is possible under these conditions. Either one side crushes the other, or we go our separate ways.

But, of course, absolute evil can't be allowed to go its separate way, now, can it? I don't see this ending well.

# posted by

Brett : 9:58 AM

Go look at the definition of "federation", and then read the 10th amendment. The US is a federation.

I've done both. It's not a federation, it's a nation (as Hamilton, among others, said from the beginning).

The Constitution being silent on the matter, secession is thus a state power.

The Constitution is silent on many things, but that doesn't make them "state powers". For example, the Constitution is silent on whether the President can fire his appointees. That doesn't mean the states, jointly or severally, have that power.

# posted by

Mark Field : 9:58 AM

The message being sent by introducing NF is to remind voters that, perhaps the TNS is what happens when conservatism mangles itself into a caricature, liberals are just as well capable of taking a (laudable, perhaps) platform and mangling it into the EU.

# posted by

SlightlyLessHairyApe : 10:13 AM

It suits the ego of academics like Levinson and self-satisfied smart guys like Brett alike to treat American politics as a battle involving individuals, ideas, semantics and questions of "what it all means?".

Thankfully, though, that is not how politics works. Nigel Farage has a British accent. He sounds smart. Much smarter than Donald's father. That's what's important because Farage's job was to quiet, for a moment, the voice of Fred C. Trump telling Donald that he is worthless.

# posted by

Thornton Hall : 10:18 AM

Brett closes his recent comment with this:

"I don't see this ending well."

Perhaps this is a not so subtle attempt at intimidation by Brett. But I can only imagine what Brett thinks would end well (from his perspective as opposed to objectively). Might Brett object to secession if by chance Trump were elected?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 10:24 AM

You see, this is why secession is becoming a live option
# posted by Blogger Brett : 9:58 AM

Oh, if only that were true. Sadly, it's very unlikely that the "red" states are ever going to secede. Only Texas can afford it, and Texas isn't going to be red very much longer.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 10:41 AM

Shag, you are my primary piece of evidence of why this can't end well: So long as I disagree with you about fundamentals, there isn't anything I can say that you won't interpret as my being a racist. In your world there are only people who mostly agree with you, and monsters. And, how can there be peace with monsters?

What I would count as "ending well" is some outcome where one side doesn't end up having to crush the other. Where we can achieve peace in some other way than complete victory for one side. Where we can agree to disagree about important things, because the winning side doesn't have to get its way on everything.

You know, where gays can 'marry' if they want, but bakers don't have to bake them cakes if they find it objectionable? Where people can get contraceptives, but nobody is forced to provide them? Where people who don't like guns don't have to own them, but don't get to tell other people they can't. Where people who disagree with each other can hold political rallies without their opponents showing up to brutalize them.

If you make every issue a moral crusade, with the opposition monsters, nothing but complete victory seems acceptable, and any tactic seems acceptable. And the idea that the opposition get to actually live by their own lights, and not yours, becomes hard to accept.

If we can't work our way out of this corner, what is there left except for us to part ways, or have a civil war? You have to leave people a line of retreat if you don't want them to fight to the death.

# posted by

Brett : 10:42 AM

There are archives to the beginning of the blog -- above the contributor emails.

No, you've probably been saying it right, it's just that the Pledge itself is a lie. Go look at the definition of "federation", and then read the 10th amendment. The US is a federation.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Federation: "the formation of a political unity, with a central government, by a number of separate states, each of which retains control of its own internal affairs" maybe ... "a league or confederacy" ... less likely.

Nation: "a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own" sounds right especially after the Civil War. Also, fwiw, looking at the Jay's Treaty (1795), the first major international treaty that comes to mind, repeated reference of the U.S. being a "nation" is present. Such as "the Subjects and Citizens of the Two Nations"

The idea that it's a nation, and joining it was irreversible, has been promoted by opponents of secession. But it really has little basis beyond naked assertion.

It's not really "irreversible." The DOI argues for a right to revolution and in the right situation that would be a legitimate choice. It is that unlike a divorce, it is not a legitimate choice within the four corners of the Constitution itself.

I'm inclined to think it's possible that there's an alternative argument. Might be somewhat weak. But, Mark Field's argument has "basis beyond naked assertion." After all, it is important to remember "there are good faith disagreements, that it's possible to disagree with them without being a monster of some sort."

Nothing in the Constitution actually speaks to the matter, except the 10th amendment by implication. (The Constitution being silent on the matter, secession is thus a state power.)

The first part is debatable -- "by implication" -- as argued by Lincoln et. al. -- things like "a more perfect union" arguably "speaks" to the matter. What is "delegated" to the national government need not merely by explicit express enumeration, something particularly avoided in the wording of the amendment. Overall, it's valid to argue by structural or other principles that secession is illegitimate including under some sort of semi-detrimental reliance argument.

# posted by

Joe : 11:05 AM

I mean this whole phenomenon of it not being enough to think your candidate on net better, but also insisting on denying the opposition candidate every virtue, and attributing to him every vice?

Whereas Republican campaigns have consistently been honest, civil, thoughtful. Just think of swift boats, birtherism - which Brett himself endorsed - current BS about Clinton's health, and so on. Did the Democrats question Dole's military record? And I recall that when GHW Bush's record was attacked by someone or another the complaints were quickly denounced by mainstream Democrats. No Band-aids with purple hearts on them.

Did I think Trump was a fascist before he became the nominee? Well, I thought he was a jackass on the birther thing - still is - but didn't actually know what a bigot he was until he started talking politics.

# posted by

byomtov : 11:07 AM

"So long as I disagree with you about fundamentals, there isn't anything I can say that you won't interpret as my being a racist."

No. There are a range of disagreements. Shag doesn't like you because he thinks certain things you believe are particularly bad. Not that you are a great prophet for this overall disagree w/o being disagreeable principle. Be it a good principle.

# posted by

Joe : 11:08 AM

"birtherism - which Brett himself endorsed"

Now, that is simply a lie. I have been very clear about my position on this, from the very beginning: The Birthers were entitled to a hearing on the merits in court, which they would almost certainly lose.

That this was a manufactured controversy, originating in Hillary's 2008 campaign, ironically enough, had no bearing on the matter. Being a natural born citizen is one of the qualifications for office, and thus it was appropriate that Obama be required to prove he met that qualification. Not with whatever evidence he felt sufficient, but with the best available evidence.

Which he easily produced the moment a judge scheduled a hearing on the merits.

# posted by

Brett : 11:26 AM

"And so, the left, viewing this as a crusade against absolute evil, has to prevail on everything. Losing on anything is simply inadmissible. And in the war against absolute evil, any tactic goes. There's nothing you can do that doesn't leave you better than the opposition."

Again, your lack of self awareness in making comments like this is frankly incredible. The 'I'm standing against absolute evil, the Republic is doomed if the other side wins' rhetoric is as likely to come from you as Sandy.

Heck, you've referred to people who disagree with you on constitutional interpretation as, at most charitable, bank robbers!

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 11:36 AM

Brett's candidate, The Donald, believes in winning period. Brett seems to be willing to accept a compromise of some sort, probably based on some sense of accepting reality. What sort of a compromise, face saving, is Brett willing to accept to avoid possible armed revolution, secession? Of course, Brett can only speak for himself although he is part of Trump's base. Perhaps Brett thinks he can intimidate. I think he's a clawless pussycat.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 11:43 AM

I sincerely doubt there will be anything like secession in the U.S. One key point is that it's not as if most states break down 90% Blue, 10% Red or vice-versa. Most-all states have significant numbers of both Dems/liberals and Republicans/conservatives. Often, but not always, this semi-tracks urban/rural splits, but there are conservatives in urban areas and (likely due to Obama's nefarious plot to invade the countryside with lesbian farmers) liberals in rural areas. Texas has major liberal enclaves. California has major conservative enclaves.

The two political parties have, in the past few decades, become more ideologically distinct and separated (with the decline of the Dixiecrats and the "Rockefeller Republicans). But that just makes the U.S. more like other democracies. It doesn't mean the country will fall apart.

# posted by

Unknown : 11:47 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Joe : 12:04 PM

BTW, when I say "debatable" or "arguable," I generally don't just mean that under the First Amendment it is legal for one person to debate it or something, no matter how silly. I usually mean it is a fairly reasonable argument. Sometimes, I use such words somewhat generously. But, since this came up in the past, just to toss that out there.

# posted by

Joe : 12:06 PM

No Brett, it's not a lie.

You, and your fellow right-wingers, refused to really accept any evidence, were glad to impose upon Obama a burden that you never imposed on any other candidate. You claimed that nothing short of personal time travel would totally convince you. Finally, reluctantly, you personally agreed that he was "probably" eligible, though not all your pals agreed. And of course your hero Trump led the way on the issue. Is that sufficient grounds for declaring him a crackpot?

As to the evidence, it was produced early and officially by the state of Hawaii. There was no court case.

Oh, and those issues you skipped? Other birthers - like Trump and Breitbart, the disgusting attacks on Kerry; the made-up diagnoses of Hillary's supposed health conditions, etc. These are all OK, you think?

# posted by

byomtov : 12:06 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:30 PM

Sandy: Given that there is no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Trump has the slightest knowledge of American history,which would require reading a book (even several books), he is presumably ignorant of the fact that the most immediate implication of Brexit for American audiences is the legitimacy secession of states from the United States itself.

How do you figure?

The EU was at most a half-hearted confederation of largely sovereign states, which the UK only partly joined by maintaining its own currency. Brexit (like Trumpism) is much better understood as a nationalist, not a secessionist movement.

Unless one is willing to walk substantially down the secessionist path, though, it is difficult in the extreme to figure out what Mr. Farage--whose animosity toward the European Union was based substantially on xenophobia and racism (to the extent those can be distinguished)--has to contribute to the contemporary discussion in this country.

You really do not get this movement, do you?

Trumpism is the American version of the nationalist backlash against elite "globalism" featuring foreign trade and the importation of cheap immigrant labor. Workers across the US and EU are seeing their economies plunge into depressions with high real under/unemployment and stagnant or falling incomes, and they are blaming foreigners.

I agree that this anger is misdirected. What I call the totalitarian and you call the progressive political economy is failing across the OECD, with imploding populations, labor forces and economies followed by increasing government insolvency. The totalitarian political economy is simply unsustainable for a variety of reasons.

Our progressive media does not understand or report on the underlying causes of this "secular stagnation" and works to hide the symptoms of low growth and high unemployment in order to protect its preferred progressive government. Thus, it is easy for demagogues like Trump to convince American workers that their problems are caused by foreigners.

The last wave of nationalistic fascism arose from similarly failed socialist and progressive economies in Europe during the Great Depression. Now this pathology has come to America.

A question about etiquette: Should former Secretary of State and Senator Clinton shake the hand of a person who refers to her only s "Dishonest" or "Crooked" Hillary Clinton. I personally think not.

You also do not get the level of anger at government corruption of the American electorate..

The better question is whether Trump should shake the hand of the corrupt felon running as his opponent. Trump's best hope of gaining the grudging ballots of the conservative and libertarian voters he alienated with his fascist campaign is to tap into this anger at government corruption and pledge during the debate that, if he is elected, he will prosecute and bring the Clintons to justice.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:33 PM

Why doesn't he just bring in Putin and make it official?

# posted by

CJColucci : 12:43 PM

"You, and your fellow right-wingers, refused to really accept any evidence, were glad to impose upon Obama a burden that you never imposed on any other candidate. You claimed that nothing short of personal time travel would totally convince you. Finally, reluctantly, you personally agreed that he was "probably" eligible, though not all your pals agreed. And of course your hero Trump led the way on the issue. Is that sufficient grounds for declaring him a crackpot?"

The most charitable interpretation I can place upon this is that you've just lumped me together with other people in the class "conservatives", and don't think what I actually said, as an individual, at all relevant. I was never at all reluctant to admit Obama was probably born in Hawaii; While it would have been technically feasible to fake the records at the time, there wasn't any sensible motivation at the time to have done it. As with most conspiracy theories, it was possible, but just very, very implausible.

"You claimed that nothing short of personal time travel would totally convince you."

I believe I've stated before, I'm not a member of your religion, I feel no need to make a profession of faith in such matters as where Obama was born. Some small increment of doubt is appropriate for all contingent facts, and Obama's birthplace is not a mathematical truth. And therefore not an appropriate topic for being totally convinced.

Why does it offend you so much that I merely consider his birth in Hawaii to be overwhelmingly likely? This attitude seems like a matter of religious adoration, rather than rational evaluation of facts.

# posted by

Brett : 12:50 PM

I feel no need to make a profession of faith in such matters as where Obama was born. Some small increment of doubt is appropriate for all contingent facts,

And if that was a consistent theme of your comments you would have a point. But this philosophical view seems to have emerged entirely with the question of Obama's birth. So your defenses are not convincing.

Further, it is you, not I, who have lumped yourself in with the crackpot wing of conservatism.

Finally, you still have not explained why you seem to think that the tendency to say nasty things about one's political opponents is restricted to liberals. You yourself admit, in your comment, that there are plenty of conservatives who were, and remain, birthers. Some of these, including Trump himself, are associated with the Trump campaign, but that doesn't bother you at all.

# posted by

byomtov : 12:58 PM

I don't think it's totally restricted to liberals. But it's not conservatives showing up at liberal rallies to assault people. So I don't see why I need to pretend there's any symmetry here. Wake me when Trump supporters start going to Democratic events to attack people.

# posted by

Brett : 1:17 PM

Why does it offend you so much that I merely consider his birth in Hawaii to be overwhelmingly likely? This attitude seems like a matter of religious adoration, rather than rational evaluation of facts.

We don't notice you expressing this sort of Cartesian doubt when it comes to other issues, like, say, Hillary's emails. Or the meaning of the 10th A. Or, indeed, any other issue.

# posted by

Mark Field : 1:39 PM

So one youtube video posted by someone outweighs the whole slimy history of GOP politics. Notice that, unlike Trump, Clinton is not urging that protestors be beat up. It was Republicans who smeared Kerry's naval service, Trump who attacked the Khans. It was conservatives who were the birthers, who spread the Vince Foster tales, etc.

You love to accuse people of seeing only what they want to see, Brett, but you an absolute all-star at that behavior. If Trump were convicted of ten felonies you'd raise the issue of a parking ticket Clinton got in 2003.

# posted by

byomtov : 3:07 PM

"Notice that, unlike Trump, Clinton is not urging that protestors be beat up."

Right, what they say in public counts for more than what actually gets done. Because, I guess, a party can't possibly say one thing in public, while doing something different in private. Never mind the Democrats actually assaulting people, because the candidate doesn't advocate it in public. Never mind the actual behavior, that doesn't tell you anything about a group.

Trump isn't urging that "protestors" be beaten up. He's restricted that specifically to protestors who start throwing things at the stage. Maybe you think it's some kind of civil right to attend the opposing party's events and throw rotten vegetables or worse at the candidate? Maybe you do.

Democrats have been assaulting people at Republican events. As I said, accuse the Republican candidate of being a "fascist" when Republicans start going to Democratic events to beat people up. Right now, the only party in America acting like Brownshirts has a donkey for it's mascot.

You can't even bear letting the other party have gatherings unmolested, and you're surprised people are thinking we need to part company?

# posted by

Brett : 3:50 PM

SL tossed in this aside:

A question about etiquette: Should former Secretary of State and Senator Clinton shake the hand of a person who refers to her only s "Dishonest" or "Crooked" Hillary Clinton. I personally think not. After all, when I successfully represented a member of the Ku Klux Klan being denied his First Amendment rights to march in Austin, Texas, that did not entail that I had to shake his hand. I only had to argue that even louts have constitutional rights, which is clearly the case. But he remained a lout.

This doesn't quite seem equivalent. A better comparison would be if in all litigation (akin to the Supreme Court robing room practice) that each lawyer traditionally shook the hand of their opposite number. And, in this case, the person represented himself (in the Westboro Baptist case that reached the Supreme Court, e.g., Fred Phelps' daughter handled the oral argument) and went to shake the hands of the city attorney involved.

You had a lawyer/client relationship. Trump and Clinton are more on equal footing.

Incidentally, it's also fair to ask Secretary Clinton if she is prepared to concede the election to the narcissistic sociopath and urge her supporters to accept him as a legitimate President.

I reckon it's fair but your suggestion that it's fairly reasonable to conclude he wouldn't be a legitimate President if he won by a fair election is something I have not really seem much of even from those who appear like they want to spit when they say his name.

# posted by

Joe : 4:06 PM

"You can't even bear letting the other party have gatherings unmolested"

That's a huge generalization. I've noted before the bad behavior of some of those protesting Trump, but it's not indicative of some general trend among Democrats.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 4:19 PM

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/wait-what-trump-i-never-said-i-would-pay-supporters-legal-fees/

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/donald-trump-punch-protester-219655

Hilarious, Brett. You have amazing confidence in your mind-reading ability. What Trump says means nothing, but what you think some Democrats may be doing is absolute fact. More certain than Obama's birthplace.

# posted by

byomtov : 5:01 PM

Yawn. No accounts of Republicans going to Democratic rallies to riot, smash police cars, or assault Democrats. Must be happening, right? Fascists couldn't resist doing something like that. It's the sort of thing fascists do, you can recognize them by it.

Instead we've got a reporter shocked that Trump doesn't stand behind the media's misrepresentation of something he said, and Trump making aggressive noises about a protester whose prior actions were carefully elides.

My point here, again, is you can't be surprised at talk of secession when one side in a conflict can't even accept that the other has a right to exist.

# posted by

Brett : 5:34 PM

My point here, again, is you can't be surprised at talk of secession when one side in a conflict can't even accept that the other has a right to exist.
# posted by Blogger Brett : 5:34 PM

I'm not surprised by it. In fact, I think it's a great idea.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 5:57 PM

Yes. It's all misrepresentation, transcripts, videos, etc. be damned.

# posted by

byomtov : 7:40 PM

Yes, it is, because the representations don't match Trump's actual words.

"There may be somebody with tomatoes in the audience. So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell— I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise. It won’t be so much ’cause the courts agree with us too."

And this gets reported as him promising to pay the legal fees of anyone beating up one of the protesters. Rather than a specific promise to do so if yo do it to stop an illegal assault. Surprise: Throwing things at speakers is a crime, assault at the least, with battery added if your aim is good.

# posted by

Brett : 8:38 PM

Sandy Levinson is not interested in this back/forth.

# posted by

Joe : 9:01 PM

I would think he'd be used to it after more than 10 years.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 10:42 PM

Sandy: I have suggested that Pacifica or New England (and some states farther south) might well consider seceding if the narcissistic sociopath is elected.

Brett: If those who claw their way to the top can't bear the thought of not making all the decisions for everybody, perhaps we should peacefully part ways.

I see no reason those of us who still believe in freedom should secede or allow the minority of progressives to do so. There are more of us, we are far better armed, we dominate the military and tearing this nation apart would make everyone poorer and weaker.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:58 PM

Secession is quite complex*, both legally and otherwise in efforts to implement such. While Brett suggests his ilk "should peacefully part ways" SPAM I AM! rejects this claiming of his own ilk:

"There are more of us, we are far better armed, we dominate the military and tearing this nation apart would make everyone poorer and weaker."

SPAM I AM!'s "we" consist of " ... those of us who still believe in freedom ... " as contrasted with " ... the minority of progressives .... " I'm not aware of progressives as being in the forefront of secession movements. (Of course freedom is defined differently by SPAM I AM!'s ilk and progressives.)

But note that SPAM I AM! no longer stresses armed revolution as an alternative to political dysfunction. Rather, SPAM I AM! makes a call to arms to prevent secession, whether by the ilk of Brett or by a minority of progressives. Perhaps SPAM I AM! has a military coup in mind - or utilizing the Constitution's militia clauses, and giving meaning back to the 2nd A's "well regulated" prefatory clause.

And speaking of Nigel Farage to get back on topic, has anyone ever seen him and Niall Ferguson together?

*Consider Brexit and the steps to follow which have yet to be formally implemented.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 8:46 AM

I, for one, am not eager to start piling bodies up. And, I observe that the left is winning. They're winning because the march through the institutions actually is a winning strategy. We let them take over the media and educational systems, and they make our children into their foot soldiers. There aren't many more of us, and fewer in the next generation.

What is your fabulous plan for keeping them from winning all over again after the revolution? A generation or two without democracy?

# posted by

Brett : 9:11 AM

Brett:

If the left was winning and their progressive brand of totalitarianism was generally popular, their politicians would not have to routinely and comprehensively lie to the American people about their actual governing policies. It is one thing to promise "free stuff" and quite another to sell the costs in money and freedom to provide it. The reason it appears that progressivism is winning and that many who wish to preserve freedom are actually considering the madness of secession is because progressives dominate the media and academia.

My proposal for retaking our nation is to educate the electorate as Reagan did and then fundamentally reform our Constitution to eliminate the progressive bureaucratic dictatorship, then re-separate and re-check the branches and levels of government, including the judiciary.

I understand your doubts that the outlaw progressives in the government and most especially in the judiciary would follow the newly reinforced Constitution as written, even though my proposed amendments would expressly require them to do just that. In that case, the only alternative would be revolution. However, neither one of us wants to "start piling bodies up," so we need to do everything in our power to peacefully restore our Land of the Free.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:38 AM

"I'm not aware of progressives as being in the forefront of secession movements."

I wouldn't expect otherwise; Secession is something you do to get away from somebody who you think is imposing on you. It's the last thing you'd think to do if you're the one doing the imposing.

# posted by

Brett : 10:44 AM

The left is "winning" in various ways because their ideas are winning.

For instance, see "Engines of Liberty: The Power of Citizen Activists to Make Constitutional Law" by David Cole. One of his case studies is guns. There was a broad support there for a "well regulated" (as Heller notes with its various acceptable regulations and national support of various regulations including background checks) right to own arms. Various Democrats signed on to this, particularly in red states.

Another is gay rights. There too from the bottom up, there was a growing support for rights of same sex couples, expressed in churches, localities, families and so forth. The courts did not lead as much as follow here though they did push some. As they did for guns, since they did after all strike down to local laws in the process at the Supreme Court level and pushed for better defense of a third. Such is the nature of judicial review in this country.

Some sort of "march" like Sherman alone isn't going to "win" anything. You need some core underlining support that is ongoing. It not likely to be uncontested -- evolution, secular public education, integration etc. have been challenged. We have people challenging having their children be in integrated schools, not praying Protestant prayers in public schools etc. This is an ongoing battle involving legislators, elected school boards, judges (elected or chosen by those elected) etc.

Where is the lack of democracy? You losing elections and the battle of ideas in various cases is not going "without democracy." And, of course, when something is deemed unconstitutional, a majority vote -- be it for a handgun ban or not denying benefits by race/sex/sexual orientation -- is not enough in our system.

It's true that in some basic way media, education and so forth are likely in some fashion to be "liberal" in a broad sense. Liberal values are involved here. So, the left does have something of an edge there. Education is about the open expression of ideas, challenging the old, e.g., and that is not very conservative in some ways. Conservatives still have always had a role there too. There was and is conservative leaning media. Conservative leaning education etc. The skillful way the right used school board elections has been a matter of study too.

Still, this feeling of being robbed, of some "right to exist" being taken away etc. ... existential, often violent language, is interesting. Like those left leaning outlier protestors (who can be balanced with those on the right who used bad ways down to murder to rebel against left leaning things), don't know how representational Brett is of a sizable "side" exactly, but still.

This is somewhat germane to SL's question since it goes to what Trump's guest is there for.

# posted by

Joe : 10:49 AM

The whole 'the left has marched through the institutions of the media and academe and are indoctrinating our children' is the right's version of whiny victimhood (you notice the lack of any personal responsibility in the meme, they never ask 'is there something we're doing that makes people who work in knowledge industries find what we sell so lacking,' instead there's a shadowy cabal at fault). There's plenty of alternative sources of conservative media (indeed some venues, such as radio, are fairly dominated by the right), and what's more, kids are not so easily indoctrinated. College profs can't get kids to show up on time and take good notes, much less mold their worldviews. Young people just aren't attracted to what the Right is selling these days-they know gays and blacks and Hispanics and they don't find them to be the boogeymen the right does.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 11:05 AM

"If the left was winning and their progressive brand of totalitarianism was generally popular, their politicians would not have to routinely and comprehensively lie to the American people about their actual governing policies."

The left IS winning, and their brand is not genuinely popular. They're winning because they have claimed the high ground in this fight, the institutions by which people learn about their world. That's why the left can succeed at comprehensively lying.

Without reclaiming that high ground, there is no hope of defeating them. It doesn't matter how good your arguments are if people don't hear them. It doesn't matter if the facts are on your side if people don't learn them. You could be a perfectly ordinary politician advocating widely popular policies, and if the media hate you, people will think you a fascist. Your rallies could be routinely attacked by thugs, and people will think you violent, and your opponent, who the thugs work for, peaceful.

Guns and numbers can't win this fight. Communication can win it. And that's a front we're scarcely even contesting.

# posted by

Brett : 11:06 AM

"progressive bureaucratic dictatorship, then re-separate and re-check the branches and levels of government, including the judiciary."

This hyperbole gets more and more laughable as it seems we get a weekly ruling from some judge striking down an executive decree (this week was the Title IX bathroom directive). Some dictatorship (in a real dictatorship a judge striking down a dictator's decree would be lined up against the wall and shot)! Nonsense hyperbole from someone who's only interest really seems to be peddling straight propaganda (hyperbole and propaganda have ever gone hand in glove).

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 11:09 AM

"It doesn't matter if the facts are on your side if people don't learn them. You could be a perfectly ordinary politician advocating widely popular policies, and if the media hate you, people will think you a fascist. "

Brett, this isn't some progressive cabal of university professors, a lot of the people that call Trump a fascist are people like...Bart.

I mean, I get what you're complaining about. I myself have said I think Trump as fascist is unfair hyperbole. But you really act like Trump isn't doing something very different than the ordinary, run of the mill politician. I doubt your head is that far in the sand so it makes one suspect your being willfully obtuse or dishonest here.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 11:11 AM

"The left IS winning, and their brand is not genuinely popular. They're winning because they have claimed the high ground in this fight, the institutions by which people learn about their world. "

It's also worth noting how much this line sounds exactly like a Chomsky type leftist radical. "the right is winning, their brand of neoliberal corporate policies are not popular but they're winning around the globe because of the corporate media blah blah blah."

It never occurs to the extreme partisan that people just don't buy what they're selling.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 11:14 AM

Brett's:

"There aren't many more of us, and fewer in the next generation."

suggests that as a professional engineer he recognizes evolution. Maybe Brett's exposure to science may suggest a recognition of global warming.

But it's nice that both Brett and SPAM I AM! do not want to pile up bodies.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 11:18 AM

Joe: The left is "winning" in various ways because their ideas are winning.

Outside of deep blue cities and states, voters generally fire Democrats after they impose one of more of their firearm prohibitions. This is why Clinton and Obama routinely lie about their preferred firearm prohibitions.

Civil SSM was enacted democratically in a small handful of states. SSM was imposed nationally by a narrow majority by an unelected court overturning the democratically enacted and perfectly constitutional law of a super majority of states.

The Supreme Court imposition of SSM and like judicial rewrites of the law are only a small part of our "lack of democracy." Today, the bureaucracy imposes the vast majority of law by fiat and is increasingly rewriting or providing dispensations from statute enacted by Congress and state legislatures. Except for the most egregious cases, the courts are rubber stamping these decrees.

Education is decreasingly about the open expression of ideas. Read the posts here at Balkanization. There is almost no intellectual diversity on our so called elite universities. The party line is almost universally progressive. My law school faculty had one relatively moderate professor who agreed to sponsor our Federalist Society chapter, which brought in outside speakers to debate our progressive faculty members. Our con law professors taught living constitutionalism from a progressive perspective and dismissed textualism in a relatively few minutes as "grocery list constitutionalism" unworthy of serious discussion.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:18 AM

Mista Wiskas, it's well established that the left purge dissenting viewpoints from any institution they get control of. The reason there are very few conservatives in the media and education isn't just a matter of natural attraction, it's that any conservatives who don't keep their heads down and their mouths shut get kicked out.

See, for instance: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/conservatives-discrimination-universities/480372/

# posted by

Brett : 11:19 AM

The thing is, the Right could easily make headway with young people. Just drop all the traditionalist nonsense that is of course not appealing to young people. They don't share the traditionalists hang ups about gays or demography changes or who sleeps with who how. That just doesn't appeal to young people, it has nothing to do with evil Marxist professors duping them or Hollywood producers leading them.

A lot of what exists on the right could greatly appeal to young people. The national debt for example. If addressing that was sold as 'this is huge moral bomb we're dropping on our young people' instead of 'let's get those steak eating welfare queens' it would sell like hotcakes. But the Right can't help itself out of the mean spirited bag they've sewn themselves into. They've catered to the angry, older white guy strategy, and in low turn out elections that works great because no one turns out and is able to turn out, like angry old white guys. But what works is also the very turn off that hurts them with pretty much every other demographic. The Democratic Party basically just runs a 'we're not what those angry old white guys want' campaign now to win nationally, and it works. Because most people don't like what angry old white guys like.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 11:22 AM

BD: "progressive bureaucratic dictatorship, then re-separate and re-check the branches and levels of government, including the judiciary."

Mr. W: This hyperbole gets more and more laughable as it seems we get a weekly ruling from some judge striking down an executive decree (this week was the Title IX bathroom directive).

This single judge reversed the Obama bathroom decree because the bureaucracy did not follow its own rule concerning allowing public discussion before issuing the decree, not because a bureaucracy issuing such decrees is a fundamental violation of Article I of the Constitution.

This is just one decree of thousands imposed over just the past eight years, nearly all of which are imposed without judicial reversal or even review.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:24 AM

Brett, that kind of thing is vastly exaggerated. Have you read the book they're talking about? I have. It's actually about how it's not that bad for conservatives on campus. Really, go read it.

There's conservatives on campuses, though of course not as many as their are leftists. But there doesn't have to be some cabal conjured up to explain this: conservatives politically are quite loud and proud about how they'd like to cut education agencies and funding and how academics are silly eggheads. Why in the world would you think they would be sympathetic to you? I mean, imagine if the left talked about some occupational group like that, of course that group would be mostly conservative, and you wouldn't need any cabal based explanations.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 11:26 AM

Bart, like I said, not a week seems to go by without some judge striking down some executive decision. That wouldn't happen in a dictatorship. It's nonsense hyperbole propaganda on your part.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 11:28 AM

"not because a bureaucracy issuing such decrees is a fundamental violation of Article I of the Constitution."

Of course they didn't rule that, because it's a silly argument. There's a law that bars discrimination based on sex, there's these people who are transitioning their sex or which are arguably being treated differently because they are acting in ways considered 'wrong' to their sex, and so the executive, whose Constitutional duty is to execute laws like the one in question, has to decide how to apply the law in this instance. And so it did. This is how executives have to work.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 11:31 AM

Mr. W: There's conservatives on campuses, though of course not as many as their are leftists.

Try a tiny fraction of nearly all faculties. Libertarians like Randy Barnett are as rare as hen's teeth.

Bart, like I said, not a week seems to go by without some judge striking down some executive decision. That wouldn't happen in a dictatorship.

You are offering the absolutist logical fallacy again - if every act of government is not dictatorial, then we do not have a dictatorship. In reality, if an unelected executive bureaucracy is decreeing the vast majority of law and rewriting or providing dispensations from laws of Congress, and the courts either do not review or rubber stamp nearly all of these decrees, then our government is more dictatorial than not.

You can ignore, but you cannot rebut this reality.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:38 AM

Mr. W: the executive, whose Constitutional duty is to execute laws like the one in question, has to decide how to apply the law...this is how executives have to work.

Deciding how to enforce a law of Congress is not at all the same as legislating and adjudicating regulations.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:41 AM

"the Title IX bathroom directive"

The fact -- like the immigration matter blocked by the fifth circuit -- a single judge (and eventually three) has such power does show the limits of the 'dictatorship' here. And, the current issue are "guidelines" (developed after years of development and requests for guidance from various quarters as well as litigation protecting trans rights -- see, e.g., Chris Geidner's coverage at Buzzfeed) that put schools on notice. Notable, but still, a step or two below from dictatorship.

The various moving parts here show the complexity involved, even if some people oppose the general movement of events, events whose speed and specific nature can be and is debated / effected by various different groups. As Mr. W. argues, it would help here if extreme language is not used. So, dealing with the complexities of local school policy here is different than denying trans people exist (as a minority basically argue) or that "sex" discrimination illogically is being applied (as compared to perhaps wrongly given the law in place or at least done without the proper degree of administrative process).

Mr. W. also notes that "the right" can gain support of the younger generation regarding various matters. This is true enough -- e.g., many are economically libertarian or feel various types of affirmative action (not all types -- see, e.g., Justice Kennedy's approach) are wrong.

Brett denies the left are truly "popular" which is belied in various respects. It's fine to battle a side, think they are wrong. But, Mr. W. has bite in finding his approach a tad whiny. Brett, e.g., can find needing to serve people in public accommodations akin to "slavery" or compare a constitutional interpretative vision shared by many Republicans in various respects akin to "bank robbers." But, that is different from his view being popular.

# posted by

Joe : 12:00 PM

How would Mr. W. define "fascist"?

# posted by

Joe : 12:06 PM

"You are offering the absolutist logical fallacy again"

No, you're using a word with an actual absolutist meaning. You want to use that word because, like all propagandists, you want the emotional value attached to the word (what makes a 'dictatorship' repellent to most *is* the idea of someone having absolute, unchecked power), but you don't want to be held to the actual meaning because, as I've noted, our system falls short of that and we have prominent reminders of that on a weekly if not daily basis. It's nonsense hyperbolic propaganda.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 12:24 PM

Joe: The fact -- like the immigration matter blocked by the fifth circuit -- a single judge (and eventually three) has such power does show the limits of the 'dictatorship' here.

Once again, you and W point to rare and largely inconsequential exceptions which prove the rule. The general court position is to defer to the bureaucracy.

The Obama bureaucracy has or will shortly impose over 600 "economically significant rules," each inflicting at least $100 million and generally billions of dollars of damage on the economy (by the bureaucracies' own minimized cost benefit projections). The Courts have reversed none of these. Zero, nada, zip.

The only preliminary halt of a bureaucratic decree over the Obama administration was the Fifth Circuit injection against imposing the suspension of immigration law and extension of welfare state benefits to several million illegal immigrants pending a trial. Even if the government loses the trial and loses the appeal to the Fifth Circuit, any Obama or Clinton appointee to replace Scalia will rubber stamp the bureaucracy decree after the election.

And so it goes...

And, the current issue are "guidelines" (developed after years of development and requests for guidance from various quarters as well as litigation protecting trans rights -- see, e.g., Chris Geidner's coverage at Buzzfeed) that put schools on notice. Notable, but still, a step or two below from dictatorship.

The fact that bureaucratic decrees are incremental and occur largely out of public view makes them more dangerous than those issued by a single dictator.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:27 PM

"Deciding how to enforce a law of Congress is not at all the same as legislating and adjudicating regulations."

Often of course it is. I just described how that works.

Take Title IX overall. It says discrimination based on sex is prohibited. The courts have ruled, quite reasonably, that this includes, for example some duty on the part of educational institutions to prevent harassment and harms (like sexual assaults) based on sex. But does this mean, for example, that these institutions have to have mechanisms in place to investigate allegations of such behavior? If so, what kind of mechanisms? Do they have to use a particular standard (like beyond a reasonable doubt, or clear and convincing, or preponderance of the evidence)? None of that is clear from the statute alone, but all or any of it can quite reasonably be argued to be necessary to effectuate the law as stated. And so, agencies decide these questions, courts review them to see if they effectuate the law or go so far afield as to violate it, and if the people don't like them they can elect new Executives to change them or have Congress change the law on which the decisions rest. It's all quite normal and sensible, as far afield from a 'dictatorship' as we are from Pluto.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 12:31 PM

"The Courts have reversed none of these. Zero, nada, zip. "

It took me all of 8 seconds to find this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/us/politics/hydraulic-fracturing-interior-department-regulations.html?_r=0

You're full of it.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 12:33 PM

Another

http://www.laborrelationslawinsider.com/2015/11/en-banc-eighth-circuit-refuses-to-give-deference-to-secretarys-expansive-interpretation-of-osha-regulation/

Zero, zip, nada indeed. Maybe you have idiosyncratic definitions for those words too?

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 12:38 PM

BD: "You are offering the absolutist logical fallacy again"

Mr. W: No, you're using a word with an actual absolutist meaning...what makes a 'dictatorship' repellent to most *is* the idea of someone having absolute, unchecked power.

Now you are attempting to move the goal posts. Your absolutist definition of dictatorship, like that of totalitarianism, has never occurred in human history. The exercise of government power has always been a matter of degree and cannot be absolute.

A dictatorship is simply an executive issuing law by decree. This can occur along with non-dictatorial acts of government (the Roman senate issued law during periods of dictatorship) or despite the rare judicial reversal of some minor decree.

You want to use that word because, like all propagandists, you want the emotional value attached to the word (what makes a 'dictatorship' repellent to most *is* the idea of someone having absolute, unchecked power)

I can more reasonably use that argument against your absolutist defense of our totalitarian political economy.

Despite the fact that we have adopted or imposed a wide variety of socialist and fascist policy over the past century, you claim that we are not a socialist or fascist nation because all of our policy does not fit into one of these categories.

Despite the fact that our executive bureaucracy and increasingly our president using the bureaucracy issues a heavy majority of law or dispensations from the law by decree, you claim we do not have any degree of dictatorship because the executive does not decree all law.

Etc, etc.

I use the terms "totalitarian," "socialist," "fascist," and "dictatorship" because they correctly describe the actual facts on the ground and increasingly the facade of "democracy" is the lie. The first step in reform is to recognize reality as it exists.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:40 PM

Joe, here's the formal definition

1. a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2. a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

I can see why people might find Trump to fall under 2, but I think 1 is the more precise and better definition, and I don't think it fits him or his movement. I think he's more a buffoon, more a Berlusconi than a Mussolini.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 12:41 PM

Mr. W:

Read my posts for content.

I stated that the courts have not reversed any "economically significant rules" imposed during the Obama administration.

The rule limiting the almost non-existent fracking on federal lands does not fall under this category.

Your citation to a reversal of a bureaucrat's opinion of the scope of an existing rule is not even a reversal of a rule.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:45 PM

"Your absolutist definition of dictatorship, like that of totalitarianism, has never occurred in human history."

These are not my definitions, they are *the* definitions of the words. But this is not even a close thing: whatever limits actual dictators might have, there is no sensible definition of a 'dictatorship' where courts regularly strike down the 'dictators' decrees. None. It's absolutely laughable, nonsense hyperbole to use that term when that is occurring.

Really. I'm quite open to what's sensible behind your ideas, but you really insist on using the most laughably absurd hyperbole to express them (because, of course, you're more interested in propaganda than actual discussion or thoughtfulness on these matters, you're an extreme partisan propagandizing, and extreme hyperbole is a consistent hallmark of propaganda). If you want to talk about Congress' tendency to write 'loose' statutes that invite wide latitude for the executive to decide matters, about how there's too much of that or more of that than we used to have, that's something I'm quite open to thinking about. But when you say 'our bureaucratic dictatorship' when we see that 'dictatorship' getting weekly slapped down it's laughably absurd and, frankly, not to be taken seriously in the least.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 12:48 PM

"The rule limiting the almost non-existent fracking on federal lands does not fall under this category."

That's flatly and demonstrably wrong, that regulation was an "economically significant rule."

"Your citation to a reversal of a bureaucrat's opinion of the scope of an existing rule is not even a reversal of a rule."

Now we come to the part where Bart does battle with...himself. Above he's treated things like the executive's interpretation of a law or rule (the bathroom controversy) as evidence of his 'bureaucratic dictatorship,' but now when faced with a court striking down the same thing he says 'oh, those aren't rules.' Janus.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 12:52 PM

"The fracking regulation was issued by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management in March 2015 and had been in the works since 2012. It applies to oil and gas drilling on federal lands, which produce 11% of the natural gas consumed in the U.S. and 5% of the oil, according to government data. State regulations govern fracking on private and state lands."

Not economically significant?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-strikes-down-obama-rule-on-fracking-on-public-lands-1466600116

And from the same article:

"Last October, a federal appeals court blocked an Environmental Protection Agency rule that sought to put more bodies of water and wetlands under federal protection. A final decision on that matter is pending.

The Supreme Court in February temporarily blocked a major regulation limiting carbon emissions from power plants, dealing an early and potentially fatal blow to a rule that is central to Mr. Obama’s efforts to lead global efforts to address climate change."

Two more! Nada, zip, zero indeed!

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 12:58 PM

Mr. W:

Where is the $100 million plus damage imposed by the ban on fracking on federal lands? The fracking industry operates almost exclusively on private land because they do not have to endure the years long approval process for doing anything on government controlled land.

I never cited the Obama bathroom law as an example of the bureaucratic dictatorship. You offered this exception which proves the rule of bureaucratic dictatorship. While the rule was politically correct nonsense on stilts, I am far more concerned with the decrees which more comprehensively limit or liberty and which are gutting ecumenic growth and job creation.

Finally, your citation to common dictionary definitions do not begin to explain complex political and economic theory or their real life applications. This is why political scientists and economists do not use them in their work.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:02 PM

"Where is the $100 million plus damage imposed by the ban on fracking on federal lands? "

From the WSJ article: "The fracking regulation was issued by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management in March 2015 and had been in the works since 2012. It applies to oil and gas drilling on federal lands, which produce 11% of the natural gas consumed in the U.S. and 5% of the oil, according to government data. State regulations govern fracking on private and state lands.

Much of the drilling is concentrated in Western states, such as Colorado and Wyoming, two of the states challenging the standards. More than 90% of new land-based wells in the U.S. use fracking, the shortened term for hydraulic fracturing."

Are you seriously going to keep up this hill?

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 1:08 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:09 PM

Bart vs. Bart

Bart 1: "the Obama bathroom decree because the bureaucracy did not follow its own rule concerning allowing public discussion before issuing the decree, not because a bureaucracy issuing such decrees is a fundamental violation of Article I of the Constitution.

This is just one decree of thousands imposed over just the past eight years, nearly all of which are imposed without judicial reversal or even review."

Bart 2: "I never cited the Obama bathroom law as an example of the bureaucratic dictatorship."

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 1:11 PM

Mr. W:

"The fracking regulation was issued by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management in March 2015 and had been in the works since 2012. It applies to oil and gas drilling on federal lands, which produce 11% of the natural gas consumed in the U.S. and 5% of the oil, according to government data. State regulations govern fracking on private and state lands."

Not economically significant?

Not in the least.

You are offering apples and cabbages. Fracking is a means of extracting oil and natural gas. Currently active wells are not fracking and the fracking rule would not affect them on the least.

Colorado and Wyoming would like to potentially expand their fracking onto public lands, but no energy companies are seeking any significant permits to do so and this rule would not have wiped out $100 million plus in actual fracking operations.

Why jump through government hoops when private land is filled with oil and gas.

"Last October, a federal appeals court blocked an Environmental Protection Agency rule that sought to put more bodies of water and wetlands under federal protection. A final decision on that matter is pending.

A final decision on that rule is pending, just like the immigration decree.

If Obama or Clinton appoint Scalia's replacement with yet another progressive rubber stamp, both of those rules will be upheld by the Supreme Court.

Delays are not reversals.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:12 PM

Mr. W:

My response to one of your exceptions proving my rule is not an offer of proof on my part.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:15 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Joe : 1:16 PM

"Currently active wells are not fracking and the fracking rule would not affect them on the least."

Bwa-ha-ha-ha! Bart, Bart.

Fracking is involved in 90% of new wells, and 11 and 5% of natural gas and oil, respectively, consumed in the US comes from federal lands, and that was going to face stricter standards under the new regulations, and that's not economically significant? Laughable.

"A final decision on that rule is pending, just like the immigration decree."

That hardly matters for our purposes, 'dictators' don't have officials even temporarily blocking their decrees (as I said, such officials would be shot or jailed).

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 1:17 PM

Thanks.

"he's more a buffoon"

There are a variety of buffoons. That alone isn't the problem.

I don't know enough about Silvio Berlusconi to judge though a quick look suggests his ties to Putin etc. might make it a good comparison in various respects. And, comparing someone to "Mussoli" as much as "Hitler" is akin to someone saying a racist is a Theodore Bilbo. There are degrees here.

You say the first definition works better.

"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

The movement here exalts the nation and fears outsiders. Trump assures us that we should trust him. He and his mighty abilities will solve things. Unduly limiting him by formal rules would be problematic. See, e.g., support of torture or wide discretion when negotiating with foreign leaders. He wants to loosen free speech rules regarding "opposition" of his positions, including using the force of the government against persons and institutions.

The "severe economic and social regimentation" doesn't quite work, but "fascist" like other labels is not used in some narrow way in common usage. And, a higher test is put in our society. The type of "torture" banned here that still goes on generally is not likely to include what Hitler used. Allowing it still would make us "torturers."

Anyway, if "fascist" or "sociopath" doesn't work for people, that's fine. But, Trump is more than a "buffoon," though that alone might turn people off from him.

# posted by

Joe : 1:19 PM

..this gets reported as him promising to pay the legal fees of anyone beating up one of the protesters. Rather than a specific promise to do so if yo do it to stop an illegal assault. Surprise: Throwing things at speakers is a crime, assault at the least, with battery added if your aim is good.

That's one of my links. As usual, you ignore the parts of opposing comments you have no good response to.

Besides, aren't you a big law and order guy? I would have thought the proper response to someone throwing a tomato - which hardly threatens serous bodily harm - would be to call the police, not urge that they be beat up.

# posted by

toad : 1:30 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:49 PM

BD: "Currently active wells are not fracking and the fracking rule would not affect them on the least."

Mr. W: Fracking is involved in 90% of new wells, and 11 and 5% of natural gas and oil, respectively, consumed in the US comes from federal lands, and that was going to face stricter standards under the new regulations, and that's not economically significant? Laughable.

Did you read what you just posted before you hit the return button?

Do you understand the difference between public and private land and previously drilled wells as opposed to potential future drilling?

Once more for the willfully obtuse...

Your 11% and 5% figures refer to previously drilled wells on federal land. A rule banning fracking would not shut down a single one of these wells.

The fracking revolution occurred and is occurring almost exclusively on private land. The reversed fracking prohibition on federal land does not reach $100+ million worth of fracking operations. Your article could not name a single operation halted by this rule.

CO and WY would like to extend fracking onto the majority of their territory run by the federal government, so they opposed this rule.

BD: "A final decision on that rule is pending, just like the immigration decree."

Mr. W: That hardly matters for our purposes, 'dictators' don't have officials even temporarily blocking their decrees (as I said, such officials would be shot or jailed).

You really need to read some history.

The various communist and fascist totalitarian dictatorships which you actually recognize as such frequently operated at cross purposes as the official dictators and their various bureaucracies issued conflicting decrees and thoroughly snarled their economies.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:50 PM

"Besides, aren't you a big law and order guy? I would have thought the proper response to someone throwing a tomato - which hardly threatens serous bodily harm - would be to call the police, not urge that they be beat up. "

Setting aside the fact that, when someone winds up to throw, you don't know if it's rotten fruit, a rock, a bomb... You do know they are prepared to commit an assault, and some degree of violence actually is legally justified in stopping a crime in progress. As Trump himself noted.

Slugging them afterwards would be quite another matter, unless they were reaching for another projectile.

I can't say I'm surprised at this concern for people committing crimes in order to prevent a candidate from speaking. The left no longer thinks it's opposition has any right to oppose. You're ok with violence directed at your foes. That's been on display for the last year, with the tepid response attacks on Trump supporters have produced from the left.

# posted by

Brett : 4:11 PM

"My response to one of your exceptions proving my rule is not an offer of proof on my part."

Bart, you said that the bathroom decree (your word) "is just one decree of thousands imposed over just the past eight years, nearly all of which are imposed without judicial reversal or even review." So you included it as one of the decrees or rules you rail against, and then you turned around and said "I never cited the Obama bathroom law as an example of the bureaucratic dictatorship."

"Your 11% and 5% figures refer to previously drilled wells on federal land. A rule banning fracking would not shut down a single one of these wells."

This is genuinely funny. Look, these are substantial amounts of oil that come from public lands (first figures), and we know that much of it was obtained via fracking (second). The rule wasn't banning fracking, it was regulating it, providing stricter rules for it. All operations on public lands engaging in fracking, which again accounts for a substantial amount of the oil and gas we consume in this nation of 300 million, would have had to comply with the stricter rules, which would have cost them a significant amount of money (that's why they sued to stop them!). But the rule was struck down by a federal judge. Like the wetlands regulation. And the carbon emissions regulation. And the immigration regulation. And the bathroom regulation...Sensing a pattern?

"your citation to common dictionary definitions do not begin to explain complex political and economic theory or their real life applications. This is why political scientists and economists do not use them in their work."

This doesn't help you either, virtually no political scientists or economists would classify the US as a dictatorship, because it's a ludicrous piece of hyperbolic nonsense.

"their various bureaucracies issued conflicting decrees"

Dishonest. You know we're not talking about 'issuing conflicting decrees.' We're talking about a court saying to the executive 'you can't do this, you don't have the power to do this' and the executive having to stop. Can you cite me an example of any decree of Hitler's that met such a fate?

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 4:39 PM

"The left no longer thinks it's opposition has any right to oppose. You're ok with violence directed at your foes."

This conversation started with Brett saying

"Do you have any idea, any idea at all, just how tiresome this is getting? I mean this whole phenomenon of it not being enough to think your candidate on net better, but also insisting on denying the opposition candidate every virtue, and attributing to him every vice?"

The. Most. Un. Self-aware. Person. Ever.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 4:44 PM

"Slugging them afterwards would be quite another matter"

Wait a minute. Didn't Trump defend and say he was considering helping out with the legal fees of that supporter of his that sucker punched that handcuffed protester who was being led out of a rally by police?

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/03/13/donald-trump-john-mcgraw-legal-fees-punch-orig-vstan-dlewis.cnn

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 4:55 PM

"U.S. drillers already reeling from a six-month drop in oil prices denounced new U.S. fracking regulations as costly and unnecessary, and quickly met them with a lawsuit...The industry previously said the regulations would add $97,000 to the cost of each well...More than 100,000 wells on federal lands account for about 11 percent of U.S. gas output and 5 percent of oil production. About 90 percent of them use fracking, or hydraulic fracturing."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-20/u-s-sets-first-fracking-rules-since-process-fueled-energy-boom

No significant economic impact? Bwa-ha-ha!

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 5:01 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 5:07 PM

Mr. W: This is genuinely funny. Look, these are substantial amounts of oil that come from public lands (first figures), and we know that much of it was obtained via fracking (second).

We know no such thing because it is not true.

"U.S. drillers already reeling from a six-month drop in oil prices denounced new U.S. fracking regulations as costly and unnecessary, and quickly met them with a lawsuit...The industry previously said the regulations would add $97,000 to the cost of each well...More than 100,000 wells on federal lands account for about 11 percent of U.S. gas output and 5 percent of oil production. About 90 percent of them use fracking, or hydraulic fracturing."

When you file a law suit, you only gain standing by claiming personal damages. The suit is referring to new fracked wells and not the 100,000 wells currently on federal lands.

In any case, BLM stated that the rule was not economically significant and this is not one of the 600+ rules to which I was referring.

Bwa-ha-ha!

Are you six years old?

BD: "your citation to common dictionary definitions do not begin to explain complex political and economic theory or their real life applications. This is why political scientists and economists do not use them in their work."

Mr. W: This doesn't help you either, virtually no political scientists or economists would classify the US as a dictatorship...

Multiple politcal science, law and economic academics I will be citing in my book properly consider the bureaucracy to be dictatorial and totalitarian. I take this conclusion one step further by noting, because most of our law is imposed by bureaucratic dictat, that America is well on the way to becoming a dictatorship. One step logically follows the other.

You should know by know I am more than willing to follow the evidence and arrive at novel conclusions. The logical fallacy of citation to and worship of authority is not one of my failings.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 5:12 PM

"The suit is referring to new fracked wells and not the 100,000 wells currently on federal lands."

Are you daft? As stated in the article "More than 100,000 wells on federal lands account for about 11 percent of U.S. gas output and 5 percent of oil production. About 90 percent of them **use** fracking, or hydraulic fracturing." 90% of the 100,000 wells use fracking, and the regulations would cost them 97,000 dollars per well. That's 97,000 for each of 90,000 wells. That's almost 9 BILLION dollars.

BTW-the judge that stopped the regulations was an Obama appointee! Dictatorship indeed!

Of course, not even you can deny that the carbon emission regulations SCOTUS struck down fits squarely in what you're talking about. So much for 'nada, zip, zero' then, correct?

"Multiple politcal science, law and economic academics I will be citing in my book properly consider the bureaucracy to be dictatorial and totalitarian."

The vast majority would not.

"I take this conclusion one step further by noting, because most of our law is imposed by bureaucratic dictat, that America is well on the way to becoming a dictatorship. One step logically follows the other."

Assuming your conclusion is never the 'next logical step.

"You should know by know I am more than willing to follow the evidence and arrive at novel conclusions."

Ha ha, it's 'novel' alright, as in idiosyncratic as I've said from the start.

"The logical fallacy of citation to and worship of authority is not one of my failings."

It was YOU that pointed to how political scientists and economists use these terms (because your use is at odds with their common definitions), not me! I just pointed out that you're not helped there, because you're using it in a way that virtually none of those people do.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 5:24 PM

"If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them," Trump said. "Just knock the hell — I promise you, I'll pay the legal fees."

A tomato. Very clear.

some degree of violence actually is legally justified in stopping a crime in progress.

Overdramatizing things a bit, aren't you? And once you've stopped the thrower are still entitled to "beat the crap" out of the guy, as Trump suggested? Id on't think so.

Also still conveniently ignore the other link, not to mention Trump suggesting that the way to stop Clinton from naming judges if she wins is assassination. That's clear too, despite the subsequent lies coming from Trump about it and your no doubt delusionary response.

# posted by

toad : 5:28 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Joe : 5:37 PM

BD: "The suit is referring to new fracked wells and not the 100,000 wells currently on federal lands."

Mr. W: Are you daft? As stated in the article "More than 100,000 wells on federal lands account for about 11 percent of U.S. gas output and 5 percent of oil production. About 90 percent of them **use** fracking, or hydraulic fracturing."

Your unlinked article is wrong and is mis-citing an industry claim that 90% of all wells sunk since 2009 used fracking.

"There were more than 493,000 active natural-gas wells in the United States in 2009, almost double the number in 1990. Around 90 percent have used hydrofracking to get more gas flowing, according to the drilling industry."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

The 100,000 active wells on federal land have been placed over decades and 90% of them were not fracked since 2009.

Of course, not even you can deny that the carbon emission regulations SCOTUS struck down fits squarely in what you're talking about. So much for 'nada, zip, zero' then, correct?

The more I correct you, the more incorrect you become.

SCOTUS did not reverse the Obama carbon rules, it granted an injunction putting them on hold pending appeal at the circuit and likely later to SCOTUS. Because the Court lost Scalia, a rubber stamp appointed by Obama or Clinton will likely uphold the rule.

This is the second time you have mis-cited a case claiming the court reversed a rule. You claim to have went to law school. Do you know the difference between a ruling on the merits and an injunction pending an appeal?

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 5:40 PM

What in the world are you talking about? Your own source says that of the "493,000 active natural-gas wells in the United States," "Around 90 percent have used hydrofracking to get more gas flowing." Do you not get that the 'around 90%' refers to the "493,00 active natural gas wells in the United States?"

A significant number of those wells exist on federal lands, 90,000. And the industry, which won the lawsuit, stated it would cost them 97,000 for each of these 90,000 wells to comply with the regulation. That's BILLIONS of dollars. But it was stopped by a federal judge, an Obama appointee no less.

"This is the second time you have mis-cited a case claiming the court reversed a rule."

I'm talking about Michigan v. EPA, which was a ruling on the merits, what are you talking about? Some *other* slapping down of a recent executive regulation (I realize there's so many you might get confused! Dictatorship indeed!). Of course, as I mentioned above, a stay by itself indicates the absurdity of your dictatorship claim. Hitler didn't get his decrees stayed by Nazi judges.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:24 PM

I should note, the 90,000 includes oil wells, many of which also use fracking.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:26 PM

Mr. W:

This is growing tiresome. What part of "since 2009" did you miss?

You can continue to argue with yourself because your error is moot. My original contention you disputed was that the courts had not reversed any of the 600+ rules which the bureaucracy had designated as economically significant. Interior did not designate the federal land fracking rule as economically significant.

If you want to argue the general proposition that the bureaucracy intentionally understates the cost of their regulations and they should designate more as economically significant, we will agree.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 7:27 PM