Feels like you kind of buried the main issue of contention in a single throw away line: “Because ‘democracy’ will (probably) be fine.” Also, “there’s no excuse *for* voting for president in 24’” is quite the bold take (I know that’s not literally what you said, but it seems like it’s effectively the same thing).
Yeah I realized that the other day that in skewering the voting for Biden to save democracy thing, I also allude to conditions under which perhaps it actually would make sense to vote for one or the other to save the American experiment from a dictator. But I think I made it clear especially in that last post, that the case democracy is in crisis is unpersuasive at best, and a fever dream at worst, and it shouldn’t stop you from withholding your vote from Biden because of his failed policies, treating this election as a referendum on his first term, as if this were just like any other election. That seems like the fair and rational thing to do, despite whatever Trump threatens with his admittedly authoritarian ambitions, not least when you consider that Biden has his own corrupt and authoritarian impulses. Therefore as I said even if Trump’s threat to democracy were half as serious an argument as it is, it would complicate the case to vote for Biden as the other better authoritarian to balance the other. I don’t think the founders would be pleased at all with Americans psyching themselves out to rationalize voting for two would-be monarchs or tyrants out of some misguided sense of civic duty, or the belief with little empirical basis that the country or democracy is going to be destroyed, or the stubborn inability to remove oneself from the herd and just not vote. If you subscribe to WAPO you should read George Will’s recent column making the case not to vote. At some point even if there were some rationality to picking the lesser of two evils like in 2016. I think it would have made more sense then to vote for Hillary if only from the standpoint that she has political experience and Trump had none. Now it’s rather different. The choices we have now are made in the cast of their parties that are so obsessed with culture-warring that none of their leaders can make important decisions with Biden and Trump being the emblems of both parties with ambitions to take over the country lest the other side does first.
Not exactly. And I’m not trying to draw an “equivalence.” I’m making a comparison. Progressive anti-Trump defenders of Biden, warts and all, love to resort to the “you’re making a false equivalence” tactic to shield Biden from criticizing him by the same standard they criticize Trump. I’m tired of it. Biden and Trump are not the exact same beast. They have each committed grievous crimes and mistakes. And they are obviously comparable. Only as an academic exercise, though might it be actually productive to compare who is better and who is worse overall. At the voting booth you should understand, they are practically, more or less, albeit each for different reasons, equally disqualified not to be president.
What do “Progressive anti-Trump defenders of Biden” have to do with me? I’m not progressive and I only speak for myself. And making highly dubious assertions like “they are obviously comparable” with faux certitude as though only a delusional fool could object doesn’t make it so. Particularly when so many of the people who worked most closely with Trump in his first term clearly disagree with you.
But you’re *not* an untrained eye. So why does that matter? Seems a bit like you’re hiding behind the uninformed. Similar to what you said about how Meghan Kelley made a persuasive case from the perspective of a Mom who just wants normalcy and isn’t moved by abstract pitches about democracy (or something to that effect). That may well be true as a matter of political reality. But you seem to be conflating a positive statement with a normative one. There’s no reason for *you* to artificially limit your perspective to that of a Mom who isn’t moved by all this abstract mumbo jumbo about democracy.
That’s not what I am doing plainly. Megyn Kelly would surely disagree with how I equate Biden to Trump being as she is a Trump supporter: that is the test. Anyone who puts the Constitution over partisan disputes would find Trump and Biden in the same hot water.
To an untrained eye or a nonpartisan observer, they are obviously comparable with their mendaciousness and frequent assaults on constitutional norms and their unconstrained attitude towards executive power.
My point was not that you have the same attitude toward Trump as Meghan Kelley. It was that there’s a Motte Bailey people do where they jump between positive and normative claims and seek to minimize the indefensible or equate unlike things re Biden vs. Trump by talking about how things look to “ordinary people.” I see it as a surrender of moral agency hidden behind a populist flex. Though it’s entirely possible that I was being sloppy or uncharitable in suggesting this applied to you. But it’s very common in the contrarian press.
By using the untrained observer I was talking about any principled person and invoking an abstraction. Megyn Kelly is a partisan Trump supporter. I just think that her case from the standpoint of policy is pretty strong, as strong as that against Trump from the standpoint of respecting constitutional norms. My point is only that anyone who would put one over the other is forcing oneself to do a lot of gymnastics to vote for a candidate who is no bigger a threat to democracy than the other, no better man, and whose policies are not that much better either. And it shows when such partisans debate. The irony is that they think they’re nonpartisans, either making a pragmatic decision for prudential considerations or a moral one for existential considerations. The case that Trump is a threat to democracy or that Biden is cuts both ways though. I have listed and explained why they are so similar though, that the degree whether who is worse is academic, and a moot point.
Feels like you kind of buried the main issue of contention in a single throw away line: “Because ‘democracy’ will (probably) be fine.” Also, “there’s no excuse *for* voting for president in 24’” is quite the bold take (I know that’s not literally what you said, but it seems like it’s effectively the same thing).
Yeah I realized that the other day that in skewering the voting for Biden to save democracy thing, I also allude to conditions under which perhaps it actually would make sense to vote for one or the other to save the American experiment from a dictator. But I think I made it clear especially in that last post, that the case democracy is in crisis is unpersuasive at best, and a fever dream at worst, and it shouldn’t stop you from withholding your vote from Biden because of his failed policies, treating this election as a referendum on his first term, as if this were just like any other election. That seems like the fair and rational thing to do, despite whatever Trump threatens with his admittedly authoritarian ambitions, not least when you consider that Biden has his own corrupt and authoritarian impulses. Therefore as I said even if Trump’s threat to democracy were half as serious an argument as it is, it would complicate the case to vote for Biden as the other better authoritarian to balance the other. I don’t think the founders would be pleased at all with Americans psyching themselves out to rationalize voting for two would-be monarchs or tyrants out of some misguided sense of civic duty, or the belief with little empirical basis that the country or democracy is going to be destroyed, or the stubborn inability to remove oneself from the herd and just not vote. If you subscribe to WAPO you should read George Will’s recent column making the case not to vote. At some point even if there were some rationality to picking the lesser of two evils like in 2016. I think it would have made more sense then to vote for Hillary if only from the standpoint that she has political experience and Trump had none. Now it’s rather different. The choices we have now are made in the cast of their parties that are so obsessed with culture-warring that none of their leaders can make important decisions with Biden and Trump being the emblems of both parties with ambitions to take over the country lest the other side does first.
I just realized that I’m simultaneously making the case for Biden to you on Substack while trashing him on Twitter (yes I still call it that).😀
Biden isn’t a would-be tyrant. That’s a false equivalence.
Not exactly. And I’m not trying to draw an “equivalence.” I’m making a comparison. Progressive anti-Trump defenders of Biden, warts and all, love to resort to the “you’re making a false equivalence” tactic to shield Biden from criticizing him by the same standard they criticize Trump. I’m tired of it. Biden and Trump are not the exact same beast. They have each committed grievous crimes and mistakes. And they are obviously comparable. Only as an academic exercise, though might it be actually productive to compare who is better and who is worse overall. At the voting booth you should understand, they are practically, more or less, albeit each for different reasons, equally disqualified not to be president.
What do “Progressive anti-Trump defenders of Biden” have to do with me? I’m not progressive and I only speak for myself. And making highly dubious assertions like “they are obviously comparable” with faux certitude as though only a delusional fool could object doesn’t make it so. Particularly when so many of the people who worked most closely with Trump in his first term clearly disagree with you.
But you’re *not* an untrained eye. So why does that matter? Seems a bit like you’re hiding behind the uninformed. Similar to what you said about how Meghan Kelley made a persuasive case from the perspective of a Mom who just wants normalcy and isn’t moved by abstract pitches about democracy (or something to that effect). That may well be true as a matter of political reality. But you seem to be conflating a positive statement with a normative one. There’s no reason for *you* to artificially limit your perspective to that of a Mom who isn’t moved by all this abstract mumbo jumbo about democracy.
That’s not what I am doing plainly. Megyn Kelly would surely disagree with how I equate Biden to Trump being as she is a Trump supporter: that is the test. Anyone who puts the Constitution over partisan disputes would find Trump and Biden in the same hot water.
To an untrained eye or a nonpartisan observer, they are obviously comparable with their mendaciousness and frequent assaults on constitutional norms and their unconstrained attitude towards executive power.
My point was not that you have the same attitude toward Trump as Meghan Kelley. It was that there’s a Motte Bailey people do where they jump between positive and normative claims and seek to minimize the indefensible or equate unlike things re Biden vs. Trump by talking about how things look to “ordinary people.” I see it as a surrender of moral agency hidden behind a populist flex. Though it’s entirely possible that I was being sloppy or uncharitable in suggesting this applied to you. But it’s very common in the contrarian press.
*Megyn Kelly lol
By using the untrained observer I was talking about any principled person and invoking an abstraction. Megyn Kelly is a partisan Trump supporter. I just think that her case from the standpoint of policy is pretty strong, as strong as that against Trump from the standpoint of respecting constitutional norms. My point is only that anyone who would put one over the other is forcing oneself to do a lot of gymnastics to vote for a candidate who is no bigger a threat to democracy than the other, no better man, and whose policies are not that much better either. And it shows when such partisans debate. The irony is that they think they’re nonpartisans, either making a pragmatic decision for prudential considerations or a moral one for existential considerations. The case that Trump is a threat to democracy or that Biden is cuts both ways though. I have listed and explained why they are so similar though, that the degree whether who is worse is academic, and a moot point.
I don’t think you’re right. But there’s some good thinking behind it. So I’ll allow it.
Only kidding about the “I’ll allow it” part (if that wasn’t clear). A friend of mine used to say that.