The Political Valence of Law Firm Political Contributions

The vast majority of law firm contributions to political candidates go to one party.

Over at Excess of Democracy, Derek Muller has a post examining the political contributions of employees (lawyers and staff) at the top 140 law firms in the United States. Interestingly enough, he finds that donations at the vast majority of these firms tilt decidedly toward the Democratic Party.

From his post:

All told, I captured about $61 million in contributions to Democratic-affiliated groups compared to about $11 million for Republican-affiliated groups in 2017-2020, nearly a 6-to-1 ratio. . . .

Many firms had fewer than 10% of contributions go to major Republican outlets. A handful had at least 25%, and just three crossed 50%. Even among those the figures are deceptive. At White & Case, for instance, there was a single $500,000 contribution to the Trump Victory Fund, more than half of all Republican contributions in this four-year time period.

Comments

[AmosArch]

I'll give progs this. They understand far better than the Right seems to that you don't win just by getting your guy elected to some high office.

While the conservative movement insists on the narrow view of politics as a battle that is merely fought through the ballot box and arguing futilely over the issues and reactivity the Left has put much more effort in a strategy that actually works. Ie infiltrating and taking control of the various institutions of society. We're basically entering an era where almost every single major institution I can think of is owned or at least pays lip service to the Left. Even institutions normally considered bedrocks of conservatism like the military and churches are heavily infected by the rot and of course corporations have long flipped.

Its not just the US. You see the same pattern repeat throughout history. Conservatives for some reason tend to be blindly and inordinately in love with direct political power and processes while the Left tends to adapt a more holistic strategy in gaining control.

[myself]

Ever since Obama got elected the Conservative movement has been focused on:

1) Jerrymandering to ensure Conservative legislative majorities.
2) Obstructing the appointment of Democratic judges while rushing through Conservative judges. Including creating and then promptly breaking a standard for appointments to the SCOTUS.
3) Ensuring that appointed Conservative judges actually stay loyal (the Federalist society).
4) Purging of elected officials who refuse to overturn election results.

There are various reasons for institutions tending to lean left, but the right only caring about "the ballot box" is definitely not one of them.

[I Callahan]

1) Gerrymanding... The dems, in many states, have made changes to laws to keep it so this doesn't happen, and districts are decided by "councils", who are supposedly evenly dvidided between the parties, but left wing activists always seem to make it on these councils.

2) Obstructing... I know this is the narrative, but you have to ignore the judicial politics of the 1/2 century before that. In other words, conservatives aren't doing anything progs weren't already doing.

3) Conservative judges and loyalty... If this were the case, Prof Blackman wouldn't have posted numerous articles about how 2 of Trump's "conservative" judges have gone against conservatism and voted with the left so many times.

4) Purging of elected officials... This is the most laughable of the ones listed. Not one single politician has been "purged".

All of the above aside, answer AmosArch's main point that the left has taken over everything: media, entertainment, education, big business, big tech, churches, the military. If you have an argument that this didn't happen, I'm all ears.

[myself]

1) Both parties guilty, but GOP is empirically worse.

2) Again, degree. I honestly can't think of a more blatant case of political hypocrisy as the GOP actions on the Scalia & RGB seats.

3) The Federalist society and pressure from Conservative legal commentators (Blackman) are efforts to counter this and keep them loyal.

4) Liz Cheney? Brad Raffensperger? All over the US Republicans are removing authority from officials who resisted the election lies and turning adherence to election conspiracies into a litmus test.

As for the non-government institutions that's not a take over by the left but a failure of Fox News Conservatism to be remotely practical in those circumstances. The military is a great example, the institution itself is about as conservative as you can get, yet as you go up the ranks the pundit style conservatism goes away because it's impractical. This is because those "progressive values" like diversity and equality actually help large organizations run more smoothly. When you really get hard core conservative ideology into the top level of the organization you get things like Liberty University.

Even Trump Org. does (or did) the whole "Happy Holidays" greetings that Conservative commentators insist is part of the "war on Christmas". Is Trump that big a progressive or is it just that a business realizing it doesn't want its non-Christian customers to feel unwelcome?

[Bob from Ohio]

"GOP is empirically worse."

Assertion without evidence.

[Armchair Lawyer]

1) Ditto

[Kevin Smith]

2) From a political perspective there was no hypocrisy at all. They kept the other party's guy off the bench, and then later ensured their gal was placed on the bench. Perfectly consistent from a strictly political perspective.

The only "hypocrisy" is in the excuses they gave so as not to seem blatantly partisan, which anyone with two brain cells to rub together knew were nothing more than lip service from the beginning.

[M L]

The right doesn't do gerrymandering or any of those things any more than the left does.

[Sarcastr0]

Um, no that's not true.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2671607

Top gerrymandered states are Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan.
Guess what they have in common.

[Commenter_XY]

All of those states have vowels in their names = what is in common

🙂

[Sarcastr0]

I'm convinced that's intentional 😛

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, you got me!

Let's try this: All of those states have at least two vowels in their names.

There cannot be anything else they have in common. No sir-ree.

[Bob from Ohio]

Oh, one study. Conclusive!

One author is a Professor of Neuroscience and
Molecular Biology, this is outside his expertise.

Other author is Statistical Research Analyst for the Princeton Gerrymandering Project. Princeton Gerrymandering Project is opposed to gerrymandering. Its not a reliable source either.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob, you think this kind of hardball is good, actually. Shows the GOP has that victory over integrity spirit you think everyone has but only you are honest about it.

I don't know why you're so enthusiastic with your ad hominem and attacking a math paper like it's one-off clinical study.

[Kevin Smith]

Did that study look at all districts or just congressional? I find it hard to believe any of them are more gerrymandered than Illinois

[Sarcastr0]

Partisan gerrymandering does not include all gerrymandering.

Though were it up to me we'd have a computer make it all squares of appropriate size.

[I Callahan]

What they have in common is heavily black districts in large cities. If you think the GOP planned it that way on purpose, you're utterly insane. They were gerrymandered to keep black congresspeople representing black districts. It wasn't to create special white GOP districts.

[Sarcastr0]

If you think the GOP planned it that way on purpose, you're utterly insane.

We caught them saying they did, weirdo.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-secret-files-of-the-master-of-modern-republican-gerrymandering

[Armchair Lawyer]

Illinois isn't on that list. Either is Maryland. That makes me suspect your supposed list.

[Sarcastr0]

Great reasoning, chief.

'Both sides do it!' 'Not at the same rate, here's evidence.'

'Your evidence doesn't prove both sides do it, so I don't believe it!'

[Armchair Lawyer]

Since your "list" doesn't include two of the most gerrymandered states in the country, Illinois and Maryland, it makes me suspect your entire list.

If the data's off in key examples, the best solution is to throw it all in the garbage, and start from scratch.

You lie. Consistently. This is just another way.

[Sarcastr0]

Partisan gerrymandering does not include all gerrymandering.

[Toranth]

So only some types of gerrymandering are bad enough to count? The gerrymandering you like is OK, though, and thus doesn't count?

You need to work harder to justify your list of "gerrymandering is from the Right" when you exclude examples of Leftist gerrymandering.

[Brett Bellmore]

The general rule is that conservatives join organizations to advance the organization's cause, and the left join organizations to advance the left's cause. So, while the conservatives are working hard at doing whatever the nominal purpose of the organization is, the left are working hard at taking the organization over.

Unopposed, they generally succeed.

The problem has been that not enough people running organizations understand this dynamic. Particularly, academic organizations fall for it every time, because, being devoted to the free exchange of ideas, it doesn't seem to occur to them that the left-wingers they hire don't think the same, and that free exchange will end as soon as there are enough of them to pull it off.

[Sarcastr0]

Liking a political party doesn't mean you'll unprofessionally act to 'advance the left's cause.'

You just don't seem to understand how some people can like a party and not be shills.

[Michael P]

Surely you are not so stupid as to actually believe leftism is a political party. The left is not just Democrats -- it's also Communists, international Socialists, national ones, and more.

[Queen Amalthea]

Isn't this initial post about a political party, specifically? Well, two of them.

[Michael P]

Donating to a particular political party, or being of a certain ideological persuasion, is very different than just "liking a political party".

[Sarcastr0]

No, it's really not.

[David Bremer]

Sure it is. Lots of people like political parties. But far fewer of them like the parties so much that they are willing to part with their hard-earned money to give that party a miniscule increased chance of having one of its candidates elected.

[Sarcastr0]

By the metric under discussion, there is no difference - donating to a political party does not mean you're going to become partisan shills for that party's agenda.

Which many on here (Brett, Michael, Amos) seem to think is true, though only for the other side.

[Michael P]

That's a nice straw man you made there. Want are you spending so much time beating it?

[Sarcastr0]

So what was your thesis here: Donating to a particular political party, or being of a certain ideological persuasion, is very different than just "liking a political party".

It sure sounds like you're offering this in support to Brett's 4:38 comment. You know, the one about the OP proving academia is full of partisan shills for the leftist agenda.

[David Bremer]

You're correct in saying that donating to a political party does not mean you will become a partisan shill. But if you're a partisan shill, then you more than just "like" a party. You're also more likely to donate to it. In other words, donations and party shills are correlated.

So, where you see a higher rate of donations, then it's safe to say there's a much greater likelihood of shills being there.

Besides, it doesn't take one being a shill to affect the overall views of people the firm. I wouldn't call the top attorneys at our firm shills, but you certainly know where they stand politically, and that can affect the overall culture at the firm and discussions that we have. And it's more pronounced from the democrats than the lone republican. Anecdote and all that, but I suspect the same plays out at other firms as well.

[Sarcastr0]

where you see a higher rate of donations, then it's safe to say there's a much greater likelihood of shills being there

This is the fallacy of composition - something being true of a subset says nothing about the superset.

[David Bremer]

This is the fallacy of composition - something being true of a subset says nothing about the superset.

I'm not talking about the superset. I'm talking about the individuals within the subset. The superset is people who "like" a party; the subset is people who like a party so much they will donate. I'm saying the subset is much more likely to be shills.

So, where you see a greater number of donations from a firm (i.e., a greater number of the subset), then it tells you that there's an increased likelihood that there will be shills within that group. And when the shills point heavily in one direction, it's going to affect the culture at the firm. And if you are using the law firm and shills as the superset and subset, it's not a fallacy because one affects the other. They are completely independent, static items.

[bernard11]

And surely you and Brett are not so stupid as to think "the left" is some kind of monolithic movement with no internal conflicts, disagreements about policies and priorities, etc., just like the right.

Yet to read the comments by the two of you one would think you really are that stupid.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course the left has internal disagreements, just as the right does.

And yet, you can make fair generalizations about the left, just as you can the right, so long as you remain aware that generalizations are not hard and fast rules.

[Queen Amalthea]

Assuming the cynical worst about professionals is just normal conservative thinking these days, and then they feel they have to concoct elaborate theories as to why their not popular with professional groups!

[I Callahan]

Irony isn't your strong suit, is it?

[Brett Bellmore]

You don't seem to understand how multiple university faculties ended up basically 100% left-wing in a 50-50 nation. It wasn't spontaneously.

Homogenous: The Political Affiliations of Elite Liberal Arts College Faculty

It's worth noting that, even a couple of decades ago, the ratios here were closer to 2 or 3 to 1, not 20 or 30 to 1 as today. So far as I can tell, about 20 years ago the 'elite' universities simply stopped hiring conservatives, period, and the existing ones have been aging out ever since.

[Queen Amalthea]

It's funny that hardcore conservatives suddenly believe in discrimination as *the* answer when it comes to issues where they *politically* see 'disparities.'

But this isn't rocket science. Most farmers are Republicans. Is that because conservatives took over the institutions of farmers?

Of course not. Cultural shifts mirrored political shifts and most farmers find the Democrats to exude an urban cosmopolitan feel that turns them off. Likewise most urban professionals get a feel from conservative Republicans that is off putting to them.

And the, of course, there's policy. Republicans routinely argue for less funding and more restrictions on academe, things like tort reform, etc., and then concoct elaborate theories as to why most academics, lawyers, etc., don't like them...

[Michael P]

Intolerant leftists are the ones who saw discrimination as the solution. They still push it as a solution today.

It's pretty revealing that you think the right way to win favor with people is thorough government spending on groups they belong to.

[WRD]

Like spending on farms and farmers?

[I Callahan]

So no Dems spend on farmers? Interesting...

[Sarcastr0]

Just like the right never sues anyone.

Which is, I believe, WRD's point.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I'm always amazed at this argument from supposed liberals. Especially given the clear cut, documented, political discrimination from faculty hiring committees.

Here's just one case example.

Ms. Wagner was hired initially in August 2006 and was serving on a part-time basis as the associate director of the law school's writing center when two full-time positions for legal-writing instructors opened up that fall. She became one of the two finalists for the openings.

She had impressive qualifications. Ms. Wagner had taught legal writing at George Mason University Law School in Virginia, edited three books, practiced as a trial attorney in Iowa, and written several legal briefs, including one in a U.S. Supreme Court case, Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), which struck down a Nebraska law criminalizing partial-birth abortions. The faculty-appointments committee at the University of Iowa College of Law enthusiastically recommended her appointment as a full-time instructor.

There was a catch, however. Teresa Wagner is a pro-life conservative. Her résumé showed prior employment with the National Right to Life Committee and the Family Research Council, both socially conservative organizations in Washington, D.C.

The University of Iowa's law-school faculty, like most law-school faculties, is overwhelmingly liberal. When Ms. Wagner was considered for the job, the law school had only one Republican on its 50-member faculty, according to party registration records obtained from the Iowa Secretary of State, and he had joined the faculty 25 years earlier.

In deciding whether to hire Ms. Wagner, neither her politics nor those of the law school's faculty should have been relevant. Yet the day after the law-school faculty voted to reject Ms. Wagner, in January 2007, Associate Dean Jon Carlson wrote to Dean Jones in an email, "Frankly, one thing that worries me is that some people may be opposed to Teresa serving any role, in part at least because they so despise her politics (and especially her activism about it)." The dean generally follows the results of an all-faculty vote, but precedent at the law school shows that the dean has the discretion to set it aside.

Other than by looking to politics, it is difficult to explain the law school's efforts to avoid hiring Ms. Wagner. One of the full-time legal-writing instructor positions for which she applied went to the other finalist, Matt Williamson, a self-described "off the charts liberal" with one semester of law-school teaching experience, no legal publications and no experience practicing law. He requested to leave his new job at mid-year, but Dean Jones persuaded him to stay. He quit after one year of full-time teaching.

The law school struggled to fill the second instructor vacancy with adjuncts, preferring over Ms. Wagner a former research assistant originally hired fresh out of law school. The research assistant had worked for Prof. Randall Bezanson, a former law clerk to Harry Blackmun at the time Justice Blackmun wrote the decision in Roe v. Wade. Mr. Bezanson (who passed away recently) led the opposition to Ms. Wagner.

https://www.hoover.org/research/case-faculty-discrimination-based-politics

[Sarcastr0]

They call this one an appeal to ignorance.

Appeal to ignorance: the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I don't know why she wasn't hired. Maybe it was unconscious bias, maybe it was intentional. Maybe it was something we're not tracking. We don't know!

And even if we did know, it'd be a one-off.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"In deciding whether to hire Ms. Wagner, neither her skim coloration nor those of the law school's faculty should have been relevant. Yet the day after the law-school faculty voted to reject Ms. Wagner, in January 2007, Associate Dean Jon Carlson wrote to Dean Jones in an email, "Frankly, one thing that worries me is that some people may be opposed to Teresa serving any role, in part at least because they so despise her Black Coloration (and especially her activism about it)." The dean generally follows the results of an all-faculty vote, but precedent at the law school shows that the dean has the discretion to set it aside."

How does that sound Sarcastro?

[Sarcastr0]

Capitalizing Black Coloration is weird.

But otherwise it's pretty speculative.

Academic politics is some personal, petty, vicious, nonsense. I recommend not trying to assume any kind of rationality to any particular decision or incident.

[Nuke the cane]

As the saying goes, university politics is so vicious because the stakes a so small

[Sarcastr0]

As you know, Brett, I'm all for affirmative action for conservative voices in academia.

I just don't think it's anything intentional.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't see how you reach the ratios found by that study without something intentional going on.

[Sarcastr0]

Appeal to incredulity is a fallacy.

I'm not saying it's good that a 30 year process has accelerated recently. But I don't think it's intentional.

I'm also having a harder and harder time finding the Baudes among the Blackmans.

[Armchair Lawyer]

More importantly, there are actually a number of polls where liberal professors say they'd actively discriminate against conservatives in the hiring process.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/liberal-majority-on-campus-yes-were-biased/

Yes. It's intentional.

[Seamus]

Back around 1970, I was naive enough to think it was outrageous that Ronald Reagan was trying to get Angela Davis fired from the University of California faculty. I thought we ought to go ahead and hire even card-carrying Communists (like Davis), as well as other radical leftists, so long as they were academically qualified, that diversity of views on the faculty was a good thing, and that it was ridiculous to think that leftists would ever discriminate on the basis of ideology in hiring fellow faculty members.

Now, instead of anti-Communist loyalty oaths, we have pro-diversity-equity-and-inclusion loyalty oaths. Sorry, Governor Reagan. You were right and I was wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

This appears to be the study:
https://pure.uvt.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/1464195/SocPsy_Lammers_political_PoPS_2012.pdf

1) It's only about psychology
2) The study abstract reveals a pretty clear agenda
3) A lot of the study is about self-reported feelings of persecution by conservatives
4) The data on willingness to personally discriminate was actually about willingness of colleagues to discriminate. Which is not quite what the Washington Times said it was about.

[I Callahan]

Jesus, Sarcastro. Enough with the appeals to debate tactics. Use your brain to deduce. Is it really that difficult to see universities as overwhelmingly left discriminating against conservatives? You'd have to be completely with your head in the sand to say yes.

[Sarcastr0]

As I've made clear in this thread, I think there is certainly discrimination going on, but it's of the unconscious bias variety. Like choosing like. And just as we need to break up the old boys clubs, we should use affirmative action to break up this self-reinforcing ideological bias.

But that's not what this thread thinks. A bunch of you think there's a plot. And no, I am not convinced of that.

And fallacies aren't debate tactics, they're someone thinking they proved something and actually they did not.

Like how you have such a problem realizing that there are other people in the world, and that what you are sure is super duper true doesn't have the same cache with them. That's not great critical thinking!

[Queen Amalthea]

"So, while the conservatives are working hard at doing whatever the nominal purpose of the organization is, the left are working hard at taking the organization over."

This just assumes the conservatives understanding of the 'nominal purpose' of the organization is the 'true' one and the left's is just their politics.

Take a public health foundation with a nominal mission to broadly and vaguely fight disease. If it starts to think that racial disparities in disease is an issue has it gone political and given up it's 'nominal' purpose for a 'political' one, or is the focus well within its 'nominal' purpose?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Take a public health foundation with a nominal mission to broadly and vaguely fight disease. If it starts to think that racial disparities in disease is an issue has it gone political and given up it's 'nominal' purpose for a 'political' one, or is the focus well within its 'nominal' purpose?"

Yes, it's gone political.

[Queen Amalthea]

That's ridiculous. Racial disparities in public health outcomes is certainly a valid topic of study/concern in the field of public health, as much as racial disparities in market share is certainly a valid topic of study/concern for a major company or industry.

[Rossami]

In the vast majority of cases, no it's not.

In certain medical scenarios where genetics could actually be relevant to disease progression or the success of treatments, understanding racial disparities is important. In all the others, you are improperly using race as a proxy for economic status, culture, location or other factors which are the true causal agents. By fixating on race, you inhibit the investigation and remediation of those true underlying causes.

[Sarcastr0]

A priori you don't know in what cases it matters and in what cases it doesn't.

And no, you're not using race as a proxy for non-clinical factors in clinical trials. Medical research is separate from public health research.

[I Callahan]

Racial disparities in public health outcomes is certainly a valid topic of study/concern in the field of public health

The above is a POLITICAL topic. It's a POLITICAL view that racism is to blame for it. You've proven Brett's point without actually admitting it.

[Sarcastr0]

No, health outcomes are not a political question.

[zztop8970]

But blaming racism to disparate health outcomes is.

[Sarcastr0]

Which is not Racial disparities in public health outcomes means.

[I Callahan]

Uh, yes it does mean that. Having been in the healthcare field for 31 years, it most certainly is, and is meant to be that way.

[Sarcastr0]

You think public health as a field uses 'racial disparities' as code to mean 'racism?'

Because I'm quite sure that's untrue on it's face. There are plenty of well known natural racial disparities in health cause by inherent traits and not circumstance. There's lots of money spent studying them, actually.

[Michael P]

"This just assumes the conservatives understanding of the 'nominal purpose' of the organization is the 'true' one and the left's is just their politics."

TrapHouseGate, Russiagate, the last 20+ years of Customs and Border Patrol, and more, all show that assumption is a good one.

[Ed Grinberg]

Yes, it's gone political. Just as a school that, instead of sticking to the three Rs, force-feeds students with a steady diet of "systemic racism" and "white privilege."

[Glaucomatose]

Gosh, it’s remarkable that the party that thinks that schooling should go no further than teaching people long division doesn’t make up more of the faculty in institutions of higher learning. I can’t imagine how that could have happened.

[Sarcastr0]

There is no evidence this is happening, other than FOX magnifying every rando across the country insisting that it is.

[Michael P]

There is plenty of evidence of that. Cancel culture now extends to axing "gifted and talented" programs. Students are given chances to revise their work as often as they like through the end of the semester. School board and state government documents show that CRT-derived ideas permeate curricula, with special focus on pushing the ideas of "systemic racism" and "white supremacy".

[Sarcastr0]

Keep blowing up those [uncited] anecdotes like they're general truths.

[I Callahan]

Cite for you, Sarcastro:

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2021/09/24/oregon-dropped-test-requirements-what-that-means-for-the-states-testing-future

[Sarcastr0]

Thanks for the single cited anecdote.

[Bob from Ohio]

You cited one study up post.

Yet you expect multiples from him. Interesting.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you know the difference between an anecdote and a complete mathematical survey of 50 states?

I'm pretty sure you do.

[Bob from Ohio]

" complete mathematical survey"

Describing one thing as "complete" doesn't increase its number. Its still just one data point.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Bob, it's really not.

It's not even a statistical sample, it's the whole thing - it looks at every district in all 50 states.

[I Callahan]

Once again, you're hiding behind procedure and debate tactics. Have the stones to actually argue the point. I gave you an example, and you moved the goalposts. The fact is that I cited a proven example of your assertion being wrong.

There have been links and news stories calling all of this out, and instead you chicken out behind "Fox News". Take the L, because you most certainly did lose here.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not a new goalpost to realize that an anecdote isn't evidence.

Unless you're too committed to confirmation bias to see otherwise.

There are plenty of opinion pieces yelling about it, but the statistics are quite scanty.

[Brett Bellmore]

In the past week I literally posted links to Virginia DOE documents recommending the use of CRT, on the Virginia DOE website. For instance.

I know it's a consistent theme of yours, but this whole "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" shtick of yours gets tired fast.

[Sarcastr0]

That does not say to teach CRT, nor anything about systemic racism and white privilege's. It doesn't talk about curriculum at all.

Try again.

[I Callahan]

Yes, it does. Because you look at a 4-hoofed animal and insist on calling it a mare doesn't change the fact that it's a horse. The examples Brett cited are most CERTAINLY examples of CRT in it's very inception. Stop denying reality.

[Sarcastr0]

Quote where it talks about curriculum requirements.

[I Callahan]

Teaching CRT doesn't infer curriculum requirements. You don't get to use that cop out. Try again.

[Sarcastr0]

If the document you listed is proof teachers are teaching CRT, it would talk about what teachers should teach.

It does not. It talks about how they should teach.

You're being foolish.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

I appreciate your viewpoint, Brett. Most of the responses here either obfuscate or completely ignore history.

The leftist groups in America adopted the tactics that served the Soviet agents so well following WW2. Infiltrate institutions, behave moderately while replacing the leadership by any means necessary and only then reveal their true intentions. They would like us to forget about the arrests of moderates that lead to the election of the Communists in Poland and the assassinations in the Socialist parties in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Literal cancelations have been replaced by social cancelations.

Since they knew they were never going to convince the generations that actually fought Nazis, Soviets and the CCP, they went after academia first, particularly Education and Administration because it was the best way to influence the rising generations.

I observed the other day that the Overton window has shifted so far left that Huckleberry Finn has gone from being offensive to descendants of slave owners to being offensive to descendants of slaves. Teachers did that.

[David Nieporent]

The general rule is that conservatives join organizations to advance the organization's cause, and the left join organizations to advance the left's cause. So, while the conservatives are working hard at doing whatever the nominal purpose of the organization is, the left are working hard at taking the organization over.

The "general rule" according to whom?

[David Nieporent]

While the conservative movement insists on the narrow view of politics as a battle that is merely fought through the ballot box and arguing futilely over the issues and reactivity the Left has put much more effort in a strategy that actually works. Ie infiltrating and taking control of the various institutions of society. We're basically entering an era where almost every single major institution I can think of is owned or at least pays lip service to the Left. Even institutions normally considered bedrocks of conservatism like the military and churches are heavily infected by the rot and of course corporations have long flipped.

Not to sound like Kirkland, but have you ever considered the possibility that your positions are just less popular?

BigLaw firms are not making campaign contributions predominantly to Democrats because communists have infiltrated their ranks; biglaw firms are giving to Democrats because Trump is an incompetent sociopath, and rather than repudiating him the GOP has fallen in line behind him.

[I Callahan]

Your hatred of Trump is rather well-known in these comments, so I won't address that, because it'd be pointless.

That aside, this was the case well before Trump. Lawyers are liberals; liberals tend to gravitate toward law, because they're bleeding hearts who want to save the world. This is the basic truth.

[David Nieporent]

“Lawyers are liberals” is just not what one would call true. Some types of lawyers — e.g., public defenders, other CDL, trial lawyers — are pretty liberal leaning. Others — e.g., prosecutors, transactional lawyers, insurance defense, corporate lawyers — are conservative leaning. Guess which type of lawyers we’re talking about here? BigLaw, who are in the second camp.

(To be clear, by “conservative” I mean the use of that word before 2016, rather than the pure Trump tribalism the word signifies now.)

[santamonica811]

Jon,
Interesting. Do you think this due to big firm lawyers having highly liberal and/or Democratic values, and so they naturally support Dem politicians? Or do you think it's due to Democrat policies and politicians being, overall, more sympathetic to using the legal system...and therefore lawyers are merely acting in their economic self-interest when they support Dems?

I have no idea which of these is correct. (Or, if it's a blend of the two.) But I do know that if I were a litigator, I'd be very tempted to support the politicians who supported increased access to the courts, and I'd probably oppose those working for tort reform.

[Brett Bellmore]

How about option three: It's due to the left being vengeful, and the law firms are paying the Danegeld so that the Dane doesn't go on a rampage against them.

[Sarcastr0]

There is no evidence for your scenario, not that you ever need any.

[Brett Bellmore]

There's no evidence to support the other two scenarios, either. It's just a list of percentages.

[Sarcastr0]

The other two scenarios are like 'maybe the demographic is more liberal' and 'maybe there's an incentive there'

Yours is like 'maybe it's because of those villainous leftists doing vengeance!!!'

Some speculations require more support than others.

[bernard11]

Brett's paranoia seems to be worsening.

More conspiracies.

[Kevin Smith]

Brett's scenario seems to be little more than an extension of 'maybe there's an incentive there' that posits a different incentive

[Sarcastr0]

That lawyers receive pay is established. That they live in fear of leftist reprisals is not.

[Glaucomatose]

You may want to revisit your guess in light of the fact that most BigLaw firms derive more of their revenue from corporate and transactional work than from litigation, and most of their tort litigation involves representing corporate defendants rather than plaintiffs who might somehow be denied access to the courts.

[David Bremer]

I think it's a function of money. It's easier being a liberal and support democrats' causes if you have lots of disposable income. Or when the policies will ultimately save you money at the expense of those dirty poor people over there.

Green initiatives? Yeah, my utility bill will go up, but it seems like the right thing to do. Increased minimum wage? Why not. The cost of my meals will only go up by a few bucks and I can afford that. Free college and student-loan forgiveness? Heck yeah! I'm sick of paying law-school loans and would love to stop contributing to the 529.

Not surprisingly, I've found that as I've gotten older and more financially secure, it's easier to support liberal causes. Growing up poor, you knew you'd feel the cost of these things in a very real way and that the promised benefits of these programs would just go to someone else.

[SykesFive]

Businesses tend to support incumbents, which is another confounding factor. And lawyer contributions are a mix of personal preference and perceived business advantage.

I used to be an associate at one of the firms on this list. It's actually one of the ten closest to the bottom, so closer to parity in contributions. This does not surprise me.

When I was very junior, a secretary asked if I wanted a free ticket to a lunch at a nearby club where a congressman would be speaking. Being very junior and feeling some sense of duty to meet elected officials, I agreed.

The free lunch was a campaign fundraiser. The firm had pretty much commanded the partners in a certain practice group to buy plates in order to show our support for the incumbent. This was in addition to an allocation from the firm's PAC, to which partners were pretty much required to contribute. But some of the partners didn't care for the incumbent or his politics so sent seat-fillers. I was a seat-filler. I found this out from the partner whose seat I'd filled. "I had to make the contribution because he votes the way our clients like, but I'd never sit in the same room with that man."

That man was a Republican who resigned under a cloud several years later.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Taking Muller's figures as accurate and relevant for insight into lawyers' political activism, it is worth noting that the sum of all of it amounts to a tiny, tiny fraction of political spending—less than a rounding error.

Since the decision on Citizens United, an ever-growing percentage of political expenditures in America are made in secret, spent for political influence, and unpublicized. Investigative journalists have discovered individual dark money donors who outspend in one year what the entire legal profession contributed over 4 years. Overall, the amount spent to influence politics in an American election year easily exceeds $10 billion, but by how much has not been ascertained.

If you let politicians sell influence for money, it stands to reason that folks who don't offer money get no influence. To give away for free to some what they could otherwise sell to others would notably disrupt poiticians' marketplace for political influence, so they avoid doing it.

In an illustrative quiet-part-out-loud moment, I once inadvertently confused a call screener in Senator Kerry's office, who routed me away from the usual "constituent services," dead end. Upon picking up the phone, the staffer who answered listened for a moment, became confused, and blurted out, "Wait, are you one of our donors?" No, I was not, and back to constituent services I went.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yes, it's a tiny fraction of the spending, if you ignore the in-kind contributions.

The point is that, if you're on the right end of the political spectrum, you have to be very careful indeed about picking your legal representation, or you're almost certainly going to be represented by somebody who is your political enemy. And maybe their professionalism will assure that doesn't matter, but is that really the way to bet?

[Ed Grinberg]

It's actually worse than that. If you're on the right end of the political spectrum, you're likely to have trouble getting legal representation.
https://www.steynonline.com/10762/an-ambulance-with-no-chasers

[Brett Bellmore]

What's more effective than refusing to represent somebody?

Agreeing to represent somebody, and then dropping them in the middle of litigation, obviously. If you refuse up front, they can find somebody else at their leisure. If you drop them right in the middle of things, they're screwed.

Same thing happened with Parler: They had legal representation, and all the needed services. All the people they had on retainer dropped them on the same day, in a coordinated fashion.

That's the sort of thing that comes of having key services monopolized by one end of the political spectrum, it's the POINT of monopolizing them.

[Seamus]

Since the decision on Citizens United, an ever-growing percentage of political expenditures in America are made in secret, spent for political influence, and unpublicized.

If they're made in secret, how do you know their percentage?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Seamus, some of them don't stay secret. In fact, a good source to learn about them is a blog called, opensecrets.org. Also, investigative reporters sometimes dig stuff up.

Note that the claim is not that the percentage is known. The claim is that the percentage is greater than a known figure.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Overall, the amount spent to influence politics in an American election year easily exceeds $10 billion"

Big deal. Top 2 or 3 businesses alone top that.

https://www.businessinsider.com/10-biggest-advertising-spenders-in-the-us-2015-7#4-procter-and-gamble-co-43-billion-in-total-spending-7

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump's law firm, Jones day: About 80%.

Silly guy thought that law firms stay bought, that he didn't have to vet them for their politics. That might be the way it works in the business world, it's not how it works in politics.

[Sarcastr0]

Law firms are professionals, and serve their clients zealously regardless of politics.

You really don't seem to understand that concept at all.

[I Callahan]

You couldn't be that naive...

[Sarcastr0]

Your partisan cynicism says more about you than reality.

Do you have trouble in your workplace because your politics make you unable to professionally do your job?

[Queen Amalthea]

You'd probably see similar patterns with many other well-educated, professional groups (academics, journalists, scientists, etc.,). The current Right and Republican Party embraces an anti-intellectual pose so much (the cult of Trump, the anti-expert sneers, etc.,) this just isn't surprising. No complex conspiracy theories about taking over institutions or such are needed to explain the obvious.

[Brett Bellmore]

You'd see similar patterns in basically every group that is subject to any sort of winnowing process that can be captured by the left. We're in the end game of the left's 'march through the institutions', right-wingers are being systematically excluded from most institutions now, and the leadership of such institutions that can't avoid relying on them for the grunt work.

[Queen Amalthea]

That's just silly nonsense. Occupational groups have long skewed politically. Different political parties favor/disfavor different occupational groups in their policy and rhetoric and sometimes just simply in 'ethos' (this is going to be particularly prominent when occupations have prominent ethos, like most professional groups!).

Your theory is just Manichean back patting victimhood narratives (people on my side were/are nice and fair, the other side though is nefarious and biased, as we nice/fair folks let them in they turn around and push us out). That it's completely unnecessary in explanatory value is another bug.

[Brett Bellmore]

Again, I point out, this is a 50-50 nation, and you don't end up with a long list of professions, (All of them professions with choke points where entry can be controlled, it must be noted.) near 100% one end of the political spectrum spontaneously in a 50-50 nation.

Far, far smaller deviations are routinely argued as conclusive proof of racial discrimination, if they're deviations in race. And yet you want to think there's no political discrimination driving this?

It's a joke.

[Queen Amalthea]

Why are farmers overwhelmingly Republican? Cops? Military officers? Is it because of conservatives 'taking over' the relevant institutions? I mean, it's a 50-50 nation, etc., etc?

These leanings by occupation happen all the time in our history and change with the culture and evolving positions of the parties.

You've got no proof, no logic, heck, not even explanatory value! Like I said, it's just this Manichean back patting victim-hood narrative (or, simpler put...a conspiracy theory, how shocking for Brett!).

[Brett Bellmore]

"Why are farmers overwhelmingly Republican? Cops?"

Because, even if you're locked out of a long list of professions, you have to do SOMETHING for a living. Inevitably, if half the nation is barred from a long list of occupations, they'll be over-represented in the occupations they aren't barred from.

"Military officers?" Nah, since the Obama administration, military officers, too, are predominantly left-wing. Trump wasn't in office long enough to reverse the effects of Obama's political purge of the officer corps, and Biden has resumed it. And West Point now indoctrinates you to be left-wing.

[Queen Amalthea]

Here's a fun fact: it seems most petroleum geologists are Republican supporters, most environmental scientists are Democrat supporters.

Now, were one conspiracy minded I guess one could conjure up a theory where the left 'took over' the latter, using 'choke points' to, well, choke out any Republicans and vice versa.

But why would that be necessary? Occam's razor sits right there laughing at one's fuzzy beard. Petroleum geologists are employed by the fossil fuel industry, their livelihood is furthered by the Democrats and protected by the Republicans. Likewise Democrats talk up and argue for more funding/power for environmental scientists while Republicans mock and work to restrain them.

No fancy theory is needed to explain this sort of stuff. Republicans routinely complain about 'fancy talking lawyers' and talk about how we need to 'cut through red tape,' simplify the law (and that law really is or should be just simple, plain text analysis), make this a less litigious society, and then people are like 'oh my, most lawyers skew Democratic!'. What we need is a fancy theory as to why people need fancy theories for that!

[Queen Amalthea]

That should be 'threatened' not furthered

[Dan Schiavetta]

This, Amalthea.

Those who are well-informed lean left, and Democratic. Lawyers might (a lot of them) live in a privileged bubble, but they are in the business of looking up things. In the process of their profession they are required to read things by people who don't agree with them. They cannot, intellectually, live in an echo chamber. And there is no area of life that the law doesn't get into. If you've represented a big corporation and the jury beats you up in a personal injury lawsuit, you quickly realize that there is another side of life and to be a better lawyer you have to understand where that other side is coming from.

[jb]

It's even simpler than this.

The defining shift in the political map over the past couple of decades is that urban (and now suburban) populations are largely Democrats, and rural populations are largely Republican. It's true that the Trump party has done a great job of alienating educated populations, but density is an even better predictor of political affiliation.

Essentially all the big law firms are in big cities, so it's entirely unsurprising that their political donations are tilted towards Democrats.

[DStraws]

This observation is problematic--note the time period covered 2017 to 2020. Let's think about what was different about that time interval! Why such a short time frame don't these days exist for twenty or thirty years?

[Krychek_2]

There's a far simpler explanation for this: Anyone concerned about the rule of law and democratic institutions can't help but be completely appalled at what the GOP has become. *OF COURSE* law firms are mostly contributing to Democrats these days.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're taking half the political spectrum, and declaring them out of bounds. You're not appalled at what the GOP has become, you're appalled at the GOP not being the Democratic party.

[Krychek_2]

Rubbish. It is out of bounds to enable a president who tried, though violence, intimidation and fraud, to steal an election. And anyone not a Trump hack knows that that is precisely what happened. There's a whole lot of "not the Democratic party" that is entirely legitimate; Trump and his enablers are not it.

[Michael P]

Meanwhile, the left originated insurrections and street violence -- because people saw through your style of blatantly false propaganda.

[Krychek_2]

BUT WHAT ABOUT ?????????

[Michael P]

That's really stupid from someone who injected "ORANGE MAN BAD" into the thread.

[Krychek_2]

When did I say Orange Man Bad?

[I Callahan]

When you brought up Trump. Stop being coy.

[Krychek_2]

So, just to be clear, any time anyone brings up anything bad that Trump has done, it's just Orange Man Bad.

[Nuke the cane]

But Orange Man IS bad, at least when measured by the virtues we try to instill in our children.

[I Callahan]

Read Nuke's response for an example of what I'm talking about.

[Sarcastr0]

the left originated insurrections and street violence

LOL. Yeah, never was anything like street violence before the perfidious left invented it!

Listen to yourself.

[Krychek_2]

Not only that, even if true it's not relevant to this discussion, which is about donations to *political parties*.

[Michael P]

That's really stupid from someone who injected "ORANGE MAN BAD" into the thread.

[I Callahan]

The left have always been the rioters and troublemakers throughout the past 150 years in this country. Care to point me to any notable major riots or uprisings done by conservatives? Don't bring up January 6.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states

[I Callahan]

That's a biased, bullshit article from top to bottom. The "boogaloo" boys? Please. What, are there about 20 of them across the country?

Thanks for proving the point that liberals live in such a bubble that they'll believe anything people tell them as long as they're in the same shared bubble.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL, you're really good at believing what you prefer.

[Krychek_2]

Well, there was January 6. Just because you don't want to talk about it, doesn't mean it can't be talked about.

[I Callahan]

Because it was a minor riot, with very little damage, other than the woman killed by a capital cop, that is.

[Sarcastr0]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States

Plenty of race riots there for you to enjoy. Tulsa Race Massacre is a good one.

Only complete lunatics think their side has been clean for the past 150 years.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Plenty of race riots there for you to enjoy."

Race riots were neither left nor right in those days. Everybody participated.

[Krychek_2]

They were based on right wing values. You telling me the Klan was made up of leftists?

[Bob from Ohio]

The Klan was made up of people, people were almost universally racist in those days.

A few years later, plenty of New Dealers were racist. Al Gore's senator dad for one.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob, you're wrong on the history. Whites may have been generally racist, but not generally of the violent lynching type.

[Bob from Ohio]

"you're wrong on the history"

Nope.

You are applying your current bias [conservatives are the only racists] and applying it to another era, whee it was even less true.

Lynching was not ideological.

[Sarcastr0]

Lynching was not ideological.

At this point your ipse dixit is getting ridiculous.

There were whites against lynching. They actually had a shared ideology about how to treat blacks, and formed coalitions to pass laws about it.

[David Nieporent]

Care to point me to any notable major riots or uprisings done by conservatives?

It's convenient how you pick 150 years instead of, say, 160 years, but here you go: Wilmington insurrection of 1898 and Tulsa race massacre. Which is all the links I can include in one post.

[Bob from Ohio]

Race riots 160 years ago were not done by "conservatives" nor "liberals" but by all factions.

[Krychek_2]

Really. How many leftists do you suppose participated in the Tulsa race massacre?

[Bob from Ohio]

Racism was universal among all parties and ideologies.

[Toranth]

Probably plenty.
Remember, the first fatality was a white man shot by a black man, and the first violent encounter ended in heavily armed blacks killing 10 whites, and lightly armed whites killing two blacks.
The next day, though, the much larger number of whites destroyed the black communities.

Were the blacks justified in their fear that the white mob would lynch the arrested black man charged with sexual assault? Quite likely - the same mob of whites had lynched a white alleged rapist before, so it's hard to imagine they would refrain from doing so to a black man.
But the cause of the Tulsa Massacre was not a bunch of "conservatives" suddenly deciding to kill them some blacks. It was an escalation in a series of racially violent events - including the sort of thing a "liberal" could easily get involved in.

Of course, I'd like to see you describe "liberal" and "conservative" in a logically consistent and meaningful sense when applied to people 100-150 years ago.

[I Callahan]

Everyone coming up with examples, and no one addressing the point, which is the left most certainly has the larger share of acts of terror and riots in the country's history.

I stand by my statement.

[Sarcastr0]

1) That wasn't your statement. It was vastly more extreme: The left have always been the rioters and troublemakers throughout the past 150 years in this country.

Your backpeddaling is obvious, and noted.

2) The burden is on you, asshole.

[Ed Grinberg]

"You're taking half the political spectrum, and declaring them out of bounds."
That's pretty much the idea behind political correctness. You limit political discourse by declaring the half of political spectrum opposite from you out of bounds / illegitimate. Pretty convenient!

[DStraws]

No you are refusing to acknowledge what happened in 2016 that precipitated the response seen here. Furthermore without the data for prior years you don't know if this interval is "typical" or an anomaly.

[Brett Bellmore]

What happened in 2016 is that the Democratic party lost an election and went nuts over it.

[Krychek_2]

But it wasn't a democratic presidential election since the EC cancelled the popular vote.

[I Callahan]

Right, because THAT never happened before.

Really, Krychek, why do you opine on a blog that specializes in constitutional law? Especially because the popular vote has NOTHING to do with anything constitutional?

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, this is not normal, and cannot be rationalized by 'well the liberals had gone crazy so we had to purge'

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/trump-johnny-mcentee-january-6-betrayal/620646/

This is exactly what you are sure the left is doing all over the place, only here there is evidence. Do you care when it's your side doing it?

[Brett Bellmore]

Now you've switched from 2016 to 2021. But the Democratic party went nuts about Trump before he ever even took office. Were literally talking about impeaching him if elected before the election!

That's nuts on a cosmic scale. You'd literally lost the capacity to accept that you could legitimately lose the White House.

[Sarcastr0]

There was talk about impeaching Obama too. Don't nutpick. Especially from engagement farms like Politico or the Hill.

You'd literally lost the capacity to accept that you could legitimately lose the White House.
Holy shit, dude, look at your own party!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[David Nieporent]

Andrew McCarthy (the NR guy, not the Brat Pack actor) argued that Hillary should be impeached before she was even elected president.

But I don't know what you mean by impeaching Obama. It's not like McCarthy published a book about that.

[I Callahan]

Awesome, Dave, one example of one person. Again. That REALLY proves a general point.

There was WAY more acts of lunacy when Trump was elected than there was for Obama, or Biden, or any other Dem in recent history. So continue to live in your bubble, but the above is true.

[Sarcastr0]

It blows Brett's evidence out of the water.

Your unsupported statement about acts of lunacy is just proof you consistently confuse what you feel with what you know.

[John F. Carr]

The partisanship was blatant enough that even the reliably liberal Boston Globe called out one law firm. The firm was said to be reimbursing campaign contributions to Democrats, which is illegal. As I understand the resulting FEC report on the issue the firm got off on a technicality -- the money had legally come into the possession of the partners at the time it was disbursed, so the firm itself was not guilty. Nobody had bothered to file a complaint against the partners themselves, only against the firm as a distinct entity.

But I'm not so worried about crooked or partisan law firms. The partners at that form could have formed a PAC. I'm worried about the schools that produce them and the bodies that produce codes of conduct.

[DStraws]

So Go to this URL to examine the distribution of legal political donations--https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?ind=k01&Bkdn=DemRep&cycleand=2008. Guess what there is a real difference between 2020 and 2008. I just don't understand what could explain that change!

[DStraws]

Talk about bias---I can't even read a graph right--2016 is an accentuation of a pattern that has existed for at least 30 years.

[Currentsitguy]

It's the old canard "When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail".

The legal profession uses the courts as it's primary tool. he courts are... wait for it... government.

Which party again has as a core tenet a larger and more comprehensive all encompassing role for government?

[Krychek_2]

If you're using "the legal profession" as a proxy for the left, it uses the courts because anti-democratic institutions like the electoral college and two senators per state pretty much lock it out of winning through democratic means. Give us fair elections --- meaning every vote counts as much as every other vote no matter where the voter lives -- and we'll win them and won't need to use the courts. Otherwise, you can't blame the left for using the only option anti-democratic institutions leave it.

[Currentsitguy]

Absolutely not. The states are not just administrative districts of an all powerful Federal Government, and the single worst form of government is a simple majority democracy.

What you indicate you desire is a fast track formula for secession and eventual civil war. I, and millions of others, have no desire for and no inclination to, be ruled by the will of a few highly concentrated metropolitan population centers.

If that means those on the Left end of the political spectrum have to temper their policies to appease others, so be it. That's a feature, not a bug, just as those on the far Right of the scale must do the same.

[Sarcastr0]

You're the one who brought up civil war here.

In fact, the right around here are the *only ones* I see bringing up civil war and political violence.

So it looks to me like your accusation is more projection than anything else.

[Michael P]

Yes, the right are the only ones who bring those things up here. People like you pretend that the anti-WTO movements, Occupy (everything), CHAZ/CHOP, historically huge riots, and the like haven't been happening or haven't been creations of the left.

This is why people call you Gaslighto.

[Sarcastr0]

Sorry I'm not conflating the stuff you want me to conflate with calls for secession and civil war. This clearly makes you very mad.

I presume because you want to tu quoque fallacy all over the place.

[Michael P]

You were the one who talked about "civil war and political violence." Now that I remind you of all the political violence from the left, and actual attempts to overthrow civil government by leftists, you claim that linking the two is irrational.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Currentsitguy is the one talking about it.

[Nuke the cane]

It's the inexorable logic of minority rule. If the right was winning popular majorities you would hear a lot less about voter fraud, secession and violence

[Sarcastr0]

If the left were in the minority, you'd be hearing a lot more about protests and civil disobedience.

The parties are not symmetrical in this way.

[I Callahan]

A lot of us were talking about political violence from the left. You and your compadres are denying it's a problem.

[Krychek_2]

Here, apparently, is how the right thinks things should work: Yes, we acknowledge that we don't enjoy majority support, but we don't care so long as we win. (Hi, Bob.) So we'll write rules that ensure that the left can't win democratically, cast them in constitutional concrete so they can't be changed, and then tell the left that they should just win democratic elections and amend the Constitution. Meanwhile, we'll also close off the last avenue the left has to it, which is the courts.

Screw you. Seriously. Go screw yourselves.

[Brett Bellmore]

Here's how the left thinks things should work: Yes, we acknowledge that our ideas don't enjoy majority support. So we'll write rules that curate what people can hear and say, and banish as 'disinformation' everything we disagree with. And we'll win the arguments by default!

And winning the arguments by default leads to winning elections by default. So we can pretend our ideas are popular after all, even if we have to censor public discourse like made to generate that illusion.

[Krychek_2]

But our ideas do enjoy majority support, or at least some of them do. Majority support is simply irrelevant when our polity consists almost entirely of anti-democratic institutions.

[I Callahan]

Only because people have been duped into believing them, because they only hear one side. You've proven Brett's point. Congrats!

[Sarcastr0]

False consciousness (especially in Marxist theory) a way of thinking that prevents a person from perceiving the true nature of their social or economic situation.

[Brett Bellmore]

False consciousness is an attempt to explain why people persist in disagreeing with you after hearing your case. The left has been working hard, with deplorable success, at making sure people don't hear the other side's case to begin with.

[Sarcastr0]

Read the comment I was replying to.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Hey Callahan, the people you are talking to are liberals who go out of their way to follow the VC. How do you figure they hear only one side?

[I Callahan]

Because you're exceptions, not the rule? Do you think the average middle-of-the-road voter reads VC every day? No, they watch the alphabet networks for the news every day and get 1/2 the story if they're lucky.

[Bob from Ohio]

"we acknowledge that we don't enjoy majority support, but we don't care so long as we win. (Hi, Bob.)"

Never said the GOP lacks majority support.

Both sides do what it takes to win. Crisis when part of the GOP wants to eliminate judge filibuster under Bush II. Harry Reid calmly does it a few years later.

Dems rail about money in politics but raise and spend more.

Both sides gerrymander.

[Sarcastr0]

The right likes the government just fine, despite their rhetoric.

There may be something going on here, but it's not as simple as 'if you like using the courts, you're a liberal!'

[I Callahan]

We're getting into True Scotsman territory here, but no, the right doesn't like government all that much, especially lately. GOP politicians and their sycophants may, but the right doesn't trust government, nor should they.

[Sarcastr0]

OK, dude. The right sure wants to sue to ensure they get platformed, and loves them some defamation lawsuits, and election lawsuits, and abortion lawsuits.

And that doesn't include their feelings about executive power until recently.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" but the right doesn't trust government, nor should they "

The right loves government when, for example, the government proposes to kill someone, imposes abusive policing, or engages in statist womb management and micromanagement of ladyparts clinics.

[I Callahan]

Then do the right thing, Artie. People expect the law being enforced. You can see how the opposite of that is working out in places like San Francisco.

Don't like the law? Change it.

[ducksalad]

People can only buy what is for sale.

[Stephen Lathrop]

People can only buy what is for sale.

Not how it works in dark money politics. Rep. Goodguy (Independent) has zero intention to sell out. He was raised in the heartland, he's new in Washington, and he's an idealist patriot. But along comes some issue about which a big local donor cares very, very much. Goodguy gets an offer he can't refuse. Deliver on that issue, or next election his primary challenger, or maybe his opponent, gets unlimited support from a dark money PAC. And another PAC comes up with a big money-from-nowhere budget to go negative against Goodguy, if that should regrettably become necessary.

Goodguy is instructed that to do good in any meaningful way a guy has to hold office. And you can do a lot more good after you get entrenched through a few election cycles.

Want to figure out which politicians haven't sold out? Look for the ones who take only small donor contributions. The rest may be accessible on some issues, but count on it, they have backers who preclude voting against core donor interests.

Generally speaking, the game is so rigged that an ordinary person armed with no more than a policy suggestion will never discover any means to get the ear of his political representatives. They can't afford to let that happen, lest conflicts develop between the access they give away for free, and access they need to sell.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Smart, accomplished, reasoning citizens who have advanced degrees and tend to live in modern, successful, diverse cities prefer reason, education, progress, tolerance, and modernity to backwardness, bigotry, ignorance, backwater insularity, and downscale superstition?

Wow!

(Here's a better showing. Some fans call this the ' '78 intro,' and revere it.)

[DWB]

Yup, Shakespeare was right

[General]

Pi Legal Consultancy is an international law firm based in Turkey that offers legal consultancy and advocacy. Our firm consists of qualified experts, experienced lawyers and solicitors having very high level of knowledge and skills on legal matters and their cutting-edge solutions. Detail https://www.pilc.law/