The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Tiananmen Square: An enduring symbol of the Chinese Communist Party's illegitimacy
This week the Communist Chinese Party is holding a congress at the Great Hall of the People in Tiananmen Square, Beijing. The purpose of the congress is to cement Xi Jinping's genocidal, imperialist autocracy. This post explains the centrality of Tiananmen Square to the Chinese dictatorship, and to the Chinese people victimized by the dictatorship.
In brief, ever since the proclamation of the People's Republic of China on Oct. 1, 1949, Tiananmen Square has symbolized the rule of the Chinese Communist Party. The proclamation of communist rule was issued from Tiananmen, which the Party intended to transform into an icon and an instrument of its absolute power. That power reached a zenith in 1966, when millions thronged to hear Chairman Mao incite the Cultural Revolution. Yet a decade later, Tiananmen Square became the site of mass protest against Mao's tyranny. Then in 1989, the Square was occupied by students demonstrating for democracy; the students were guarded by workers throughout the city who set up barricades to attempt to stop a military invasion. The military's brutal assault demonstrated to the world that the Chinese Communist Party rules by violence and not by consent—as in 1949 and 1989, and so too today. As Mao and his party intended, Tiananmen Square does perfectly exemplify the "New China" they created: a totalitarian kleptocracy who power is maintained by force against the democratic will of the people.
This post is adapted from David B. Kopel, "The Party Commands the Gun: Mao Zedong's Arms Policies and Mass Killings," pages 1864-1964 in online chapter 19 of Firearms Law and the Second Amendment: Regulation, Rights, and Policy (3d ed.), by Nicholas J. Johnson, David B. Kopel, George A. Mocsary, and E. Gregory Wallace. Complete citations to Chinese history may be found therein.
Mao Zedong declared the People's Republic of China on Oct. 1, 1949, while standing at a rostrum on Tiananmen (Heavenly Peace) Gate–the northern entrance to the old imperial government complexes in Beijing. The Tiananmen area was large enough for a crowd of tens of thousands. Earlier in the century the Square had been a site of several historic protests, such as against the Versailles Treaty's shabby treatment of China.
The symbolism of Tiananmen was so powerful that on September 30, 1949, the day before the proclamation of the new government, the CCP leadership spent its time giving final approval to major renovation of the Tiananmen area. Buildings around the gate would be razed, so that much larger crowds could gather to hear speeches by the CCP leadership. In an open area, at the opposite side from Tiananmen gate, there would be a huge obelisk monument of China's revolutionary martyrs. Tiananmen Gate and Mao became the leading symbols of the "New China."
The national socialist rallies of 1966
By the early 1960s, Mao's power was weakening, even within the apex of the CCP. The agricultural collectivization of the "Great Leap Forward" had caused the worst famine in history, killing tens of millions. Mao's racist aggression against Tibet had caused a huge armed revolt; although the revolt had mostly been suppressed by the early 1960s, China's international standing had been seriously damaged. Moreover, Mao had realized that killing small farmers, small business owners, and the like had not killed bourgeois thought. Even within the high levels of the CCP, many people preferred rational thinking rather than Mao's cult of personality. So Mao initiated the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.
On August 18, 1966, a million youths were assembled in Tiananmen Square, where defense minister Lin Biao exhorted them to "Smash the Four Olds": "all old ideas, old culture, old customs and old habits of the exploiting classes." Two weeks earlier, the first murder in the Cultural Revolution had taken place. The victim was Bian Zhongyun, an assistant headmistress at the Girls' Middle School (a secondary school) attached to Beijing Normal University. She was tortured to death for hours by a mob of students. At the Tiananmen rally, one of the murderous student leaders—a daughter of one of the top generals of the revolution—was given the honor of putting a Red Guard armband on Chairman Mao's sleeve. Mao changed her given name from Binbin (suave or refined) to Yaowu (be martial). Song Yaowu became an instant national celebrity. The school where the murder took place changed its name to "the Red Martial School."
At Beijing's Foreign Languages Institute, Wang Rongfen was studying German. She observed the similarities between Lin Biao's speech and Hitler's speeches at his Nuremberg rallies. She sent Chairman Mao a letter: "the Cultural Revolution is not a mass movement. It is one man with a gun manipulating the people." He sent her to prison for life. In prison, her manacles bore points to dig into her flesh. She had to roll on the floor to eat. She was released in 1979, three years after Mao's death, with her spirit unbroken.
Even at elementary schools, which were for students up to age 13, student mobs were encouraged by the Cultural Revolution to attack teachers. The Minister of Public Security instructed the police to support the mobs: "Don't say that it is wrong for them to beat up bad people. If in anger they beat someone to death, then so be it." The violent students called themselves "Red Guards," since they were guarding Chairman Mao and his totalitarian program. When Red Guards assaulted the police, the police were forbidden to fight back.
While murders by students had initially been only in the Beijing area, the lethal mobs spread nationwide as students returned home from the Tiananmen rally. The Red Guards were declared to be reserve forces of the Chinese military, and so the military was ordered to assist their travel. For the rest of the year they were given free rail and bus transport plus free accommodations and food. Quite a change from the usual CCP rules against leaving one's registered city or village.
Twelve million Red Guards traveled to Beijing over the next several months, to wait weeks until Mao would appear on a balcony and acknowledge them, in seven more rallies from August 31 to November 26. The trains and buses were hideously overcrowded and filthy, and so were conditions in Beijing. The result was a meningitis epidemic that killed 160,000. There was no money for antidotes because government spending was oriented to the Cultural Revolution. European governments eventually donated vaccines.
Although some students just took advantage of the opportunity for free travel and left Beijing to visit scenic or historical places, many others came home empowered. Under state direction, rage mobs roamed the streets, attacking women for bourgeois behavior such as wearing dresses or having long hair. They ransacked homes of suspected anti-communists and of loyal communists. Poor street peddlers, barbers, tailors, and anyone else participating in the non-state economy were attacked and destroyed. Many of them were ruined and became destitute. Street names that referenced the past were replaced with communist names. Historic artifacts, public monuments, non-communist historic sites, religious buildings, tombs, and non-communist art were destroyed.
It was all great fun for the Red Guards. But Mao could not contain the violence and disorder he had unleashed. By 1968, he had to cede control of most of the government to the military. Any young person who had participated in one of the 1966 Tiananmen rallies was shipped off to the countryside for forced labor. About 3.5 million people who had joined the Cultural Revolution were affected.
The 1976 mourning of Zhoe Enlai
In January 1976, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai died. All over the nation, huge, spontaneous, and unauthorized crowds assembled to mourn him. The crowds considered him relatively less totalitarian and oppressive than Mao. Unlike the Tiananmen rallies of the early Cultural Revolution, which originated from the top down, the crowds that gathered to mourn Zhou expressed people power. "The country had not witnessed such an outpouring of popular sentiment since before the communists came to power in 1949," observed Mao's personal doctor, Li Zhisui.
While there were demonstrations at over 200 locations throughout the country, the flashpoint was in Beijing's Tiananmen Square, which saw the largest spontaneous demonstration ever in China. On April 4, Tomb-Sweeping Day, a traditional day for honoring one's ancestors, an immense crowd gathered at the Monument to the People's Martyrs in Tiananmen Square. Erected in 1959, the monument honored Chinese revolutionary martyrs from 1840 onward.
At the monument, poems were read aloud, then transmitted throughout entire square by relay teams shouting each line, as the people wrote them down. One poet said:
In our grief we hear the devils shrieking;
We weep while wolves and jackals laugh.
Shedding tears, we come to mourn our hero,
Heads raised we unsheathe our swords.
The masses denounced Chairman and Madame Mao, indirectly: "Down with Franco!" (recently deceased Spanish fascist dictator), "Down with Indira Gandhi!" (Indian Prime Minister who had recently overturned democracy and was ruling by decree), "Down with the Empress Dowager!" (Manchu Dynasty ruler of China 1861-1908).
That night, the government dispatched fire engines and cranes to remove the tens of thousands of wreaths deposited in honor of Zhou. The next day, a worker's militia was sent to disperse the crowd, but it was hesitant to act, for many members themselves had laid wreaths for Zhou. Police and more militia surrounded the square. People could leave but not enter. Some protesters broke into government buildings, destroyed propaganda vans, toppled and burned cars, or attacked security guards and militia.
As dusk neared, a final poem was pasted on the monument. Three lines brought the crowd to silence. As they were relayed, no one else spoke. The listeners quickly scribbled the words onto paper.
China is no longer the China of yore
Its people are no longer wrapped in ignorance
Gone for good is the feudal society of Qin Shi Huang.
Mao had long compared himself to China's first emperor, Qin Shi Huang. Both had imposed totalitarian rule, murdered millions, and enslaved the nation. Everyone understood that denouncing the first emperor was the same as denouncing Mao.
That night, the Tiananmen revolutionaries were attacked by the Capital Militia Command Post (a/k/a the "Cudgel Corps"). In Beijing as in Shanghai, the militia were under the command of the Gang of Four, a group of extreme leftists led by Madame Mao.
China's then-minister of defense estimated that over ten thousand people in the crowd of a hundred thousand might have been killed. Another official said there were only a hundred deaths. Newer scholarship argues that the violence lasted only 10-15 minutes; people were beaten bloody but no one was killed.
The next evening, and two succeeding evenings, the government ordered in large crowds to express their loyalty to Mao. Together they yelled, "Resolutely carry the struggle against the right deviationist attempt to reverse correct verdicts through to the end."
Hundreds of workers had tried to scrub off all the blood in Tiananmen. But as Anne Thurston writes in Enemies of the People: The Ordeal of the Intellectuals in China's Great Cultural Revolution, the cleanup was incomplete. On the Martyrs Monument, "gleaming like a red neon light, was one stain of blood that somehow had been missed."
Not that it mattered. As Lady Macbeth had said, "Out, damned spot! … What need fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account?"
The 1989 democracy protests
Mao died several months later, and was eventually replaced by Communist leadership that, while totalitarian, was more pragmatic than Mao. But like Mao, they would never allow the people to challenge the Chinese Communist Party's absolute power.
In 1989, democracy demonstrators did start to threaten the one-party state. Beginning in mid-April, they demonstrated and camped in Tiananmen Square. Against the armed force of the Chinese military, they knew their only hope was the moral force of nonviolence.
The government declared martial law on May 20. The evening before, the army had been sent in to clear the protesters. But as soon as army forces were spotted moving into Beijing, huge crowds assembled to block them. The army had not been given orders to shoot if necessary, and so the military halted.
The people of Beijing had come out en masse, and they stayed out en masse, fortifying their city against invasion by the army. Street barricades were constructed with overturned buses, bicycles, cement blocks, or whatever else was at hand. A spontaneous network spread the word on how to immobilize a vehicle column: use gravel to stop the lead vehicle, let the air of its tires, and then remove or cut the ignition wires.
A few days later, the army pulled its forces back outside Beijing, leaving many stranded vehicles behind. The army began preparing for a second assault. Inside Beijing, tactical knowledge continued to disseminate. For example, if a whole armored column cannot be stopped, surround and stop the final third of the column. Then as the reduced vanguard moves forward, isolate and halt its rear third, and so on.
While the students were concentrated in Tiananmen Square, the city itself was defended by people of all backgrounds and classes. New citizen militia self-defense forces, with names such as "Dare-to-Die-Corps," vowed to defend the students at all costs. The people desperately hoped that the army would never obey orders to fire on the people. With many military personnel stuck in immobilized caravans, there were plenty of opportunities for friendly conversations, and some soldiers vowed never to harm the people. But most of the soldiers who would soon attack Beijing never had an opportunity to interact with the people. They were told by their officers that the protesters were just bunch of hooligans who were endangering public safety.
The possibility that some military units might actually fight for the people was apparently considered a serious risk by the regime. The military deployment aimed at Beijing included anti-aircraft rockets—of no use against land-based protesters, but handy in case some of the air force switched sides.
On May 30 the democracy protesters at Tiananmen Square, now numbering over a million, raised a statue of the Goddess of Liberty. She directly faced and confronted Mao's giant cult portrait hanging in the square. Around the city the masses were singing with new meaning the global communist anthem, The Internationale:
For reason in revolt now thunders and at last ends the age of cant.
Now away with all your superstitions.
Servile masses arise, arise!
We'll change forthwith the old conditions and spurn the dust to win the prize….
On our flesh too long has fed the raven.
We've too long been the vultures' prey.
But now farewell to spirit craven.
The dawn brings in a brighter day …
No savior from on high delivers.
No trust have we in prince or peer.
Our own right hand the chains must sever,
Chains of hatred, greed and fear …
Each at his forge must do his duty
And strike the iron while hot.
The military's senior officer corps was not sympathetic to the protesters. They were veterans of the 1949 revolution and owed their power to the Communist Party.
On June 3-4, the army followed orders from the CCP leadership. This time, use of deadly force was authorized. Soldiers attacked the people with AK-47 automatic rifles and machine guns, plus clubs and garottes. The army had infiltrated plainclothes soldiers, posing as civilians, into the Tiananmen area. They were on standby waiting for delivery of firearms. The street barricades did stop some movement by army forces, but many of the barricades were knocked away by armored personnel carriers running at full speed. As the noose tightened around Tiananmen, the students decided to surrender. Most were allowed to leave peacefully through one exit.
Most fatalities were not in Tiananmen Square, but in the city, as the PLA shot and rammed its way through the people. The highest estimate of city-wide fatalities of the PLA attack is ten thousand, according to a secret British diplomatic cable sent the next day. The Chinese government claims only a few hundred. Preliminary estimates by the Red Cross and the Swiss Ambassador suggested about 2,600 or 2,700.
Conclusion
The events of June 3-4, 1989, confirmed was had been true ever since the first minutes of the People's Republic of China, starting October 1, 1949. The Chinese Communist Party rules by military force and not be consent of the people. Despite the official name, the form of government is monarchy or oligarchy, not a republic. The people do not rule China.
So too in 2022. In reality, although not officially, the Monument to the People's Martyrs is understood to honor not only the Chinese who fought foreign colonialism in the 19th century, or the Japanese imperialists in the 20th–but also the Chinese who bravely stood against domestic tyranny in 1976 and 1989. More broadly, the Tiananmen and the Martyr's Monument stands for the Chinese who today bravely resist the governing kleptocracy, and for their predecessors, such as Wang Rongfen.
One day, Tiananmen's giant cult picture of Mao the mass murderer will lie on the ash heap of history. One day, China will have government that acknowledges the truth: the Chinese Communist Party has never been the legitimate ruler of China. Its self-aggrandizing attempts to refashion Tiananmen have backfired. Tiananmen Square does demonstrate the CCP's power—to assemble millions of brainwashed violent youths, to enslave them a few years later, and to annihilate popular assemblies that demand the People's Republic of China live up to its name. Yet as Tiananmen Square also shows, powerful as the Chinese Communist Party may be, it can never eradicate the natural human desire for liberty.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Yes, the CCP is awful, and Tienamen Square is an indictment of the entire government over there.
But don’t get so overheated as to say massacring your people delegitmizes a government…that has some implications I’d rather not see applied.
Bill Clinton was only technically legitimate anyway.
Are you aware that your argument allows utter depravity?
Clinton admits that his ‘delay’ cost 300 000 lives in Rwanda. Clinton admits his food policies in Haiti destroyed the farmers’ livelihood.
Then I suppose he is off to meet his good pal Ghislaine. Just apologize and then go about your business.
My argument allows the US to be a legitimate government.
So you work backwards from your goal to decide your principles.
Good call, that’s what upstanding moral good people do. Work backwards.
Yes, I do believe that an argument that implies that the US is an illegitimate government is a bad argument, because the US is not an illegitimate government. And thus that part of the OP’s argument proves too much.
I suppose it does mean I’m a bit closed off to the idea that the US is illegitimate. Oh well!
The US government is legitimate, therefore whatever the US government does is also legitimate!
That’s the way good little bootlickers think.
Not what I said, of course.
Do you think liberals believe that everything the US government does is legitimate?!
You believe everything the government does that would delegitimatize the government is ipso facto legitimate since you reject every action that would do so.
You also like the taste of boot leather if it’s worn by those higher up in the Federal Power heirarchy.
Ipso facto!
LOL.
Yes, I used that phrase correctly.
I’m sorry that hurt your bootlicking, homosexual feelings.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
Deal with my arguments, not this ad hominem trash.
Just like you do! amiright?
I mean, what is there to argue about?
I think the US government is legitimate, you think it isn’t.
As you post freely on the Internet about it, absolutely convinced of your fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system you don’t appreciate or understand
“But don’t get so overheated as to say massacring your people delegitmizes a government”
That’s not an “argument”, it’s simple idiocy.
utterly dependent on a system you don’t appreciate or understand
I literally just saw that meme on social media 5 mins ago. Kudos!
“Yes, I do believe that an argument that implies that the US is an illegitimate government is a bad argument, because the US is not an illegitimate government.”
I have to say this is rather amazing: You’re openly arguing backwards from your conclusion, and aren’t even trying to obscure what you’re doing.
It’s called evidence-based reasoning. I can see why you wouldn’t recognise it.
It’s more like begging the question, except that actually begging the question is usually more sophisticated.
Part of the confusion in this thread is that at least some commenters, including you, seem to view legitimacy as a theoretical rather than as an empirical concept. Legitimacy is established empirically, the job of the theory is to explain/predict why. You can’t declare something illegitimate based on theoretical considerations only. Instead, the legitimacy or not of a given regime is a data point that you can use to test your theory.
“Yes, I do believe that an argument that implies that the US is an illegitimate government is a bad argument, because the US is not an illegitimate government.”
Not, “because here’s a proposed definition of legitimacy, and evidence the US qualifies”. Just, “because the US is not an illegitimate government”.
I could have advanced an argument. As it is, he just asserted his conclusion.
Lotsa people think the US is illegitimate, and yet continue to live under it’s jurisdiction.
Brett, I’ve lived here for a while, studies history both in school and independently, and concluded the US is a legitimate government. I proceed from that conclusion.
If you have concluded that the US is a legitimate state, well, dunno what else there is to talk about; we share even less common ground than I thought.
I have concluded that being a “legitimate” state isn’t a binary thing, and that our current government is legitimate in some regards, illegitimate in others.
300,000 lives in Rwanda? Really?
I would not risk the life of one US soldier, sailor, or Marine to save all 300,000. I’m not losing any sleep over it either.
Africa is a largely tribal society. It was held in check, for the most part, by the Brits and other European colonizers and when they left and gave the tribes “self-government” all hell broke loose. Under no circumstance should we ever intervene in a mess like Rwanda.
Yes, America is just exactly like Communist China. Why, even today we’re wiping out a religious minority and benefitting from slave labor.
Oh, wait…..
Yes, this is exactly what I said.
No – what I actually said was that a particular part of this argument proves too much, not that the US is the same as China.
I’d argue any government that drives people to that level of resolve, anger, and potentially violence has lost it’s legitimacy.
I’d love it if autocracies that suppress their populous were illegitimate…but I don’t think that’s current practice, at least diplomatically. Perhaps philosophically?
Moreover, what about democracies under this rubric? Does the Civil War mean the US is illegitimate? Or what about the BLM protests, did the subsequent riots somehow make them more of an indictment of the US government?
Not saying you aren’t basically correct, but I need a more concrete sense of where the line can be drawn.
I think the failure lies long before it gets to that point. The events leading up to the Civil War were decades in the making. BLM was the result of both policy failures and political opportunism for generations.
We are still dealing with the fallout of Lincoln’s determination to preserve The Union at any cost.
I know hindsight is 20/20 but these things rarely spontaneously occur in a vacuum.
Yeah – I really do think, say, recent events in Iran really do undermine the legitimacy of its government. And it’s been decades in the making at least.
I think it’s going to end up being something boring like acute and violent protests are an indicator that along with other factors adds up to delegitimizing the government.
I can’t argue that.
Using Iran as an example, you can’t really view the 1979 Revolution in context without being aware of the role the US and Britain played in 1953 in the overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh. You can’t view the women’s protests today separate from the role global pop culture, and the internet play.
I guess the question is when does public anger cross from protest, to riot, to revolution, to legitimate voice of the people?
Further, if a set of third parties use propaganda to stir unrest, even when the claims are demonstrably false, are the subsequent protests, riots, and other violence a sign the government is illegitimate? There has to be more at play here than just the general unrest of a significant minority. Illegitimacy implies more than just policy disagreements or even some failed policy. I don’t believe the US government was illegitimate when the South chose to secede in order to keep chattel slavery. Whereas, I do believe legitimacy was at risk when the government placed Japanese Americans into internment camps and that was done without large protests or violence on behalf of the incarcerated citizenry.
The Washington government was illegitimate in the Confederate States when it launched the War of Northern Aggression.
“But don’t get so overheated as to say massacring your people delegitmizes a government…that has some implications I’d rather not see applied.”
So what does legitimize the Chinese Communist Party?
“The military’s brutal assault demonstrated to the world that the Chinese Communist Party rules by violence and not by consent—as in 1949 and 1989, and so too today. “
How many currently in power governments would you declare illegitimate a priori?
I’m no fan of the Chinese government, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to apply every pejorative I can on them regardless of their applicability.
All the non-democratically elected ones, sort of by definition.
That reflects an unusually narrow definition of legitimacy. In philosophy/political thought, legitimacy has never been restricted to democratically elected governments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)
As I said, I think we have a collision of two different definitions of legitimate, but even taking the political philosophy ‘consent of the governed’ ones, I don’t think you can make that claim.
Plenty of autocracies are popular; you don’t need the formality of a vote to have the consent of the governed.
I may think those people are wrong, but that doesn’t change what they think.
Without the “formality of a vote,” what is your basis for the popularity claim? Note that “popularity” in an autocracy is a pretty empty concept anyway. Is the autocracy popular because people actually like it or because it’s lying about stuff and nobody knows any better, because there’s no independent media to tell them, or any opposition to criticize the government?
Of course, there are liberal and illiberal democracies, and sometimes the dividing line between the latter and an autocracy can be pretty blurry, but that doesn’t justify a claim that the autocrat is actually popular.
More to the point, (Because basically every government is lying to people about SOMETHING.) you can’t assess the popularity of an authoritarian government because people rationally lie about whether they like their government, saying they don’t is dangerous.
“But don’t get so overheated as to say massacring your people delegitmizes a government…that has some implications I’d rather not see applied.”
Such as?
It’s true that Lincoln massacred hundreds of thousands of his own people and inaugurated a war that killed more Americans than all other wars before and since, all in response to states exercising a legal right of secession, because he didn’t want to lose the tax revenue in his words.
However there were great efforts toward reconciliation, for example in Lee’s words, he vowed to do “all in my power to encourage our people to set manfully to work to restore the country, to rebuild their homes and churches, to educate their children, and to remain with their states, their friends and countrymen.” He stated “all should unite in honest efforts to obliterate the effects of war and to restore the blessings of peace” and that it was that it was “the duty of the [southern] people to accept the situation fully” and that every man should not only “prepare himself to vote” but also “prepare his friends, white and colored, to vote and to vote rightly.” Many followed his example.
Could you reference where in the Constitution or other US legal framework, then or now, where there is defined in the context of US states a “legal right of secession?”
If you’d mentioned “god-given,” we’d be discussion religion. You said “legal,” though, so I’m curious where you find that process defined and permitted within our body of laws.
I would love to hear that, as well. There is no legal succession provided in the Constitution or any other foundational documents.
I’m sure the Lost Cause myth has an answer. But thay’s also the pseudohistorical movement that calls it the War of Northern Aggression, so there’s that.
There was no right to end the Articles of Confederation in the (full title) “Articles of Confederation AND PERPETUAL UNION” but the States’ right to withdraw was inherent in their status as sovereign entities. Lincoln had no plausible argument that the States had ever given this up.
Right. And, this should be very obvious, but “perpetual” just means of indefinite duration. It’s very clear that’s what it meant in the Constitution. Even today, the articles of incorporation for millions of corporate entities in the US provide that the duration of the corporation is perpetual. That just means it doesn’t have a predetermined end date.
Except the text and structure of the constitution itself, of course. Not only that, but most of the states never had it to begin with, so they never had the opportunity to “give it up.” Alabama was never sovereign. Nor was Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, or Florida. That’s more than half the so-called Confederacy.
It’s really quite simple, actually. The simple fact that the Constitution was silent on the question settled the matter:
“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.”
Secession was neither delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states.
Everything about the constitution to you — no matter how wrong yo are — is “really quite simple, actually.”
But of course secession was prohibited by it to the states.
About half the states thought otherwise at the time, strangely enough.
Even if we pretend that the confederate states sincerely thought that, which they didn’t, that’s not “about half.” That’s “about a third.”
Good question, but a bit misconceived. The apt question is, where in the Constitution is secession prohibited?
For example, Article I, Section 10 lists prohibitions on the States, but it’s not there.
Read the 10th amendment. Anything not prohibited, nor delegated to the federal government, is reserved to the States.
This is the reverse of the federal government, where any power they exercise, you must ask where in the Constitution that power was expressly delegated for it to be a legitimate action.
Constitution 101 stuff guys.
Confederacy-hugging conservative bigots are among my favorite culture war casualties . . . and the target audience of a white, male, right-wing blog.
You are a tedious shit.
Amazing. Every word you just said was wrong.
Funny, I’m not amazed that every word YOU said is wrong, whereas ML is only wrong about the significance of taxes as a motivation for Lincoln’s invasion.
Well, there’s the fact that Lincoln did not “inaugurate a war,” did not “massacre” anyone, and there was no “legal right of secession.”
You’re doubling down on the fabrications by claiming that there was an “invasion” — one cannot “invade” a place that is one’s own.
July 4, 1861: July 4th Message to Congress (The address where he admitted he was going to violate the Constitution.)
“The policy chosen looked to the exhaustion of all peaceful measures before a resort to any stronger ones. It sought only to hold the public places and property not already wrested from the Government and to collect the revenue, relying for the rest on time, discussion, and the ballot box.”
Seriously, if you’d done even a moment’s research, you’d have found his position wasn’t totally without support, though I think it a bit exaggerated; Lincoln didn’t JUST care about the tax revenue. Really, about the only thing the war wasn’t about at that point was freeing the slaves; That was a justification he seized on after all other justifications failed to motivate people enough.
Completely backwards, of course. Lincoln publicly seized on that justification after he had already motivated people enough. Before then he pretended otherwise because he knew people would not fight for that.
I’m only going by his public statements, not reading his mind.
Well, that’s a pinched analysis. The South certainly had a pretty different take.
Most of the North as well.
Right, not just “about” taxes, but that was a big red line that he drew when announcing to the world in no uncertain terms, ahead of time, that he would invade the South.
The question of motivation is kind of neither here nor there. Plainly stated, it was to “preserve the Union” in Lincoln’s best-sounding, self-serving words. Basically the same as seen in all of history, man’s selfish ambition and drive for power, the imperialistic impulse. Pretty common to want to crush your enemies, dominate, bend everyone to your will, not be seen as the loser or the one getting the short end of negotiations, not go down in history as the guy who let states leave the Union instead of beating them into submission. Reminds me of something I think in one of the federalist papers where the writer pointed out that the nature of man is such that they will oppose an idea just because they weren’t the ones who came up with it.
This is not to say that Lincoln’s actions were a foregone conclusion. In fact, Lincoln’s own cabinet disagreed with him. All but one member opposed kicking off the war by sending ships to Ft Sumter. That one member was the Postmaster. In explaining his opposition, Secretary of State Seward pointed out the clear purpose of the action: “Suppose the expedition successful, we have then a garrison in Ft. Sumter that can defy assault for six months. What is it to do then? Is it to make war by opening its batteries and attempting to demolish the defenses of Charleston? …..I would not initiate war to regain a useless and unnecessary position on the soil of the seceding States.”
I mean, I think someone pretty smart (and good with words) already explained that legitimate governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
My concern is what this logic would say as applied to the US.
I also think, as noted below, we have a couple of different operative definitions of legitimate at work here.
“the consent of the governed” /= “democracy”
Like Castro, Mao freed his people from being humiliated by Western corporate interests. Look up “century of humiliation” for details. Once you do that, people will overlook a lot.
He also freed many of them from opportunities for advancement, and even from having to breathe. What a wonder worker!
Mao of course is a monster, but a myth giving rise to national pride does allow you to awful things to a people and they will cling to the myth rather than to your atrocities against them.
The US has a process of continuous improvement, to put it in modern business terms. They understand their own past. You have to get here from there.
We do a better job than many, but we have our myths as well.
Some are good – being a nation of immigrants; e pluribus unum…
Some are in violent contention, like what part slavery played in the American Revolution.
Some are just fun, like chopping down cherry trees and then being unable to tell a lie.
Been reading the 1619 project?
Its laughable to claim that slavery was a widespread motivation for the American Revolution. That’s perfectly illustrated by the fact that the hotbed of the revolution, Massachusetts did have legal slavery when they were under the British, but as soon as they became independent they abolished slavery in 1781, while the anti-slavery movement in England didn’t gain any traction until 1785 after the revolution was over.
Plus it was written into the constitution in 1787, that Congress could ban the slave trade after 1808, and did so in Jan 1807, effective Jan 1, 1808, three months before Britain banned the slave trade ( they didn’t actually ban slavery itself in their colonial possessions until 1834).
There was no threat to slavery from the British until well after the revolution, and the US actually took the first step to end the slave trade 20 years before the British did.
A great example of the importance of myth in people’s minds – either your own myths or anger at others’.
I confess I haven’t read that article; its validity is not required to make my point.
If you think that slavery was a motivator for the American Revolution your point has no validity. At the time of the revolution 5 of the 13 colonies had outlawed slavery.
The only effect it had on the Revolution was that it complicated it. Ask yourself, who pushed for slaves to be counted as less than one person.
Bringing up slavery in the context of the revolution demonstrates zero knowledge of the revolution. You’re the believer in myths here, not Kaz.
‘No myth; no myth – you’re the myth!’
Your angry certainty about the clearly true narrative is not an indicator of history, but of myth.
Maybe you’re right – as I said, I haven’t really looked into it – but someone who wasn’t invested in our founding myth would not be so defensive.
Unless you’re writing an academic paper; then you’re invested for different reasons entirely. But I don’t think that’s you.
I’m not angry, you’re over reading me. And I’m not invested in our “founding myth” – I’m not sure what that even is. I just want history to be reported accurately, warts and all.
What I am is very interested in history. And it’s aggravating that crap like 1619 gets published to alter history to fit one person’s narrative. Which is a crap narrative.
There was a lot of debate about slavery at that time. The 3/5th compromise was not pushed by slave states to diminish slaves, it was pushed by the emancipated states to increase their representation in the new government.
And you really need to break your appalling habit of mind reading people you respond to. You don’t know any of us and your ability to read minds is laughable. There was no anger in my statement at all. If anything I feel sorry for you because your mind has been warped by political narrative. Just take what others say at face value and don’t attribute motive to them.
3/5 was indeed more complicated than the 3/5 of a person thing. But it also was using slaves as political pawns – counting slaves as fractional people for representative purposes at all, while also not letting them vote, is still indicative of them getting a dehumanized in the Constitution.
There was a lot of debate….sort of. John Adams is notable as an abolitionist for a reason; the landed gentry sorts seemed quite willing to write slavery was bad, and then keep on trading and breeding and working them.
Saying ‘if you believe this, then your point has no validity’ is pounding the table. Sometimes it’s legit, sometimes it’s not. This seems an area of current actual, factual, debate in academia, so I find refusal to engage to be unwarranted and coming from emotion not reading the latest articles.
You keep saying my mind is warped, when I’m not even saying I believe the 1619 article, just that I don’t know it’s false! That’s a narrative speaking, not a fact-based judgement.
Several very prominent historians have ripped it to pieces. Pure narrative. So bad that the NYT backed off of it as legit history.
And all I’m saying is quit reading my mind and my attitude. You’ve yet to be correct once.
Another bit of mythbusting is the fact that the antislavery expansion position in the North was in large part a populist white labor movement that wanted to protect high wages for “free white labor.” It is straightforward economic interest, but this was coupled with thoroughly racist views that belied any sort of moral high ground. Of course, there were outspoken abolitionists taking the moral stance against slavery, and they were the predecessors of our views now even though they were seen as extreme and radical then. As Tocqueville said “[T]he prejudice of race appears to be stronger in the States which have abolished slavery, than in those where it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as In those States where servitude has never been known.”
“counting slaves as fractional people for representative purposes at all, while also not letting them vote, is still indicative of them getting a dehumanized in the Constitution.”
God, that’s stupid. It’s called the “3/5ths compromise” for a reason. The opponents of slavery wanted 0/5ths, the slave states wanted 5/5ths, and the slaves getting to vote wasn’t even on the table because who got to vote was utterly and entirely a state decision.
We got the most hostile to slavery constitution that was possible to achieve at the time, and modern idiots complain that they didn’t attempt to just outlaw slavery right at the get-go, resulting in no Constitution, and the slaves still not getting to vote.
Trying to pretend that a measure intended to reduce representation of slave states in the federal government was an insult to the slaves is just a mind boggling case of standing things on their head.
It’s a screwed up thing to compromise about, Brett! That’s the point!!
We got the most hostile to slavery constitution that was possible to achieve at the time
Because lots of that we loved them some slavery.
Talking ’bout myths…
It’s a screwed up thing to insist on winning it all or ruin, when all you’re going to get is ruin. Sometimes you have to just settle for what you can get, and then keep working on it.
The founding generation thought slavery was on its way out naturally, and that they could kick the can down the road a few decades to when moving to abolish it would be a winable fight. If not for the cotton gin, they might even have been right about that.
The founding generation thought slavery was on its way out naturally.
Your very overgeneralization is mythologizing.
Some of them wrote that, some of them actually acted like that, plenty of them were super into it for the long haul.
they could kick the can down the road a few decades to when moving to abolish it would be a winable fight
LOL that is absolutely not supported.
There is nothing wrong with acknowledging our tarnished founding! My American exceptionalism, at least, is not so fragile that a lack of moral perfection will damage it.
There’s nothing wrong with acknowledging our founding was tarnished, but I refuse to pretend that an inadequate application of tarnish remover was itself tarnish.
Literally nobody at the time would have thought that reducing the representation of slave states was an insult to slaves. Nobody. That’s a notion so stupid it took a couple of centuries before it started to catch on.
The slave states were fine with ending the (international) slave trade. Slaves were reproducing very well on their own here (“natural increase”) and the slave-selling states such as Virginia didn’t want foreign competition.
It’s fun to disasterbate, to play asinine games, though, that problems corrected through the great American process, long long ago, are active problems to blame on people who had nothing to do with it, and are against it.
But hey, “this side” has adopted evil concepts from religion, demonstrating yet again politics and religion are not just similar phenomena, but the exact same one.
Like anti-racism, i.e. “If you are not with us, you are against us.” This is a religious oppression thing. Brilliant development.
Like “to question the orthodoxy is itself a sin”. Sample modern meme twist: “This is my truth!” And so your opinion on it is rejected as invalid out of hand.
And yet where these things are the greatest problem are often controlled already by those who purport to be riding to the rescue. And the centers of wealth are there.
No, it’s not about change. It’s about effective manipulation pressing people into imagined service to right ongoing monstrous wrongs.
Hence you clowns bring up the US in this context, not of corrected problems from long ago, but in the feigned modern hyperventillation, as if modern is the same thing as active, ongoing oppression.
No, my fellow American assholes. You do not have a boot stepping on your face, forever. China does. Learn to not be insensate idiots in service to corruption who wants to win so their spouses can reveal Gregory House levels of latent investment savant-itis.
Myths are natural; anyone who insists they’re dealing only in facts is revealing only that they’ve fooled themselves.
I cannot disagree that there is more than a whiff of Manicheanism to some anti-racist activists. And of grift in others. But hardly all of them; though what they say can be uncomfortable to hear for a middle class white guy institutionalist like me.
Is it always about change? No. Is it never about change? Also no.
In conclusion, if someone does think that Americans are as oppressed as the average Chinese citizen, yeah, they’ve delegitimized themselves from serious argument. If I hear one more leftist talk about manufactured consent…
Not commenting pro or con on the merits/substance, but I had not heard “disasterbate” before, and I am here to endorse this word.
See also: “Doomscrolling” in reference to a web-specific form of disasterbating.
Castro and Mao, true liberators. LMFAO.
Not really true. Mao finally won China in 1949 but Western business had deserted most of China during the Civil War and Great Depression, before entirely leaving during the Japanese occupation and the war. In 1945, when Mao started trying to take China again, Chinese industry was already mostly nationalized and had been looted by both the Japanese and the Soviets. The “Century of Humiliation” was not only about the West but also Japan and the Russians/Soviets. The ROC had already undone much of the damage from western corporations decades before Mao won, with progress being broken by Japanese invasion.
I am once again asking lefties to stop interpreting all history as “West vs everyone.” China is far more complicated than that.
The other thing people forget is the utter lawlessness that engulfed China for most of the century preceding Mao’s ascendance.
The Taiping Rebellion alone caused 10s of millions of deaths, and the warlordism of the early 20th century was no picnic either. Then of course there was the brutal Japanese occupation and the civil war.
People were willing overlook a lot in return for some semblance of peace and stability.
And pride. Don’t forget attaining a sense of national pride. People will allow and do a lot of stuff of that.
Hey, who had been oppressing the Chinese for more than a decade before Mao took over. I’m talking pitchfork to the groin type oppression. Hint: it wasn’t anyone from the west.
Look up the Rape of Nanjing for another clue.
“Once you do that, people will overlook a lot.”
The only reason they overlook it is because the communists will kill them if they don’t.
And actually I’m not too worried about Chinese humiliation, they spent 2000 years purposely humiliating any country that was anywhere near their sphere of influence. If that’s proper behavior for them, who are they to criticize others that do it to them?
The Chinese people largely didn’t care themselves until after WWI, when CKS immediately started ending or renegotiating the treaties.
“Like Castro, Mao freed his people ”
so capt is a tankie at heart
Mao freed 100 million of his countrymen from all the burdens and suffering that life had inflicted on them.
What a left-wing hero.
By late May of 2020, we’d had a few months of strict COVID “lockdowns.” But when, after George Floyd’s death, “protesters” appeared en masse on the streets of Minneapolis and other cities — the places where “lockdown” enforcement had been the strictest — no one did anything, even after the “protests” turned violent! Quite a change…
We never had any strict COVID lockdowns. We had mild, porous COVID lockdowns. If you want to complain about some businesses being ordered to close for a period of time, then do that — but don’t pretend that’s actually the same thing as a lockdown.
I don’t know where you were, but in my state it was illegal to go visit a friend.
What state was that?
We hit the sour point: Strict enough to crash the economy, lax enough to be largely futile.
America’s economy seems to be doing great compared to the rest of the world, unless you believe China’s numbers.
Our death rate per capita is above average, but hardly an outlier.
So while I have my issues (school closures), I have a hard time finding the counterfactual you posit that every other policy would have been better to be at all established.
America has fundamental advantages in terms of local resources, scale, lack of nearby military adversaries, some remnants of a culture of individual initiative, that allow us to make the same mistakes as other countries and come out of it less damaged.
Not infinite resilience in the face of stupid mistakes, but a lot more than most countries enjoy.
Locally the economy is doing very well compared to a lot of places, but I still see many shuttered storefronts that were thriving businesses before the lockdowns. A lot of small businesses lacked the deep pockets necessary to survive months without revenue.
So it’s full counterfactual for you.
The CCP is the illegitimate government of China while being the owners and masters of half of the Federal elites, including China Joe, Gen. Milli Vanilli, and Cocaine Mitch.
With other key notables such as Feinstein, and “Fang Fang” Sewell.
Gotta give us the fangs.
The CCP government has never been legitimate. Not in 1949 nor 1989 nor now. It has never had any consent of the governed.
Are you claiming that they don’t have, and never have had, the Mandate of Heaven?
the Chinese Communist Party has never been the legitimate ruler of China.
Could we talk about what “legitimate” means here.
As I understand it, the term is often used simply mean “the government actually in power,” and does not imply any sort of moral approval, or the notion that it has the consent of the people or the like. In that sense the Chinese Communist Party has long been, and is, the legitimate ruler.
There is no legitimacy in a dictatorship. This is all nicities for international relations.
Otherwise, it is just a gigantic hostage situation, with no moral legitimacy.
By the way, “democracy”, AKA an abstraction of might makes right, does not grant legitimacy, either. Freedom does, gating grants of power to government behind supermajorities is the best solution so far. A vox populi vox dei system with simple majority for everything just plays the game gift-of-gab dictators want, by raising the bar for control from a large mass of suckers to a slightly larger 50.1% mass of suckers.
“Dellow fellagates!” Jar-jar announced. “Let’s give the chancellor emergency powers!”
“So this is how Liberty dies, with thunderous applause,” sighed Queen Padme.
Jar-Jar voted for Biden.
I think it involves more than diplomatic niceties. They are the government one must deal with when dealing with a major world economic power. Hence Bernard’s question. What exactly is meant by legitimate and illegitimate? Is it illegitimate for the US government to hold talks and make deals with the Chinese government?
Your argument in favor of the “legitimacy” of Russia’s rule over most of the Donbas is noted.
No more than it’s illegitimate for law enforcement to negotiate with bank robbers who are holding hostages, which probably happens a lot more on TV than in real life. But that’s happening because the robbers have the power to do harm, not because the hostage takers are themselves legitimate.
The government in power is just the de facto ruler. Nothing is said about de jure or legitimacy, in those cases. Otherwise, every coup would immediately change the “legitimate” ruler, no matter how minor, unpopular, or shortlived.
In the West, “legitimacy” often means “the consent of the governed” (Locke), meaning a government that rules with the acceptance of the people ruled.
One argument that China’s government is not legitimate, in part due to Tiananmen Square, is that idea that a legitimate government would not need to slaughter its own people to stay in power.
Amusingly, the Chinese traditional view is that a legitimate government is one that has the Mandate of Heaven, and therefore will overcome obstacles (such as uprisings, famine, or war) to maintain their rule. Suppressing that minor uprising would have been a legitimate act, or the Heavens would have not let them succeed. I don’t think the CCP actually believes in the Mandate of Heaven, though.
Either way, I’d agree with you that at this point there isn’t enough discontent with the government by the people of China to call it illegitimate – not after several generations of successful rule.
Then you “understand” it wrong.
The American equivalent is what has been done to the voter rights protesters on the Capitol Hill. Leftists applaud that though because authoritarianism in cool now.
The whole concept of political legitimacy is kind of under-theorized. I don’t know how we can say, “This government is legitimate”, “That government isn’t legitimate” until we can explain exactly what “legitimacy” consists of.
Let me propose that a government is ‘legitimate’ to the extent the population under it regards compliance with its dictates as affirmatively ethically required, not merely prudential.
This suggests that ‘legitimacy’ is a multi-dimensional thing. That a government’s ‘legitimacy’ can vary from group to group, and topic to topic. Perhaps a government might be viewed by most people as legitimate on topics where there is wide consensus, and government policy reflects that consensus, while at the same time being viewed as illegitimate on topics where that consensus does not exist, or where government policy runs contrary to it.
So even totalitarian regimes might achieve legitimacy in regards to enforcement of commonly supported laws against theft, assault, murder. While even democratic regimes might fail legitimacy on topics like
unqualified immunity or civil forfeiture without criminal convictions, where public opinion is massively against government policy. (Did not consult a poll there, maybe I’m wrong about public opinion on those topics, but it’s not relevant to the general point.) Or fail in regards to distinct populations that don’t accept those policies.China’s government, of course, being a totalitarian state, for the most part only enjoys prudential obedience, and largely does not care if obedience is prudential or reasoned, so long as it gets it.
‘Free’ states, of course, must care, because reliance on prudential obedience rapidly drives them in a totalitarian direction, pushing enforcement costs up through the roof. That’s what legitimacy buys a government, after all: Obedience largely without enforcement.
I think our own government is sliding in the direction of totalitarianism, due to political movements that think they are right, and that this is sufficient to justify imposing their views even where they lack that sort of overwhelming consensus.
Gun controllers, for instance, simply don’t care that most gun owners view their laws as unconstitutional, gun owners don’t care that gun controllers think gun ownership barbaric. Abortion opponents don’t much care that advocates of abortion regard it as a right. Abortion advocates don’t care that opponents don’t want to be forced into complicity with evil.
The list goes on and on.
I don’t think high levels of legitimacy are possible in the presence of deep division and powerful government that inevitably imposes one side’s views on the other side. It’s mostly possible where people have shared views, and government restricts itself to topics where consensus is nearly universal.
But, of course, whether government should restrict itself to topics where consensus is nearly universal is one of those deep divides, isn’t it?
The Chinese government is probably more “legitimate” than our current leftist run regime. At least the Chinese don’t promise freedom or free elections.
Using some other definition of “legitimate”, I suppose. You’d need to specify what definition you used.
I think a wide consensus of Chinese people view their government as legitimate. Maybe they are not enthusiastic supporters due to the nature of authoritarian regimes, but they largely respect the rules and order of the government. Those who tend to view the Chi-Coms are “not legitimate” are external countries, not the people actually governed under the system.
So, yes, I would say “legitimate” and “viewed with international legitimacy” are two different standards and that the only one that matters is really whether or not those governed view their rulers as legit. The other form is really just a popularity contest among the international elite.
I have no idea how you could possibly have determined “a wide consensus of Chinese people” given the lack of a free press or legal domestic opposition. We certainly know that in Hong Kong, where a free press was allowed until a couple of years ago, that the Beijing regime (see – here’s where “regime” is appropriate!) was not highly regarded.
Sure, there isn’t enough domestic opposition to overthrow the Beijing regime, but that’s tautological. By definition, every government in power in every country hasn’t been overthrown, or it wouldn’t be the government.
The Chinese government suppresses information about its atrocities. See, for example, https://newrepublic.com/article/117983/tiananmen-square-massacre-how-chinas-millennials-discuss-it-now
And they very widely employ domestic propaganda to shape public impressions and understanding: https://www.hoover.org/research/chinas-propaganda-ludicrous-malicious-extremely-effective
By sampling the relatively small and privileged set of Chinese citizens who spend much time outside of China, we can get a pretty good estimate of what they know and think about their government. Chinese citizens who are less educated and less privileged are almost certainly even less informed about its abuses.
Simple, HUMAN NATURE. Of 100 people you know how many would want to live under Chinese conditions??
The Beijing regime is greatly helped by UN decision to not condemn its Uyghur persecution. THAT is what keeps them in power. Imagine the world condemning what is obviously despicable in China.
To quote someone with the brain of a beetle : IMAGINE
You do know there are a few billion people in China right? I get that it can be hard for an outsider to get a good gauge on the likability of a government without a free flow of information, but I’m sure you see your obvious logical fallacy in assuming that a small sampling of those who reside in Hong Kong and ex-pats is not a great indicator of anything…..
In a democracy, the “government” isn’t forcing anything–one’s fellow citizens are through their votes. At least, that is the case where voting is largely free, open, and unencumbered such that all constituencies have equal access. In a world of gerrymandering, voter registration purges, and new forms of poll taxes, where the 50/50 split in party registrations can lead to a 70/30 split in the legislature, it become harder to achieve legitimacy.
The concept of legitimacy isn’t under-theorised, you just haven’t read any of the theorising that many, many authors have done going back to the times of Confucius, Plato, and Aristotle.
Longtime DC insiders will say : Obama is lazy, Biden is stupid (a friend said recently “dumb as an ashtray”) — so NOW Obama apologizes and says he should have supported Iran protesters in 2009 ! — Damn right, utterly despicable of him
To sum up half of this thread’s responses: “From the safety of free, prosperous, modern America, pay no attention to an empire on an expansionist march, with over 4x our population! Remember when we used to be less than perfect? Focus on that. Our marching orders, by corruptions in America who want power, are to do that!”
Who in this thread is saying ignore China?
Joe & Hunter Biden and their Gestapo at the Democrat FBI.
Hunter Biden’s FBI? Here, at the Volokh Conspiracy?
Zounds!
It’s far more than a presumption, but generally I agree. If you are willing to butcher your own population it’s time for you to go.
“How about massacring your people leaves at the least a decades long presumption of illegitimacy?”
How about just until the next election? If a government massacres its people, the people can vote in a legitimate government.
There was a lot of time and policy changes between the Boxer Rebellion and the Invasion of Manchuria.
Yes, and treated Chinese noncombatants quite appropriately, unlike their countrymen a generation later (or Western armies at the time).
I think you can observe the effect without endorsing the motive. No one disputes Rommel’s tactics of Blitzkrieg tank warfare were sheer brilliance; the US lightning rush across Kuwait was strait out of his book.
People like BravoCharlieDelta, the rest of this blog’s fans, and the Volokh Conspirators aren’t all bad.
I like my political adversaries to be disaffected, delusional, superstitious, bigot-hugging, stale-thinking losers. The verdict of the modern American marketplace of ideas is primarily responsible for a half-century of national progress and the predictable trajectory of our culture war, but the draft choices of conservatives — intolerance, ignorance, backwardness, superstition, insularity, failing communities, low-quality schools — have been handy, too.
Noticeably missing any counter-arguments or facts that might undermine my insinuations.
Kinda like what the FBI does? Or Democrats do to little black babies?
Nor do I, at least for events that are long in the past. We can feel sorrow, express regret, but in the long run all we can do today is try to do better.
I’m really trying to keep this discussion philosophical rather than political but as an example how am I, for example, in any way culpable for the horrors of slavery when not a single member of my family arrived in the US until the 1920’s and even then were members of ethnic groups treated very poorly until relatively recent times?
It depends upon what ends “strength” is put to.
What I’m trying to say is (to stick with the Rommel example) no one said as the US and it’s partners raced across southern Iraq “Look at them, they must be Nazi’s, they’re acting just like Rommel”.
The events of Tiananmen Square were horrifying acts by a brutal, evil dictatorship and I will celebrate the day the Chinese people see real freedom. Nevertheless they achieved their goal of ending civil unrest in a relatively short period of time, which is far more than we can say about the events of the summer of 21.
Exactly. The observation should not be, “Wow! Look how wonderfully effective violent crushing of opposition and freedom is. Good job!”
It should be, “See how control of the media, and the universities, and limiting what your soldiers can know, is dangerous and a tool of tyranny? A free people should be wary of authorizing government these powers. It is the American way to never give government these powers in the first place. Then it cannot be abused.“
You do know the ones advocating for control of the media and schools is the right, yes?
It is not the American way to never give these powers to the government; it is the American way to realize that there is a cost/risk to giving these powers to the government, and to be careful when doing so that the benefit outweighs that risk. And, of course, to have some things that government cannot touch, or at least must bear a very heavy burden to regulate.
Otherwise we deviated from the American way round about 1862 with land grant universities.
The most dangerous place in America for a black male is in the womb.
Refute that.
Everyone who has read a book understood the references I was making.
You should try it every once in awhile. It’s kinda neat.
Statistics dude. Math. Facts.
They all support my claim. Meanwhile, your red herring does not refute it.
Your ignorance of current affairs, while expected, still kinda shocks me.
How can someone be so genuinely stupid?
Well nobody did anything about the COVID aspect of it.
In fact, “respected” medical institutions wrote open letters saying, it’s OK, this is an exception — these protests are more important than all the COVID measures!
Resulting in how much jail time?
haha yeah, the CCP has NO INFLUENCE over our government, haha yeah you’re so right!
CNN even said so!
Read. Learn. Decide.
It’s on the site, wow, now you want me to read for you.
good grief
It’s the exact same insinuation you moron.
I think the issue here is that Trump’s words convey an admiration for the Chinese government’s actions, not the brilliance of its approach.
Using brute force to put down demonstrations may be effective, but it’s not particularly clever. Trump is contrasting Chinese “strength” with US “weakness.”
It’s praise of totalitarianism.
Specific people at the top of the government, you fucking dunce.
Holy moly. I’ve picked boogers smarter than you.
Jar Jar is not real…..
They wanted the actual votes to be counted.
No, it’s revisionism. One person said the Japanese didn’t rape as many civilians but others disagreed. Most people agreed they were quite willing to kill as many civilians as they wanted. They had massacred Chinese civilians in 1894 (Port Arthur massacre) so it’s not as if anyone should expect them to be more moral five years later.
“Actual votes” being those for Trump.
I mean, how could a President that didn’t win the popular vote in his first election, whose approval numbers never hit 50%, and who had the lowest average approval in Presidential history (41%) possibly lose?
There were many Presidents whose nadir was lower than Trump’s (34%) during their Presidencies. Harry Truman (22%), Richard Nixon (24%), George W. Bush (25%), Jimmy Carter (28%), and George H. W. Bush (29%) all had a lower low point than Trump, so he was good, right? So why wouldn’t people want him to be President?
What’s that? He was the only President never to reach 50% approval? So? What’s the next-lowest high point for a President? 57%? 8 points higher than Trump’s best? By Joe Biden?
Wow. Maybe there is something to this whole “Trump lost to Biden” thing. Who knew?
Sure. Dictators who use violence against their own people always lose the next election.
The claim that what he said is “racism” is only made plausible if you can show he has a conflicting position on, say, Ukraine. Do you have any such evidence or are you merely pulling moronic insults out of your ass?
What you think that that has to do with the subject under discussion I cannot imagine. Shall we now quote what Lincoln had to say on the subject of the franchise for blacks? Equally irrelevant, btw.
Looks like a pretty close approximation to “nothing” to me. It’s not as if the rioters limited themselves to firing paintballs.
Nothing wrong with deriding unreality.
No, I don’t know that. But I do know who is advocating for cancelling people who push back against lefty indoctrination in the schools, and rightly so.
You are a tedious shit.
Not all of them, but a lot.
“Democracy” is not remotely the opposite of might makes right.
Krayt is right, and you are idiotically wrong.
I’m not sure that the (D) manufactured enough votes to affect the overall outcome, but I sure saw what looked like vote manufacture in Cobo Hall. And I give corrupt courts all the respect they deserve on this issue, which is none.
You seem quite unclear on what is government action and what is not.
Well, I’m not willfully blocking out the extent to which our own government doesn’t actually have the consent of the governed, or confusing consent and resignation, if that’s what you mean.
Oh, I think he certainly lost the popular vote fair and square. But, of course, the popular vote doesn’t legally mean anything.
He came within about 44K votes across 2-3 states of winning the electoral college, and the shortfall states had some very dubious things going on in terms of local election administration. So it’s not totally insane to think that he’d have won an honestly administered election.
Though, of course, you’ll never be able to prove it one way or another, it’s not like we can look at some parallel universe where election laws were strictly obeyed.
Um, it’s directly responsive to the claim by ML to which that was a response:
it’s not totally insane to think that he’d have won an honestly administered election.
Actually, it is. And the fact that a large percentage of Republicans think that is a genuine threat to democracy in the US.
But it’s nice to see you admit you buy Trump’s lie, rather than kind of slinking around it and insinuating a lot of BS.
No; Brett kind of tricked you there into agreeing with his premise. The election was administered honestly.