The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Senator Sasse on Pluralists v. Zealots
Outgoing Senator Ben Sasse on what divides Americans.
Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE), who will soon take leave of the Senate to become President of the University of Florida, has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on "America's True Divide: Pluralists vs. Zealots." It begins:
The most important divide in American politics isn't red versus blue. It's civic pluralists versus political zealots. This is the truth no one in Washington acknowledges but Americans must realize if we're going to recover.
Civic pluralists understand that ideas move the world more than power does, which is why pluralists value debate and persuasion. We believe America is great because it is good, and America is good because the country is committed to human dignity, even for those with whom we disagree. A continental nation of 330 million souls couldn't possibly agree on everything, but we can hash out our disagreements in the communities where we live and the institutions we build. The small but important role of government, for the civic pluralist, is a framework for ordered liberty. Government doesn't give us rights, or meaning, or purpose or permission. It exists to protect us from the whims of mobs and majorities.
Political zealots reject this, holding that society starts and ends with power. Government in their view isn't to protect from the powerful or the popular. More than anything else, zealots—on the right and the left—seek total victory in the public square. They believe that the center of life is government power. They preach jeremiads of victimhood and decline. On the left, they want a powerful bureaucracy. On the right, they want a strongman. But they agree on a central tenet: Americans are too weak to solve problems with persuasion. They need the state to do it.
Sen. Sasse identifies how te zealots have made Congress dysfunctional and drive tribal divisions.
The stupidity of tribalism has made politics primarily about partisan identities, not persuasion or policy. The screamers on the right and left fuel one another. In a nation as big as ours, there is always someone somewhere saying something stupid—but tribalism takes this fact as its lifeblood. And it's the excuse for otherwise civic-minded Americans to ignore the nuts in their own party and obsess only over the nuts in the other party. We're tempted to think that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It takes a genuine leader to remind us that most of the time, the enemy of our enemy is still a jackass.
In the past, Sen. Sasse notes, the U.S. Senate was a bit of a calming force against such pressures, a place where tempers could cool and political leadership could flourish. In recent years, however, Sasse believes the Senate has been AWOL. (And let's not even talk about the House, where the zealots are making the election of a Speaker into a farce.)
While Sasse focuses on how these divides affect politics, his experience becoming the next President of the University of Florida highlights the fact that zealots are not confined to the political sphere, and the divide that concerns him is alive and well in academia. (Indeed, the dynamic we see in the House Speaker contest, in which a few extremists seek to hold an entire institution hostage, is a familiar scene in academia, albeit with a different political valence.)
Although he is leaving the Senate, Sen. Sasse believes the institution has a role in solving this problem (though he apparently sees no role for himself in driving this change).
if recovery is to come, here's what it will look like: Senators will have to acknowledge that a politicized echo chamber is unworthy of the world's greatest deliberative body. Citizens will have to see that recovery means resisting the temptation to reduce fellow Americans to caricatures of their political affiliations. Recovery requires investment in things that will outlast partisan preferences. We must steward the present age, and play our small but vital parts in the work of self-government.
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
Another conservative telling us all about The Real Problem after he’s no longer in any position to address The Real Problem, and who did nothing about The Real Problem when he actually had some ability to do so. What a treat for everyone.
"Conservative"? Fact not in evidence.
So, a zealot?
A coward.
They want someone else to take all the risk while they wallow in their corrupt rewards.
The most surest way to get rich these days is to become a politician.
Another conservative telling us all about The Real Problem after he’s no longer in any position to address The Real Problem, and who did nothing about The Real Problem when he actually had some ability to do so.
This is really close to what I wanted to say. The time for someone to say these things is while they still have influence within the political realm. Someone leaving public office to take an academic job is retiring from politics. Sasse no longer has any leverage or ability to get people to consider what he is saying about politics. Talking heads on cable news channels, opinion columnists and bloggers, and political operatives are unlikely to even acknowledge his existence any longer, let alone pass his words along to the masses to further the kind of civil debate his talking about.
Prof. Adler wrote,
Although he is leaving the Senate, Sen. Sasse believes the institution has a role in solving this problem (though he apparently sees no role for himself in driving this change).
The Senate, and Congress more generally, will have no role solving this problem until its members grow spines and become willing to risk their seats to say and do what they really believe is in the best interest of the country. They need to be willing to try and convince their constituents of what they think is right and correct instead of always reacting to what will get them the votes to keep their jobs. And that won’t happen until voters start valuing integrity and real courage instead of what gets the most views and likes on social media.
Zealots! Politicians seeking power! Society starts and ends with power!
Nothing new under the sun here...
Its amusing to me when a fifty-something comes to the same conclusion the framers of the constitution already knew two hundred fifty years ago.
Congressional dysfunction is a feature, not a bug, and was built into the system. The instinct of every politician is to do something, using government, typically involving my tax dollars or infringing on my rights. To a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
Maybe now that Sasse has the time, he can go back and learn that the framers themselves were “zealots” who “reduced their political opponents to caricatures.” Isn’t that the essence of every political cartoon, reducing your opponent to a caricature?
The real problem is not that the Senate is AWOL, so much as the Supreme Court has allowed Congress to abdicate accountability through delegation of too much authority to the Executive branch. Imagine if Congress had to actually vote on the new Waters of the United States rule, or the various shifting ATF rules.
The reality is “zealots” are everywhere, always have been, and always will be so long as humans are in charge. Humans are a social species with a political structure evolutionarily only recently removed from Chimps, where the alpha climbs to the top sometimes through brutality.
The rule of law can only be facilitated by recognizing this reality, providing the appropriate checks against the political instinct to "do something," and fostering experimentation on a small scale. Experimentation because often, "doing something" involves unintended consequences (or doesn't work, or amounts to virtue signalling).
That there would go a long way towards taming the bureaucracy.
Hey Republicans - WTF is "ordered liberty?"
In my experience, anyone who starts raving about "ordered liberty" is really concerned about the order, not the liberty. That doesn't have to be as a logical matter, but it's the way it has worked out in practice.
Order is such an obsession of people who gravitate to government, that the only people who'll give it any real weight are the people who don't feel the urge to qualify the word.
In my experience, anyone who starts raving about “ordered liberty” is really concerned about the order, not the liberty.
I agree.
In most large U.S. cities, criminals are running amok, with little interference from authorities.
Who runs those cities, apedad? Why, it's Democrats! The same Democrats who want to prevent law-abiding people from defending themselves and their property (and even from discussing the problem!).
So much for “ordered liberty”!
"In most large U.S. cities, criminals are running amok, with little interference from authorities."
You can't possibly say that with a straight face. So police in the big city aren't like police elsewhere? They don't do their job? They just sit around with their thumbs up their asses, doing nothing?
Clearly you don't know city cops.
"And let's not even talk about the House, where the zealots are making the election of a Speaker into a farce."
What's a farce is a party leader trying to hold onto his position after a record of failure. The GOP's biggest weakness in Congress has been leadership that didn't actually want it to prevail on a lot of issues.
Gosh, please tell us which House Republican leaders didn’t want to prevail on which issues.
You’re acting like the zealots that Sasse describes - “we don’t have the votes for this unpopular thing we want but let’s try to ram it up everyone’s ass anyway. Then we can bask in our purity when it fails”.
McCarthy negotiates more with Democrats than he does with his own party.
Screw him.
That's because politics is the art of the possible, meaning you negotiate with people with whom you might actually be able to strike a deal.
I consider Kevin McCarthy a complete political whore, and I don't care if he's speaker or not. But the next speaker, whomever he may be, will get far more done talking to the Democrats than he will talking to Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz.
"next speaker, whomever he may be, will get far more done "
Dem senate and president, anything "done" will be bad.
Thank you for proving Sasse's point. No, not everything the opposition likes is necessarily bad. The two parties ought to be able to work together rather than just knee-jerk that if the other guy likes it it must be the apocalypse. We've seen this repeatedly in which a party that had taken a certain position immediately became opposed to that same position just because the other guy, who is now in the White House, came out in favor.
Obstructionism for its own sake is what's bad. If an idea really is a bad idea, fine, vote against it for that reason. But if your only reason for opposing it is the other side wants it, you're part of the problem.
"two parties ought to be able to work together "
Why? Parties exist to advance conflicting views of society.
Large fractions of GOP compromise all the time [recent gay marriage law, omnibus]. When did the Dems provide winning votes for a GOP issue?
It would be hard to construct an illustration of Sasse's and Krychek's argument better than your comments here.
I live to serve.
Parties may indeed do that, but officeholders do not.
Historically, parties have often had overlapping visions for society.
They still managed to find plenty of stuff to fight about.
Maximizing disagreement is only a thing for reacionaries.
And those seeking a reaction.
What, you already forgot McConnell's cave on gun control? He led a rogue faction of the Senate Republican caucus in voting for it.
Politically, that would be like Schumer and a faction of Democrats voting for a pro-life bill just a few months before an election. Politically unthinkable.
A thing true only in Brett's head.
Why do you suppose, then, that they ran on fighting the ACA, and when they took control of Congress and the Presidency in 2017, didn't have any bill ready to do anything about it?
Because it turns out that legislating — as opposed to being rhetorically opposed to everything — is hard work.
Because they didn't actually have a better plan, they just said they did. The ACA isn't good, especially after the "death of a thousand cuts" efforts of Republicans, but it's better than anything of substance that the GOP has offered (they've offered plenty of empty rhetoric).
If they put together a law that allowed buying across state lines, a-la-carte policies, and other free-market solutions, it could be a great law. But they didn't even start putting anything together. Ten years on and they still don't have a plan. It's the most transparent and disappointing example of political grandstanding in my lifetime.
I am not going to care about the opinion of a quitter.
If he truly believes what is in this article, he would have stayed to fix it.
Seems reasonable enough, though I laugh at the idea that the Senate is or was ever the world's greatest deliberative body. Perhaps this is one of those things that Americans are taught to believe uncritically in HS.
The “greatest deliberative body” stuff is the political class self-describing. Their view of reality is not real keen.
Senators don't write or read the bills they vote on. How could they possibly deliberate?
...and the same is true for the members of the House. ("we have to pass the bill to know what's in it").
That was inartfully phrased by Pelosi, when what she clearly meant was that you'll see how it works once it's been passed. The full text of the bill had been available in Thomas well before the vote.
It's true that while some bills are voted on before anybody but the drafters has had time to read them, the ACA wasn't one of them.
But if you can't tell how a bill like the ACA is going to work before you pass it, you shouldn't pass it. It's like jumping off a cliff to see if your parachute works.
I think that Pelosi knew, but couldn't be bothered to explain it at the necessary length.
Another Yankee leaving the High Tax Nawth (OK with Nebraska it's more likely the Sub-Zero Winters). University of Florida, pretty sweet gig, hard to eff up (I'm Sure Senator Ass will find a way)
Frank "Gator Hater"
Problem for me is the Sasse critique more or less rules out government action to improve national well-being. For that reason, Sasse would dismiss almost the entire mainstream of European politics as left-wing zealotry. Meanwhile, Sasse gets vehement condemnation from American right wingers.
American politics is broken. Right wing zealots broke it. Sasse can't bring himself to say that clearly.
If this crisis has taught us anything, it has taught us that people of good will who find themselves in bad company too often go for, "Both sides."
Not Liz Cheney, though.
Using US politics as a reference point, almost the entire mainstream of European politics IS left-wing zealotry. Just as almost the entire mainstream of American politics looks like right-wing zealotry from a European perspective.
Noticing that is like noticing that Europe is East of the US, it's just that our political centers are that far apart, we are NOT a typical European country.
"...we are NOT a typical European country. Yet, but working on it.
“On the left, they want a powerful bureaucracy. On the right, they want a strongman.”
When did this become the definitions of “left” and “right?” Do you think William F Buckley, who’s wrote a column called “On The Right,” wanted a “strongman?” Where on this meaningless spectrum are Libertarians? Do we want a “Strongman?” The Left has been so successful at muddying the political waters that even a respectable author writing for Reason can’t get it correct. I call myself a far-right advocate because the ideals I value, those enshrined in our constitution and described by Adler as “civic pluralists” are defined by the notion that Government should be limited. The spectrum between Left and Right is Total government control on the far Left, and No government control on the far Right. Socialism, Fascism, Communism – these are Leftist ideologies. When it comes to these ideologies, which could also be called Statism, the variation comes with policy values – most Statists view government power as means of leveling and protecting society or imposing "equity." Some also view it as a means of projecting power, and history as shown that when Leftists run out of money to loot and distribute, they often keep the house of cards standing by invading other countries for their resources. Rightists reject all of that, whether the Leftist government is run by a Politburo, a Congress, a Dictator, or "Strongman," or a National Socialist party. If we can’t agree on definitions, they we just talk in circles. I am not a Leftist, I am not a Rightist by Adler's definition, and I am not a “Centrist” who picks their dose of poison from either side. Rational Libertarians have no place in the ridiculous political framework that has now been accepted by virtually everyone.
Reasonableone1959 — Would, “low-energy crank,” be a contradiction in terms? If not, maybe that’s what you are.
What?
Also, strongmen love bureaucracies.
There has probably been no more complex and controlling bureaucracy in history as the Soviet power structure, from local soviets up to the National Soviet, the entirety of which was governed by a series of Strongmen, from Lenin to Gorbachov, the strongest most evil being Stalin. And, as I said, this is a Leftist phenomenon. Libertarians do not “want Strongmen.” We are not on the Left, but we are also not, given the characteristic proposed by Sasse’s (not Adler, my mistake) stupid statement, on the Right.
Your logic appears to be, "Libertarians are on the right. Libertarians are good. Therefore, the right must not be the side that supports bad stuff. All that stuff is actually on the left. People who criticize the right are stupid."
The flaw in your reasoning should be obvious: libertarians aren't on the right. One could draw a collectivist vs. liberty line and place fascists and communists on the collectivist side and libertarians on the other, but that's a totally different axis than the left-right axis. Libertarians aren't on that axis at all.
(Although the current MC-controlled LP is simply on the MAGA far right, and isn't libertarian at all.)
No, that is exactly what the left does. The left is good. Therefore, the left must not be on the side that supports bad stuff. So National Socialism, Strongmen running Communist governments, and all that bad stuff is actually on the right, and people who criticize the Left are stupid. You have reduced the argument to nonsense.
In fact, I tried to define a meaningful definition of Left and Right that actually measures something, and which has a place for Libertarians, Anarchists, and many types of collectivists and other Leftists. And it what I understood the Left/Right spectrum to represent in the late 70s when I first began to think and write about politics. I blame Leftists for muddying the definitions simply because that is Left is unchanged, but what is Right is, apparently, up to individuals and "their truths." I stand by my analysis.
'And, as I said, this is a Leftist phenomenon'
The 'leftist' British Empire famous for not having a bureaucracy. Also the 'leftist' German, Belgian, Spainish and French colonial powers.
Do you think William F Buckley, who’s wrote a column called “On The Right,” wanted a “strongman?”
Quite likely.
Buckley was a big fan of Franco, and of Pinochet, and of the South African apartheid regime. He strongly opposed the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
I'd say he would have been happy to have a strongman, so long as the strongman was on his side. The idea that Buckley was some fan of democracy is laughable.
Hard to argue with someone who has no idea what they are talking about. I was there, reading National Review in my 20s, and you are just wrong. Character assassination is not historical analysis.
Which of the items I listed is false?
To be clear – if one has to choose between a strongman and the fall of a domino to Communism (or the Comintern), then it is 1) a horrible choice and 2) and easy choice. You support the strongman until the threat of world Communism recedes, and then you support people who would overthrow the strongman. This realpolitik is absolutely not the same as being a “big fan” of the Strongman. And this analysis pertains only to Pinochet. Buckley did not support Franco. He also was not a racist; there are good reasons to oppose legislation that ostensibly serves a good purpose if there are provisions in the bill that are unacceptable. He (and I) similarly opposed the ADA – it is appropriate for people to accommodate others with disabilities. It is inappropriate, morally reprehensible, and, to anyone who can read, unConstitutional, for the Federal government to put the financial burden of doing so on private property owners without compensation. If he opposed the 1965 Voting Rights Act, it was with good reason, and I would like you to tell me why if you can – and what that has to do with him “quite likely” wanting government by a “Strongman.”
Um, we're not talking about Barry Goldwater's principled libertarian opposition to the Civil Rights Act. We're talking about the man who, in 1957, wrote a famous editorial titled, "Why the South Must Prevail," arguing that whites were the more advanced race and therefore they were entitled to govern and black people should just lump it. Maybe someday black people would advance enough that they should be allowed to vote, but for now, they're just too stupid; they don't really want to vote and wouldn't know how to vote if they were allowed. But if they did, they'd vote for the wrong things — e.g., integration — and that couldn't be permitted.
Did he eventually evolve? Sure. Though while he was conceding to reality in the U.S. in the 1960s, he was still endorsing apartheid in South Africa.
Buckley graduated from college in 1952 or ’53 (he wrote God and Man at Yale while still in college, if I remember correctly, in 1951). If I, or you, were held accountable for the stupid crap we said or wrote in college or just after graduating, then we would be too embarrassed to write anything at all (you might be the sole exception, I don’t know). Here is an objective viewpoint:https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/13/william-f-buckley-civil-rights-215129/
“Endorsing apartheid?” Perhaps; I don’t know exactly what you are referring to. But judging a person’s political judgment from 80 years ago based on today’s political morality is childish. You know better. If he “endorsed apartheid in the 1960s,” it was not for racist reasons. Show me his actual words…
And again, how does any of this prove that in being "on the right", he wanted a government run by a "strongman?"
This is pathetic as an attempted defense. This was not a column by a sophomore in a college newspaper; it was an editorial in the National Review by the guy who fancied himself the intellectual leader of the conservative movement in the U.S. Moreover, William F. Buckley was born in 1925. He was 32 years old when he wrote the editorial in question.
Ah, yes, all the famous non-racist reasons to support apartheid.
"The spectrum between Left and Right is Total government control on the far Left, and No government control on the far Right."
That's prima facie idiocy. The right loves authoritarianism as much as, if not more than, the left. The only difference is which largely-rejected values they want to force on the populace.
Cultural conservatism is authoritarian by its very nature. As the culture of America moves away from religon, traditional institutions, and the culture that each of us grew up in, the only way for cultural conservatives to stop it is to force people through legislation. Gay marriage and abortion are the most obvious, but the two-tiered legal system that grants special status to religious people is more subtle, but no less authoritarian.
And the fact that you call fascism liberal and anarchy conservative is just weird.
"Rational Libertarians have no place in the ridiculous political framework that has now been accepted by virtually everyone."
I agree. Rational Libertarians support the fewest restrictions on personal freedom possible. Live and let live. Today's GOP is more hostile to that concept than Dems, but not by much. The biggest reason, I think, that both parties can't abide it is they can't control it. When people do what they want, someone will be pissed about what someone else is doing. And they want to stop it, for some unknown reason.
'for some unknown reason'
Yes, there are never ever any good reasons for stopping people from doing things, and never things that people should be stopped from doing.
Not what I said. Taking statements advocating for an increase in personal agency and claiming that it really means anarchy is dishonest.
Things that force other to act in a way contrary to their preferences, with the NAP assumed, shouldn’t be legislated. Abortion, speech crimes (hate speech), campus “speech codes”, religious exceptions to laws in the public square (especially commerce), anti-drug laws, anti-suicide laws, etc. … all of those types of things shouldn’t be the subject of legislation.
And no, that is not an advocacy or justification for rape, assault, murder, etc. It’s advocacy for people who don’t like something (even if it makes the feel bad or hurts their feelings) to realize that their opinion shouldn’t dictate someone else’s behavior in a free society.
I agree there are pluralists and zealots. The former want to persuade in order to accomplish things. The latter perform for the crowd. However, I disagree with Sasse's claim that pluralists necessarily want a restrained government. Some pluralists try to persuade in favor of an activist government and others for restrained government.
Very true. Unfortunately most parties go with the activist government.
Weirdly, you know who was in the Senate, but AWOL? Ben Sasse. I like(d) the guy, but from the moment Donald Trump was elected in Nov. 2016, Ben Sasse decided to put his head down and not say anything, pretending the elephant in the room wasn't there.
Yeah, maybe he'd have been forced out a la Jeff Flake if he had said something. But if you're not willing to risk your seat for your principles, then what's the point?
I see there's still no white smoke from the Sistine Chapel in the speaker's election.
Well at least McCarthy isn't lying in state yet.
They seem to be talking about Jim "See no evil" Jordan.
Question: If he becomes Speaker, will he buy a jacket?
Furthermore, if he's Speaker, will he continue to pretend that he doesn't know anything about what happens around him and under him?
Never forget that he's responsible for the sexual assault of hundreds of young men going unchecked and unpunished.
For what it's worth, Jordan nominated McCarthy and has repeatedly stated he has no desire to be Speaker.
Trump has endorsed McCarthy for Speaker. This may put him over the finish line the next vote, but if Trump is now sucking up to the very same establishment that fought him every inch of the way when he was President? That looks like a desperation move by a guy who sees his moment in the spotlight fading.
Trump had endorsed McCarthy long before; he just reiterated it today.
Of course, no establishment on the GOP side fought him even 1/100th of 1% of the time when he was president.
Goldwater: Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Sasse says the Right wants a "strongman." That is BS. The Right wants strong men and strong women willing to stand up for the same individual rights that Sasse apparently holds dear, but he is not willing to defend those rights to the point of being unpleasant.
Donald Trump expressly marketed himself in 2016 as the man who would ride in on a white horse and fix things. He expressly campaigned on the theme of the country's problems being straightforward to solve and the fact that they aren't being solve just shows that the corrupt people in charge of the system don't want to solve them; the country needs him to come in and get rid of all the institutions standing in the way and do the job. "Only I can save you."
And the Right lapped it up.
I see, you do not know what is meant by a "strongman," but you hate Trump anyway.
I do know what is meant by a strongman.
You've overlooked the long list who have stayed on for decades and "quit" by dying in office (to be replaced by a family member).
Um, he had just won re-election in 2020; he has four more years to go on his term. He didn't quit because of poor re-election prospects.
Did he do that?
kalak, a few nights ago I was suffering from a bout of insomnia so I played around on youtube and ended up listening to Richard Nixon's 1972 state of the union address. It was amazing. He talked about the need for people to set aside their differences and work together for the good of the country, to build strong communities, to have a strong social safety network. There's no way Nixon would get the GOP nomination today (because of his views, not because he was a crook).
I agree with you that the parties have moved apart, but that's because the 1950s Republicans agreed with the Democrats on the need for strong communities, and the Democrats agreed with the Republicans on the need for a strong national defense. They both mostly agreed on what was good for the country. I miss that.
We may have our differences. The American Revolution may have been fought over smaller differences than ours.
But what's really important is that we can set aside our differences and work together to make sure that trillions of dollars are spent on the other side of the globe, the American taxpayer is robbed blind and Senators retire rich.
Should have thought of that before electing W Bush.
What does a border wall have to do with a secure border?
The NDAA makes plenty of promises the appropriators break.
Check out the appropriation for the CHIPs Act, for an object lesson in how much to rely on when authorizers play appropriator.
Trump wasn't always treated like a normal president for the simple reason that he wasn't a normal president. But with regard to the border wall, a bipartisan group of Senators negotiated a bill that would have:
1. Built the wall,
2. Restrict family reunification,
3. Address the diversity lottery, and
4. Write DACA into law.
This seems to me that Trump should have been pretty happy with this bill. It gave him his wall and addressed two of his complaints about immigration law provisions. He had complained that DACA was implemented via executive order rather than legislation, so he could even claim the DACA provision as a win. But Trump refused to support the bill, which killed it.
Or maybe it wasn't Trump who killed the bill. Steve Miller told Congress that the Administration wouldn't support the bill. If Trump were a normal president, we could safely assume that Miller was acting at Trump's direction, but Trump was not a normal president.
You can't just set out to be born rich. You can set out to be a politician.
They wanted calibrated dysfunction.
I always ask, more dangerous for who?
Most murders are criminal on criminal, remember. If you're neither a career criminal nor associating with them on a routine basis, you're pretty safe anywhere in America.
They say that most murder victims knew their killers. Yeah, and they knew their killers were criminals, too. Turns out criminals also victimize people they know, even relatives.
But this is an under-studied issue, I guess because a lot of researchers shy away from "blaming the victim".
Exactly: He didn't do it.
The Republican establishment have a long record of "doing it", and their voting base are really ticked off about it.
Well either that or it's another facet of gun violence and one thing that will meet massive opposition from the right is the study of gun violence.
"Most murders are criminal on criminal, remember."
And what evidence do you have to support your latest AssFact?
How do you get from "know their killer" to gun violence?
Word association.
What does locking your car or home have to with security?
1) "His own party" didn't censure him. A handful of fringe activists tried to, and ultimately chose not to.
2) His own party helped him win reelection with 63% of the vote.
3) It doesn't matter if he was wildly unpopular; 2026 is a lifetime away in politics. That's the next time he had to stand for reelection.
They didn't want any dysfunction. They wanted various checks and balances and veto points so that the government would be slow and limited. But within its legitimate sphere, they wanted it to work.
...and as a practical matter his new gig comes with a huge pay bump (reportedly $1million/yr).
"Republican establishment have a long record of “doing it”"
4 major examples just since June 2022. Slightly different cast of characters, they rotate pro-Dem votes to reduce blow back against any one senator.
It's amazing how many conservatives seem to think that a working government is a bad thing.
When it's working at all.
Healthy attitude right here.
No, the government of the officials America has elected is not working against conservatives.
You miss the point.
Ed makes the claim that cities have run amok with no interference from the Democratic authorities. But it turns out recent trends in crime rate aren't a city vs. country thing, but rather a nationwide phenomenon. Sure, the cities certainly have overall higher crime rates but that's always been the case regardless of the political valence of the leadership. (To further make the point, high crime rates in US cities is a trend that applies to the few cities that have Republican governors as well.)
Sasse isn't that unpopular in Nebraska. Interested to see who you think would primary him.
1) They represent a few hundred or thousand people within the party, rather than hundreds of thousands of people that make up the party.
2) I'm not sure why you think that helps your point; Sasse got 75% of the vote in the GOP primary in 2020.
3) Rehabilitate himself from what? You really think that in 2026, GOP voters are going to still be thinking about Donald Trump?
In this thread about how conservatives valorize and encourage government disfunction, you lament how government doesn't work.
The conservative narrative doesn't care about consistency - it'll be reactionary coming and going.
“The government” is nothing but a but of administrators enforcing the rules at gunpoint. Does it work?
“More government” is the hue and cry of politicians looking to increase their power, not problem solvers. Most problems can be more efficiently solved through the private sector. Even spaceflight is now more efficiently done through the private sector.
For the amount of incomes taxes I pay, I could literally hire two people to do things. Instead, the government pays them to be unemployed.
If written laws solved social ills, Hammurabi’s code would have ended assault and murder.
Conservatives do not think that a working government is a bad thing. We feel that centralized power is a bad thing because it means that whenever zealots have power, they will have it over the entire nation.
The left, by contrast, wants that calamity to happen often. For instance the deep-state-managed "defund the police" campaign is not about abolishing all police. It is about emasculating *local* police forces so that voters will look the other way when the FBI and other federal police usurp the function of local police.
I think you're wrong about human nature and unemployment insurance, the utility of efficiency to deal with resourcing problems, and even space flight, which was subsidized in money, resources, training, and even experienced personnel by the government.
We both get votes.
That's the government. That's what keeps it legitimate. You being unhappy your takes don't win doesn't mean the government is suddenly all robbery.
I mean, I suppose you can think that real hard, but all that'll do is make you miserable about the country you live in.
Hey, didn't you predict a huge red waive as everyone nationwide agreed with you?
'Most problems can be more efficiently solved through the private sector.'
No.
Look, I am happy to see the private sector getting involved in space. But SpaceX et al. survive on government contracts.
For instance the deep-state-managed “defund the police” campaign is not about abolishing all police. It is about emasculating *local* police forces so that voters will look the other way when the FBI and other federal police usurp the function of local police.
You deeply fail to understand politics on the left if you think they are all in on the FBI and nationalizing the police force.
Wow. That's like Brett Bellmore on LSD level crazy.
A lot of them can be. Decentralization creates a more nimble economy. Putting limited and reasonable regulations on an industry and letting it go out and do its thing is usually more effective than having a top-down approach.
Trying to solve a problem with multiple, simultaneous strategies (private sector/free market) is more likely to reach an effective solution faster than trying one solution, then another, then another, etc., which is how a centralized model like government does it.
True, but that is paying for the service they provide, not subsidizing it. It is fee-for-service and the fact that the government wants/needs the service more than everyone else isn’t surprising. They have more needs in space and no delivery system of their own.
If there was an equivalent to ladders and tunnels for a locked door, that might have been relevant. But there isn't, so it's not.
Spending billions of dollars on a wall is stupidity. A tiny minority of people (and contraband, for that matter) come over the border. Most fly in openly and just overstay their welcome. Most contraband comes through the ports. And, as I mentioned, a couple $100 ladders from the Home Depot makes a wall irrelevant.
Private companies can be great for completing projects, but if you ask them to solve a probem they just look for ways to make money off the problem itself. I've rarely seen a problem as fucked up and dragged out and extended as when a private company is asked to solve it. Tech innovations of recent years, for example, claim to solve probems, but mostly do so by making the lives of workers hell to maximise their own profits.
There's nothing wrong with making a profit by solving a problem. The fact that different solutions (some successful to a greater or lesser degree, some complete failures) are tried simultaneously almost assures a faster and better solution than a centralized attempt. The only way a centralized approach works faster is if they guess right about the best solution from the jump.
Profit isn't a bad thing, especially if it leads to a quicker and more efficient solution.