Terrible title.
- The most obvious example of second-order politics in the American system is the judiciary, and especially the Supreme Court. Until the Obergefell decision in 2015, for example, the American people were engaging in a free-flowing debate about same-sex marriage, with some people in favor of allowing it and others opposed, and public opinion shifting rapidly in the "pro" direction. That was politics conducted on the first level. But then the Supreme Court stepped in to declare gay marriage a constitutional right. That was second-order politics in action: Suddenly the rules were changed, with the "pro" side summarily declared the winner throughout the nation and the "anti" side driven — and permanently excluded — from the political battlefield going forward.
I'm a middle school teacher, and I've seen some of my colleagues try and work the same strategies with troubled students, without success, time and again. Kid causes problems, kid is suspended from school. Kid returns to school. Kid causes more problems, is suspended again... and repeat. It takes time and immense patience, but the only way to break the cycle is dialogue and an exchange of ideas. Otherwise, we exist in a state of working to excommunicate, or be excommunicated.Liberals need to focus on formulating ideas and arguments that will prevail in first-order politics instead of trying to preemptively expel from the debate those defending contrary ideas and arguments. Excommunication may appear to succeed in the short term. But in the end, it will often backfire, empowering the excluded opponents in the bargain.
Agreed. But here's the issue - that's a sweeping statement that's easy to agree with but is orthogonal to the problem at hand. Registering muslim citizens is absolutely something that Trump's advocates are saying they can do. Registering muslim immigrants is absolutely something we had from 2002-2011. And the debate there isn't "muslims have rights" it's the far more complex "do we accord non-citizens the same rights as citizens." I, personally, say hell to the yes. However, I recognize that the argument of citizens-vs-non-citizens is a very different argument to have than the argument of muslims-have-rights. I further recognize that the former is a more intellectual discussion to have, while the latter is likely to delve immediately into emotion.
This taps into one of the more frustrating parts of talking about the Trump platform and policies in any sort of concrete way: He and his supporters use words imprecisely. In one sentence they say they want to register "muslims", without any distinction between American citizens, tourists, immigrants, or illegal immigrants, and then in the very next sentence speak about "illegal immigrants". This is why just about everyone heard something they could agree with in Trump's words... because they were imprecise, often conflicting, and painted everything with a broad brush. So you could interpret almost anything he said in a multitude of ways. That's showing up here on Hubski, and in the left's hysteria chambers. After talking to a bunch of Republicans and reading pretty much all of The Week, Reason, The National Review, and Breitbart over the past few days, it is clear to me that the left's only practical action will be to wait for someone to put forth an actual proposal, or legislation, or law, and then tear it down and figure out what it actually says inside. The Fog of Vaguery is their current battle plan. But when the fog clears, and the words are on the paper, we will finally have the ability to analyze and rebut and edit and agree. Until then? It's all just pissing into the wind.
And with the appointment of Jeff Sessions, Trump is demonstrating that he values loyalty over that whole "what do you have to lose?" thing he said to the African American vote. But still, Sessions hasn't even had the chance to do anything. He's still a (very likely) potential problem. There shall remain a broad gap between "shit you should be worried about" and "shit you can actually do something about" and it's gonna be deeply frustrating.
I wonder. It occurred to me driving back from dinner tonight that Trump the businessman's conflicts of interest might be in everyone else's favor, because deriving much of his fortune from real estate and licensing means he's uniquely vulnerable to boycotts and vandalism.There shall remain a broad gap between "shit you should be worried about" and "shit you can actually do something about" and it's gonna be deeply frustrating.