1/ The work of editors, even the greatest, is often unrecognized and unsung. I feel terrible about what could have driven Chris to take his life and for his family for their loss. In tribute I just want to acknowledge how much I personally owed him.
2/ He had a project, and it was to make what @washingtonpost readers get to see a little more pluralistic as times change. And I knew him as someone who especially wanted to query complacency in our politics, foreign policy, and law.
3/ He first reached out to me dissatisfied with the liberalism pro or con debate. What if the best response to anti-liberals wasn't to circle the wagons but to reimagine the liberal creed under pressure? washingtonpost.com/outlook/were-i…
Endless war thread! In #Humane's last chapter, my centerpiece is Barack Obama's extraordinary National Defense University speech on May 23, 2013. (Preorder "Humane," since now is when it counts-links at end!) us.macmillan.com/books/97803741…
What made Obama special was that he was the best critic of his own policies, though-in an absolutely immortal moment that I believe defined the presidency morally more than any other--"heckler" @medeabenjamin pushed him offscript that day. obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-offi…
More in the book on the moral stakes of the moment-its insights soon relinquished-but of special note was Obama's remark that "a perpetual war" including "through drones or Special Forces" alone "will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways." He was right.
1/ There is a difference between due caution or salutary fear, on the one hand, and self-confirming and -fulfilling paranoia, on the other. Whether we stray from one to the other is up to us.
2/ Compliance with the framing of journalists and obedience to cues are choices. Events should compel our mobilization for sure-but a lot depends on how to frame them and seizing the initiative in doing so rather than living in the contrived reality of our enemies.
3/ True: Premonitions of a chilling end can activate and mobilize. A lot of democratic work has been inspired by the surmise that, without rhetorical and real endtimes thinking, democracy would end.
1/ Thoughts on @MadKhosla's provocative claim at the end of today's oped: "The legitimacy of courts was never built on popular authorization from the people. It was built on the promise of keeping representation in check and protecting the people from the extremes of politics."
2/ It is a descriptive or prescriptive claim? Unclear. And what kind of legitimacy was built either way? It seems like normative legitimacy is meant. But it would be interesting to find out to decide what is at stake in challenging judges today. nytimes.com/2020/09/09/opi…
3/ To begin w/, it is really credible that we would want to root judicial power entirely beyond popular authorization? Madhav's adviser Richard Tuck might have something to say about that-at least insofar as we would want to trace any forms of "government" back to "sovereignty."
1/ Today my review of Eric Posner's interesting "The Demagogue's Playbook" posts - check it out and retweet! thenation.com/article/cultur…
2/ On one level, the review "interrogates" Posner's version of American history - his first attempt at writing history I believe - though I leave the details to the professionals.
3/ It's a revival of Richard Hofstadter, but without the complexity-an elitist history of the crackpot masses. But, I claim, it is refreshing that it is entirely open about its priors and may reflect the broader incidence of antidemocratic belief.
2/ It reports the arguments and findings of our underlying new paper - check it out! (And thanks to @Mark_Tushnet and untaggable others for comments so far!) papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
3/ Our central analytical contribution is intended to be to group imaginable reforms into two types: "personnel" management reforms, and "disempowerment" reforms. We then go on to canvass the desirability, legality, and feasibility of the reforms.