For a century, 'Chesterton's Fence' has been used as a fine heuristic for rudimentary separation of Conservative thinking from Progressive thinking.
This is often told in such a way that implies the Conservative wouldn't tear down the fence. This is incorrect. 1/
This distinction lies in the reasoning. The Progressive assumes that if they cannot personally think of a reason for the fence's existence, this is good enough reason to tear it down. The reasoning here is internal, and probably arrogant.
2/
The Conservative reasons from both internal *and* external sources, in order to first determine the function of the fence, and then go about deciding if it ought to remain. This reasoning is slower, but it still takes place linearly
Less informed ➡️ more informed
3/
The point is, the Conservative might well land on the same conclusion as the Progressive (tear down the fence), he just requires a *good reason* to do so. He needs to decide that the fence has become pointless, a hindrance, or asymmetrically benefiting others at his expense.
4/
The Left calls the Right monsters. Cheaters. Fascists. Underminers of institutions. Etc.
Merrick Garland gives some teeth to a bit of this, but not much. The rest is often a bizarre form of projection. Those speciously changing the rules accuse their opponents of it instead.
5/
The Right has largely leaned into institutions functions as they ought. They've watched over the past several years as the Left perverts every lever of Government in pursuit of power. Crossfire Hurricane. Mueller Investigation. Brett Kavanaugh. Impeachment. And now this.
6/
I don't know what the Right will do if the Left gets away with stealing this election. They might just take the Senate 'W and go home, looking to 2022. Folks like @benshapiro are signaling that as their plan. Okydoke, fair enough. You do you.
7/
But there are others that will look at the fence of restraint and respect for institutions in their own yard, then look across the street and see how much power the Left gained since tearing their fence down, and really begin to consider doing the same.
8/
FWIW, I deeply dread this scenario. Two unprincipled & unscrupulous parties is a nightmare scenario I don't want to imagine. I'm only saying that at some point, the Conservatives might say "Enough is enough," and reason that the fence has to go for their own self-preservation.
9/
As they've many times done before, the Left very well could create the monster nemesis they're seeking, if the Right walks away from this election seeing how brazenly (and effortlessly!) the Left was able to undermine, perhaps even steal it, with no consequences whatsoever.
-end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
[Thread]
Why you should be furious about the mail-in vote. Let's echo locate to the *massive* disparity in requested ballots vs. returns ballots, and see just how many ballots in a few states are just laying around somewhere.
Arizona
Ballots requested: 3,448,181
Ballots returned: 2,471,577
Total MIA: 976,604
Michigan
Ballots requested: 3,318,609
Ballots returned: 2,841,696
Total MIA: 476,913W
When @JoeBiden became the presumptive nominee, there was a huge debate about whether or not there would be... debates.
The premise: "@realDonaldTrump may be down in the polls *now* but once they have the debates, everyone will see how feeble Biden is."
The sides of the 'debate debate' were (and still are): "Since Trump will do so well in the debates, will they even have them?" Presented as a binary, 'yes or no' situation. I've seen many smart people weigh in on this premise: @RubinReport, @JeremyDBoreing, @benshapiro, etc.
No disrespect to the individuals bought into this premise, but I find it somewhat naive, especially based on what we've seen over the past several years. The legacy media has not operated in the binary "Don't cover Trump at all" vs. "Cover Trump in an honest and factual manner."