There's evidence out of Texas that the governor's lifting of the mask mandate has had no effect on public health outcomes.
Let's assume that's true. I would caution against drawing more generalized conclusions about the efficaciousness of public policy from this particular case.
Sometimes policy meaningfully determines behavior—as when the onerous penalties for smoking causes a decrease in cigarette use over time—but on other occasions it may be that a particular policy is epiphenomenal to social behavior.
In other words, it's possible that people were wearing masks or not wearing masks irrespective of state policy. Which would mean the mandate wasn't doing all that much in *this particular case*.
And let's not forget, the fact that this became a highly polarized issue also affects things. As many have pointed out, it's not like liberals were waiting for the Republican governor's guidance to set their behavior; and conservatives were already de-masked.
Right, but the problem is people uncritically jump from *the mandate is useless* to *mask-wearing is useless*, which requires conflating state policy with social behavior on *this particular issue*.
John Thune said: "Anything that gets us rehashing the 2020 election is a day lost on being able to draw contrast between us and the Democrats' very radical left-wing agenda."
Good @ThePlumLineGS piece on Thune's attempted justification.
This rationale earlier claimed the career of Liz Cheney and is now the primary driver of the Republican Party's opposition to a January 6 Commission.
The most interesting thing about it is that it's as pure a distillation of the prioritization of in-group partisan priorities over national interests as you are likely to see.
So, um, Michael, any thoughts on Nick Fuentes lauding you as a sometimes useful tool for advancing his wonderful group’s reactionary agenda? Because that doesn’t seem so great.
Some people are embarrassing themselves by defending Tracey here. Nick Fuentes, who is legit deplorable, finds Tracey a useful advocate for his agenda. That *all by itself* is a massive mark against Tracey.
In other words, Tracey produces the kind of content that Fuentes believes reliably advances his agenda. This is transparently bad. Being someone whose work is thought by white supremacists to rhetorically aid their ideological cause is a monumental red flag.
The worst thing about dipshits like this is they get lots of mileage and followers and subscriptions LARPing as "not-part-of-your-system" freethinkers when in reality their accounts are absolute shrines to motivated reasoning.
What's funny is how easily this transparent attempt at MAGA apologia can be disproven. We actually have polls that specifically insert language about *electoral* fraud as opposed to some vague sense that the election wasn't fair.
Here's one from December and then April.
Michael "MAGA Whisperer" Tracey wants you to believe that the poll question about whether there was "widespread voter fraud" really just means, and gets interpreted by Trump supporters as, "Does CNN portray Trump fairly?"
I am thrilled to debut Point/Counterpoint—a new @ArcDigi subsection.
This is a corner of the site that will feature contrasting perspectives on one and the same topic. The pieces won't necessarily engage each other directly, but they will argue for different conclusions.
We kick things off with a point/counterpoint on the Liz Cheney episode, which, as I wrote in a recent DiscRep entry, has transcended being about an individual legislator and has become about the future of the Republican Party.
We decided to ask two conservatives to weigh in. Since this is largely an intra-conservative dispute about what should remain in bounds for GOP leaders to do and say, we asked @SouthernKeeks and @varadmehta to give their perspectives.