Sigh. A good example of the swamp-the-drain strategy working. Not enough indignation bandwidth to keep up with business as usual, GOP-style.
Also the latest proof-by-example of Frank Wilhoit's wisdom. Conservatism is the doctrine that, "there must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_M…
The AZ effort is to restore trust. Why would you manage appearances by 'auditing' in a transparently capricious, partisan, thumb-right-there-on-the-scales way? The base is conservative, hence won't be reassured 'the system works' by anything less than the Full Wilhoit Monty.
This is perhaps a good point at which to observe that Wilhoit's comment box bon mot suffers a bit from one-line extraction. In context, the idea is that conservatism is this privilege skew plus: there really isn't any existing alternative to it. Ever has it been so. Image
I take the philosophy of this passage to be a mix of high idealism with James Burnham-esque cynicism. Burnham is right - elites always run the show - but we have to fight it. americanaffairsjournal.org/2017/02/james-…
By contrast there is a strain in American conservatism that says James Burnham is right but you can't fight City Hall. So you'd better be City Hall. This expresses as the cognitively dissonant mix of pseudo-populism and raging, entitled aristo privilege-asserting that is the GOP.
There 2 two arguments that it's OK to engage in this sort of nonsense - the AZ audit. They are inconsistent arguments but they tend to the same conclusion. 1) it's ok if the audit is seat-of-the-pants, because conservatives are a rag-tag-band of desperados on the run from elites.
2) it's ok if the audit is flagrantly corrupt because that signals that we run this town - we're the conservatives. This is our country, we're the rightful elite, and we do what we want. The law is for the little people.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with John Holbo

John Holbo Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jholbo1

29 May
A couple days ago I was listening to @SykesCharlie podcast about 'what went wrong in WI', i.e. how did a state R party that was rather resistant to Trump the first time out go completely nuts. 1/
I mean, when all this is over I fully expect Ron Johnson to publish 'If We Did It', a hypothetical account of how Trump supporters would have staged the insurrection - if they had been involved. If there even had been an insurrection. 2/
I think a somewhat neglected factor is the psychology of the gerrymander. Trumpism is most virulent south of the Mason-Dixon for obvious reasons. But WI is stand-out for its extreme, shameless gerrymander politics. 3/ jsonline.com/story/news/sol…
Read 25 tweets
28 May
There could hardly be a clearer example of James Lindsay just making up rules than this. The rule is: equity, as a value, may only be derived from a quirky axiom set consisting of Kendi (2019) and Jones and Okum (2001). I am sure I have never seen that rule in a logic text. Image
Evidently you aren't even allowed to read A and C charitably. If you accept A, you are only allowed to go full "Harrison Bergeron" with it, per B. There isn't any allowed move in the game like: perfect equity would be kind of absurd, but we need more than we've got.
You aren't even allowed to point out that 'equity' is obviously a more general concept and defining it in terms of race couldn't be right. You would have to define it more generally and then apply it based on empirical propositions about actual, unequal race relations.
Read 15 tweets
20 May
There ought to be a word for the fallacy that all Sam's critics are committing. Hmmmm, how about the 'every true Scotsman is a black hole that eats all other Scotsmen' fallacy (ETSIBHTEAOS - 'ets-ib-teos'). 1/
It goes like this.
1) behold, some half-baked argument for CRT (or dumb thing DiAngelo or Kendi said.) Just the dumbest version of Woke anyone could dredge up. Seriously.
2) Everything that seemingly isn't this thing, but is on the same 'side', has to be it, by association. 2/
In other words, if someone on the left has made a misstep, there is no way for anyone else on the left not to take that self-same misstep. The worse, the more necessary. Since in the actual world it works differently - the dumber the mistake, the easier to avoid, as a rule - 3/
Read 22 tweets
20 May
Greenwald has moved on from wrong to just incomprehensible - some imponderable mix of narcissism and wild idealism crossed with enemy-of-my-enemy. Greenwald has always hated most the violent cynicism, hence moral fraud of American foreign policy. And let's admit it. Yeah, that.
But his response has been to embrace Trump as the enemy-of-my-enemy. There were elements of Trumpism - rhetorical tics - vaguely corresponding to Greenwald's outlook. The 'we kill people, too' bits, which were in fact just bloody-minded, not moral clarity.
Liberal foreign policy - 'the blob' - has always suffered moral schizophrenia. A tendency to timeshare between high ideals and sordid realism, rather than finding any sane compromise. Greenwald is replicating that schizophrenia but in defense of a Trumpism that wasn't.
Read 5 tweets
16 May
Sunday morning "Jugend" thread, first half of 1898. I'll just pick whatever seems nice, or fantasy-related. The vignettes are often quite fun. 1/
That first one looks racist but a 'Wenzel' is a jack. Like on the card. A 'joker' then? I don't get it. 2/
I like the signature T-shaped ornaments, dividing the page. As to that 4th - everyone is against Germany, within and without! I'm not sure what happened in 1898 in particular to trigger this cartoon. 3/
Read 28 tweets
16 May
Listening to Charlie Sykes and Bill Kristol because I was honestly curious what 'woke' Kristol thinks about Israel/Palestine today. Obviously I didn't expect him to have gone Squad-style pro-Palestinian.
And nope He said he was glad Biden was taking the line he is taking and would have been very upset about his Biden vote, retrospectively, if Biden had done anything else. I strained my ears for a hint of what he thinks the 'right answer' would be at this point.
I think he thinks the solution is for the surrounding Arab countries to have taken in the Palestinians decades ago. So, anyway, Israel is not to be blamed for the structural insanity of the situation and just keep on keeping on.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(