I really think that Elon Musk is basically the least important thing going on right now, but since everyone is talking about him: I think Musk's takeover lays bare a problem with a very smug "private actors" argument that gets repeated in the #cancelculture debates. 1/
Here's how it usually comes up. Someone will point out that Twitter, or PayPal, or Cloudfare, or Amazon refusing to do business with someone who is ideologically disfavored is a threat to the value of free speech. 2/
And immediately some smug lefty will intone "free speech only applies to the government", like either (1) this thought never occurred to us before or (2) the only threats to free speech in history came from government actors. 3/
I have pointed out in the past that lefties didn't used to believe this. Back before the Left controlled cultural institutions, they used to be keenly aware of a wide variety of threats from private actors, from McCarthyism to pressure campaigns to take TV shows off the air. 4/
And I also would point out that the leftist theorists I read in college and law school, including feminists, Marxists, critical race theorists, and others, would absolutely vomit at the notion of a hard public-private distinction. That's a conservative notion. 5/
Here's my point. A lot of people have not merely opposed proposals to subject content moderation decisions of tech companies to any scrutiny (which is a totally defensible position), but heaped scorn on anyone who suggested it, calling it some right wing plot. 6/
Well guess what? Someone with rightist sympathies is now in charge of Twitter, and he may make different moderation decisions, decisions that might be disliked by folks on the Left. And he's SUPER-powerful, because he controls the most influential media platform. 7/
I suspect all the folks who have been so arrogant about trashing anyone who expressed concern about tech companies and free speech are suddenly going to be a little more quiet on this issue. They figured their guys would be in charge for a long time to come. End/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I have pointed out for years that Silver's business model is essentially phony and he's just selling punditry dressed up to look like mathematics. (He's a decent pundit, but he's still just a pundit!)
The larger point about Silver is that there's a great demand in this data-driven world for good data. But many times good data doesn't exist, and in that circumstance, demand shifts over to bad data.
I have a story about this.
Before Rogaine was discovered to treat baldness, men hated going bald (as they still do). But without an approved drug to treat baldness, the airwaves were full of commercials for complete quack stuff like the infamous Helsinki Formula.
I'm not sure this is as large a problem as Bouie says it is
It IS a problem. Bill Clinton (my uber-example of this) engaged in some really ugly politics on the crime bill and the death penalty. That's absolutely true
But Clinton also did a lot of symbolic stuff that's doable 1/
And while I admit I can't prove this, I think part of what drives the anti-Shor contingent so mad is they tend to be college educated, really obsessed with language and symbolism and culture, and would get VERY upset at being the target of Sister Souljah-style disses. 2/
I.e., imagine a Democratic candidate who DOESN'T adopt Clinton's approach to crime/the death penalty, but DOES run explicitly against identity politics, criticizes "Latinx" and "pregnant people", says sex offenders will fake being trans to get into women's prisons, etc. 3/
I'm usually not obsessed with messaging/communications, which is often overrated in politics, but I think part of the success of people like Bill Clinton was simply a matter of assuring moderates that he cared about issues that weren't in the Dems' normal issue set. 1/
Everyone knows "when the election's about health care, Democrats win; when it's about crime, Republicans win". But Clinton stood as an exception to that, winning in the crime-salient 1990's. How did he do that? By convincing voters he cared about crime. 2/
That's part of what the "Sister Souljah" incident was about- if he had the guts to tell an audience at a civil rights organization that a rapper advocating shooting white people was wrong, it signals that he cares about crime no matter what the Dem coalition groups say. 3/
To put my own cards on the table- I think there are a handful of things that are actual threats to democracy, the most obvious being the ability of state legislatures to reverse presidential elections.
But there are a lot of other things that are really more like things that make it more difficult for the Dems to win elections, like gerrymandering. And then there's some other stuff, like felon disenfranchisement and campaign finance, that probably don't harm Dems at all.
Polarization does 2 things that relate to this- (1) it makes all disputes look like the most important things in the world, with life or death consequences, and (2) it makes people in positions that should have neutrality norms want to leverage their positions for activism. 2/
But the problem is, we need professional neutrality. It's vital, as everyone points out here, that judges don't see themselves as the buddies of or on the same side as prosecutors trying to put a defendant away. 3/
Probably no common term in constitutional discourse drives me more bats than "popular sovereignty". I am not sovereign. I can never be. Someone must have a monopoly on force and make rules. The most the public can do is periodically vote on leaders and maybe voter initiatives.
And tbis isn't pedantic. The idea is dangerous. All militia / sovereign citizen / paramilitary types & some anarchists as well, have been told they're sovereign. Political philosophers planted the seed for a narcissitic view of the state that puts the individual at the center.
Democratic theory does not require the flowery BS that the people are sovereign. Indeed the people who invented it didn't actually believe it anyway- they didn't believe Black people, women, peasants, or immigrants were sovereign anyway.