I think both parties, given their druthers, will do culture war stuff rather than governance, and with today being No Kings day (and given President Trump's love of the culture war), I might tell a story that shows how deep the rot in our politics goes. It's bipartisan.
In 2024, the California legislature passed, and Gavin Newsom signed, this law that takes effect in 2026 and effectively bans any California high schools from having Native American mascots.
My point in pulling this up is not to debate the issue. My personal opinion on Indian mascots is squishy-- there's ways to do it that were obviously racist (the Washington Commanders' former name) and other ways to do it that aren't (the Florida State Seminoles).
Rather, my point is different than that. California is losing population. Our cities are dominated by homeless camps. We face long-term dangers of global warming. Our high speed rail project is a shambles. We have constant traffic and crime.
And our politicians do THIS.
Obviously these mediocrities in our legislature and governor's office couldn't wait to weigh in on the absolutely pressing issue of... what high school football teams call themselves.
What utter scumbags. And bear in mind, these are people whose politics I sympathize with.
Bear in mind, this legislation doesn't even do anything for our Indian communities, some of whom still live in pockets of pretty serious poverty.
It's pure, symbolic, masturbatory garbage. The legislators should have worn bags over their heads when they voted for it.
This is America politics in a nutshell. It's what Trump does, but it's also what the Democrats do too. They ignore massive substantive problems where politicians would actually have to do work to solve things, and jump on stupid unimportant symbolic issues.
This isn't even the first Democratic-dominated political body in California to jump on renaming high school football teams as a crucial issue to spend time on. Remember when the San Francisco School Board voted to rename high schools (including one named after Ulysses S. Grant)?
The point is, we have real problems in America. You may not even agree with me as to what the biggest problems are. But we all agree there are real problems. And our politicians treat us like trained seals, who will bark whenever they serve up their culture war BS. And we do.
And until our politics becomes more serious, a mechanism to solve the real problems of the country again, we're just going to do this kind of silliness over and over again, and other countries are going to eat our collective lunch.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Inspired by a recent @whignewtons podcast, I want to talk about a part of the "conversion therapy" case that I think legal conservatives have been way too dismissive of-- professional speech.
To tee this up, let's talk about my profession, lawyers. We write and talk for a living
There are all sorts of restrictions on the content of lawyers' speech. In a couple of areas, we get some First Amendment protection, though less than ordinary people get. In other areas, nobody even thinks the First Amendment applies to our speech.
So let's take the former categories, where lawyers get SOME First Amendment protection. We get some protection for our advertising, and we get some protection for our out of court statements on behalf of clients during pending cases.
The "concert tickets are too expensive" discourse, for some reason, has really stuck in my craw for the last couple of days.
People really have to come to grips with what living in a prosperous society means. It means there's more disposable income chasing limited quantities.
The reason why you could see Sinatra for $5 in a lounge in Vegas in the late 1950's (as you could) is (1) a lot of Americans couldn't afford to travel to Vegas, and (2) it wasn't easy for most Americans to get there. For many, a "vacation" meant a park or beach 20 miles away.
The thing about prosperity is that when things can be mass produced, we can all have them. So we can all own a smartphone now, because Apple and Samsung can manufacture as many as necessary at low cost to satiate demand.
I was arguing earlier today with one of these left leaning types who thinks America is teeming with white supremacists. No, we aren't. This is, for all of our laws, still a great country, based on Enlightenment values.
some people online in the Discourse either (1) have personality disorders that cause them to massively overstate areas where we fall short or (2) think lying and deliberately overstating America's problems will serve their goals.
But the truth is-- and I say this even though I am concerned about some trends and some people-- that this is still one of the best places in the world to be a dissident or a minority, and is still one of the most amazing prosperity engines ever built.
The originalists are just saying there's this implied rule against courts implying causes of action, because that's part of the Article I "legislative" power. It's all by implication, not clear in the text, and yet the Court's conservatives treat this as some unbreakable rule.
And along comes the Trump administration basically ordering federal law enforcement to violate all sorts of laws knowing they can't be sued because the Court's originalists refuse to imply a cause of action for violations of the Constitution.
This morning is probably the first day many people will learn that for almost 50 years, going back to US v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976), SCOTUS has allowed racial profiling by immigration officers.
It was shameful then, and it is shameful it is still good law.
Michael Kinsley used to say the scandal in Washington isn't what's illegal, but what's legal. I actually think this morning's order is rightly decided under the controlling precedents.
The problem is those precedents.
One of them is not totally terrible-- Los Angeles v. Lyons said if you can't prove the police will use excessive force again against you, you are limited to damages for excessive force rather than an injunction. The problem is IN 2025 YOU CAN'T GET DAMAGES AGAINST A FEDERAL AGENT
This isn't actually intersectionality (an overused term) because it's not due to the intersection of identities, but I think the conclusion is somewhat right if the reasoning is wrong.
What has happened is the American left has celebrated anarchy/rulebreaking since the 1960's
A lot of traditional socialist ideas were based on the notion of COMMUNITARIANISM-- that we were in this together, we had obligations to each other, we needed to build a high trust society.
In contrast, the right was more INDIVIDUALISTIC. Think about, e.g., gun rights rhetoric.
But in the 1960's, the New Left happened. At it was centered not around the notion of building a benevolent government creating a network of mutual obligations (LBJ was DOING that-- he signed Medicare and expanded AFDC!).