The Art of Blogging (and more)

I don’t necessarily agree with everything I think or blog. That probably shouldn’t be a surprise.

Alan Jacobs shrewdly observed, the Blog Imperatives are exploration, experimentation, and iteration.

That makes me feel much better about how I blog. Thanks, Alan.

Politics

Liberalism and the common man

Liberalism, she said, rather than speaking to the common man and woman as it had in the past, was veering off the tracks into “a general assault in the culture against the way ordinary Americans had come to live.”

New York Times obituary for Midge Decter

Terms like liberalism and conservatism are not very precise, but Decter definitely was onto a key to party realignments, which continue to this day.

Democrats and the common man

[F]or all the debate about the exact financial profile of people who would get relief, 87 percent of Americans don’t have federal student loans.

How did Democrats get to a place where a big election-year priority is something that this 87 percent of Americans presumably don’t care about? We might as well campaign on getting Fine Young Cannibals back together or reforming the rules of international cricket.

Conservatives will have a field day with this. Prepare to meet the Person Who Got the Stupidest Degree in America, because that person will be on Fox News more than pundits who exude an “angry cheerleading coach” vibe. The case study will be some tragic dweeb who took out $400,000 in loans to get a Ph.D. in intersectional puppet theory from Cosa Nostra Online College and who wrote their dissertation about how “Fraggle Rock” is an allegory for the Franco-Prussian War. I can picture Tucker Carlson putting on his confused cocker spaniel puppy face and asking the poor sap, “Why do Democrats want to forgive every last penny of your student loans?”

Jeff Maurer, ‌Democrats Have an Image Problem. Please, Don’t Make It Worse

[I tried to add my postscript to this and decided it was too complicated to be worth my writing and your reading.]

Nutpicking

I look forward to Fridays partly because Nellie Bowles takes over Bari Weiss’s Substack and provides a nice sample of nutpicking:

  • [In response to a George Washington University Senior who thinks the University should be renamed because … ummm, slavery and reasons]: My take: Rename everything. Tell those students, “Yes!” Rename the paper too! The only names that you can be confident won’t embarrass your descendents are numbers and letters arrayed at random. So call The Washington Post T7%#R and the New York Times (New York was named by white supremacist colonialists) L.00_124. The number of new Common Sense subscribers this would bring makes my heart flutter. We are pro-renaming. Rename everything.
  • Department of Homeland Security wants to edit your posts: That’s the latest from our Truth Czar, Nina Jankowicz, who announced that she wants there to be a select group of approved social media users with the power to “edit Twitter” and “add context.” 
The media, embarrassed by what they’ve created, are trying to downplay the danger of Jankowicz’s power. Rarely do you see people argue for a very bad idea and then get to see that very bad idea come to fruition so swiftly. When Ron DeSantis wins in 2024, at least it will be sort of darkly entertaining to see the journalists who fought so hard for this Truth Czar suddenly getting edits from the Department of Homeland Security’s Chris Rufo, though he’s probably too smart to accept such a post. (I’ll take it.)

Related to abortion law

Stare Decisis

From Bari Weiss’s Honestly podcast, The Yale Law Professor Who Is Anti-Roe, But Pro-Choice. This is an outstanding episode, and the “Yale Law Professor” is one of the country’s leading legal scholars.

I, who once had a pretty good working knowledge of Supreme Court abortion precedents, learned quite a lot from this and from a couple of related episodes of Amarica’s Constitution. The particular aspect I learned a lot about is why customary stare decisis analysis allows reversal of the Roe-Casey family of cases if one concludes that they’re wrong.

Cui bono?

Which party will benefit more in November from the likely overturning of Roe v. Wade? Whichever one better reins in its extremes, Chris argues in Thursday’s Stirewaltisms (🔒). “Democrats are going bonkers, with the White House encouraging protesters to harass Supreme Court justices at home and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer forcing a doomed-to-fail vote on a bill that wouldn’t just codify the Roe decision but go much further,” he writes. “In Louisiana, the state GOP is wrestling with a bill that would charge mothers who obtain abortions with murder, contradicting a longtime effort on the pro-life side to move away from punishing women and focusing on providers.”

The Morning Dispatch.

“Which party will benefit more” is not the questions that leaps to my mind when weighing possible reversal of a precedent nobody ever thought was solid constitutional law.

Ignoring the activist class(es)

Quietly, Tim Kaine, the Democrat from Virginia (remember Tim Kaine?!) and Susan Collins, the Republican from Maine, are working together on a compromise bill, according to PBS NewsHour. A bill that enshrines the right to an abortion in law across the country could actually pass, but it would have to set real limits, likely mirroring most European rules (which ban elective abortion after 12 weeks or so) and allowing for conscientious objectors. That requires completely ignoring the activist class for at least five minutes. Matt Yglesias has a smart essay this week on the need for a first-trimester compromise. And Axios wisely sent out a memo barring its reporters from taking a public stand on abortion—a sober correction after letting them go wild in 2020.

Nellie Bowles, TGIF: This Week in Foot-Shooting


You can read most of my more impromptu stuff here (cathartic venting) and here (the only social medium I frequent, because people there are quirky, pleasant and real). Both should work in your RSS aggregator, like Feedly or Reeder, should you want to make a habit of it.