Backlog Edition
From Noah Smith on Xi’s cultural crack down: One thing I never really realized about the politics of crackdowns until now, is that even an “ineffective” crackdown is still actually a good bang for your autocratic buck. You may not be able to entirely eliminate whatever you’re trying to ban, but you can at least accomplish 3 things: (1) a few harsh punishments instill fear in those your dragnet can’t hope to reach, (2) some of your opposition might decide to emigrate, and (3) the lower body count relative to more “effective” crackdowns makes you look less brutal internationally.
If you’ve ever read Albion’s Seed and/or American Nations, it’s actually kind of funny in hindsight that the Scots-Irish/Appalachians ended up being the key swing bloc. Just a bit sad for this Northerner, though, that they’ve probably decisively swung towards the South.
The Call Is Coming From Inside The House: Last year, I predicted that the filibuster would be gone in the first six months of this year.
Wellp, that failed.
What I never really predicted was that the filibuster would be preserved by Democrats. I mean, why would they sit on their haunches and screw up this bare majority? In this prediction, I broke three rules we have here at the Discourse — two we’re used to, and one I don’t bring up as often: (1) don’t underestimate the Entropy of Victory, (2) “existing trends continue” is never a bad bet, and (3) Hanlon’s Razor.
What we learned here, though, is still valuable. RE #1, we learned that Manchin and Sinema are mostly centrists, not moderates. Centrists inevitably have to posture against you no matter what you do, because their identity is centrism: they’re defining themselves against you. Moderates just take your ideas and make them palatable to the mass public. The takeaway, of course, is that Democrats need more moderates, and less centrists.
RE #2, the trends that were ongoing were that Manchin and Sinema had already made their positions on the filibuster clear. I should have heeded them.
RE #3, progressives have gone on to make a mess of their bargaining position. The unexpected event here was that Republicans actually signed on to the bipartisan infrastructure bill. That wasn’t really in the Democratic leadership’s plans. Throwing the bipartisan bill into the mix gave progressives something to run against, and like idiots, they took the bait. Don’t get me wrong; this is also a bit of an “Entropy of Victory” thing in terms of the obvious split that was waiting to happen, as well as an existing trend in terms of House caucus politics (during the Obama years the Tea Party did exactly what progressives are doing now). It’s just that the smart move would have been for progressives to take the bipartisan bill. Now they’re stuck needlessly shadowboxing themselves about “leverage”.
Happy Monday!