Thursday, August 04, 2016

State states' rights

Marijuana legalization should be decided at the state level. This Trumpian position should be ported onto other Culture War issues, and it should be done so explicitly. It should also be done pithily. When asked "What do you think about X social policy?", Trump answers "People have different opinions on that. It's something the states should decide. I happen to (dis)like X, but it's something the states should decide."

A recent editorial in The Economist points out that this presidential election is about open vs closed rather than left versus right. That every one of the editorial contributors who favor openness want diversity in this context live as cloistered away from the consequences of that openness--private schools, gated Ice People communities, etc--is beside the point. Yes, that want the dirt people to take openness good and hard while they skim all the cream off the top up into the clouds. But here's the actionable part:
As for tactics, the question for pro-open types, who are found on both sides of the traditional left-right party divide, is how to win. The best approach will differ by country. In the Netherlands and Sweden, centrist parties have banded together to keep out nationalists. A similar alliance defeated the National Front’s Jean-Marie Le Pen in the run-off for France’s presidency in 2002, and may be needed again to beat his daughter in 2017. Britain may yet need a new party of the centre.

In America, where most is at stake, the answer must come from within the existing party structure. Republicans who are serious about resisting the anti-globalists should hold their noses and support Mrs Clinton. And Mrs Clinton herself, now that she has won the nomination, must champion openness clearly, rather than equivocating. Her choice of Tim Kaine, a Spanish-speaking globalist, as her running-mate is a good sign. But the polls are worryingly close. The future of the liberal world order depends on whether she succeeds.
And just as those "who are serious about resisting the anti-globalists should hold their noses and support" crooked Hillary, so should those who want America first vote for Trump irrespective of their beliefs on abortion, transgender restrooms, drug legalization, or any of the other masturbatory 'hot button' social issues.

If this polyglot empire is going to be held together, local customs will have to prevail at the local level. The Macedonians knew it, the Romans knew it, the Mongols knew it, and Trump seems to know it.

On the other hand, as I recall Jack Donovan hoping for, nothing could break apart the few remaining strained bonds precariously holding the US together as a putatively unified political entity faster than a Hillary Clinton presidency.


Sigma Kay said...

Exactly. Frame the entire social policy discussion as "let the states do it".

That way Her-cuntship looks like the authoritarian.

Anonymous said...

The Economist is using the terms open/closed, but populist/globalist could serve just as well. I suppose by calling your opponents "closed" and yourself "open" is somehow flattering to themselves. But I do think this is the least left/right presidential election in my memory, and could be a harbinger of more to come, although if the populists or nationalists don't win this one, I doubt they'll get another bite at the apple.

Audacious Epigone said...

Right, TE isn't referring to the opposition the way the opposition would refer to itself (nationalist, populist, citizenist, etc) but that's to be expected.

Hard to play augur here, but it's hard to see an open borders Republican winning the primaries again any time soon. That is, of course, assuming the primaries still matter at all in 4/8 years.

chris said...

"and yourself "open" is somehow flattering to themselves."

Their sphincters are open to the world and they want everyone to know it.

Audacious Epigone said...


Keeping your sphincter closed to the traveling bazaar shows a real lack of imagination!

Anonymous said...

Trump will still be called an authoritarian. The public has no idea what the term means. They basically think authoritarian = forceful personality.

Dan said...

I find the transgender issue very troubling, a canary in the coal mine.

Basically, science is dead where it intersects politics. The left is certainly wrong in everything it says about gender, and yet science is subordinate to politics and therefore says whatever the left wants it to say, irrespective of what is true.

How can HBD ever enter the mainstream if nobody important is willing to call BS on transgender silliness?

Audacious Epigone said...

It has to get to the point where te practical utility is indisputable. Think CRISPr