Your comparison to Europe is instructive. Abortion, same sex marriage, etc., all were accomplished democratically in European countries. That has made them not only durable, but has legitimized the results in the eyes of people who opposed them.
In the US, the left took a wrong turn and decided to use the Civil Rights movement as the default way of achieving social change. But that has meant decades of decisions where elites (whether Republican or Democrat, Supreme Court Justices are elites) shoved social change down the throats of the public. In reality, Black civil rights was a *sui generis* problem caused by unique historical circumstances that warranted an atomic bomb response from the Supreme Court. But repeatedly going nuclear on issue after issue—issues that were not unique and which other countries handled democratically—through the Supreme Court tore at the social fabric.
One thing this brought to mind is how much I wish conservatives had a better media outlet to voice their arguments than Fox News. The conservative instinct to say, "wait a minute, is this giant social/economic change really a good idea?" is often a healthy thing for liberals to have nearby. We need conservatives the same way Mulder needs Scully. But it helps nothing if people with different political instincts are also working under a different set of facts.
Thank you Noah, for once again providing balanced and enlightening coverage of some complicated and messy issues. (Have you ever thought of running for office? No, you’re too smart.) Being from Texas now living in California I am so tired of hearing about “red state- blue state” as if people know everything about me based on the place of my birth. This offends me more than the gender stereotypes I have encountered so much of my life.
1. You're missing decentralization as a guiding principle for keeping the peace. We are going to have crappy federal institutions and a serious risk of civil conflict as long as every federal election result is viewed as an existential threat by >1/3 of the country (whether or not that view is correct)! If we want to not have that existential threat anymore, we need to lower the stakes: we need a settlement that credibly reassures Californians that nobody is coming for our abortions *and* reassures Mississippians that nobody is coming for their guns. We need, that is, a grand bargain that keeps the feds securely out of the culture war, and some of the bigger and more politically diverse states may have to make their own bargains that devolve power further. Our values and worldviews have become too different to reconcile otherwise.
2. Speaking of abortions, one really dangerous civil conflict scenario you haven't mentioned is
-- Republicans get a trifecta in the 2024 elections without technically cheating (no fake electors, "independent" state legislatures or similar) but without getting a popular majority either, due to their structural advantages. David Shor has been pointing out that this is a likely scenario. I think it's more likely than a steal.
-- They pass a nationwide abortion ban that is clearly unpopular, because they can, and their base won't let them pass up the chance.
-- The enforcement mechanisms for that ban become increasingly draconian, reminiscent of the Fugitive Slave Act. We know Republicans are going in this direction because the state laws being proposed are already there: restrictions on freedom of movement, speech bans, constant surveillance, etc.
-- The majority is outraged, but because of Republican minoritarian capture of federal institutions, we can't do anything about it within the existing system.
This, at minimum, would likely lead to levels of violence similar to the '70s stuff chronicled in _Days of Rage_. The last time we had a divide this passionate was over slavery, and now *both* sides explicitly see themselves as the heirs of the anti-slavery cause.
3. I don't see how you put our institutions back on a peaceable path without doing *something* about the Supreme Court. The pretense of its nonpartisan nature is gone forever; nobody can credibly commit to restore it and trying to keep up the charade is worse than useless. Having a blatantly partisan, culture-warring institution's balance of control determined by a combination of strategically timed retirements and randomly timed deaths is already egregiously unfair in what is supposed to be a democracy; Mitch McConnell's shameless game of Calvinball made the unfairness even worse.
Packing the court is a bad solution because it's not a stable equilibrium and invites retribution. But a move to fixed terms, or a jurisdictional reform, or both would at least regularize the process and shift the stakes. It seems wonky but it's no wonkier than fixing the Electoral Count Act.
Good article. I know many left-coded individuals do not like this idea but the solution is simply the federalism of the American system.
The US needs to allow the separate states to work through their issues. As the map you have posted shows, there are large rural swathes of America which have zero interest or attraction to the Democrat Party. Likewise, there are enclaves where the Republicans are despised.
On extremely contentious issues we need to let the states work out their own internal disputes. That is how peace and stability are maintained.
Forcing national policies should be reserved for issues that are truly national in scope.
Americans' views of abortion are "nuanced" because they really no nothing about it, or are mightily confused by decades of profoundly dishonest forced birther propaganda, or believe ridiculous things they hear in church about how much their god loves and values zygotes, embryos, fetuses and even the "already born" when, of course, the evidence is completely to the contrary.
Of course, this is true of many other hot button issues: Ignorance and completely irrational prejudice makes it impossible to discuss, let alone implement, policy ideas based on, say, evidence and logic. The recent hysteria about transgender women in sports is completely emblematic of this: Lia Thomas wins a few NCAA races that almost no one would otherwise care about and, suddenly, the moral universe is risk of complete collapse. Not much to do about any of this but SMH.
Yes. You guys need to convince white people in rural US that rich non-white people moving in and making life difficult for their kids and grandkids by jacking up the price of homes and making it impossible to go to top unis, those crazy leftists in the West trying to change their world - attacking their religion and traditions - are toothless so their legacy and history will be preserved.
In short, Blue states need to celebrate the cultures of the Red states somehow. Basically, you need a Democratic presidential candidate who is from a Red state. The Democrats need to have more white folks at the leadership level just for the 2024 election who will then make way in time.
You guys probably need two white men as President and Vice-President for a term.
Stacey Abraham’s complaint was that voter suppression had stopped ppl voting, the exact thing you bring up 2 paragraphs after both-sidering acceptance of elections
I think the real issue in the case of a Civil War is to what extent and what side does Canada take. Obviously, Canada's agricultural production is almost as big as red America's so in turn blue America can rely on Canada instead of red America.
Noah, have you thought about drafting a constitutional amendment that could actually pass 38 states by addressing worries each side has about the other side's respect for institutions? Maybe alongside a conservative blogger from The Dispatch or National Review?
Here's a rough 2-for-2 example, which I came up with on the spot, and don't feel strongly about:
-no expansion of SCOTUS (Democratic concession)
-new states admitted via 2/3 Senate supermajority, so obviously the Senate is being preserved too (Democratic concession re: DC, Puerto Rico)
-Voting Rights Act provisions restored and expanded, with pre-clearance everywhere; ex-cons can vote; college students choose where they vote; federal government automatically provides every citizen with voting-acceptable ID (Republican concession)
-no more electors; each state assigns its electoral votes to the winner of the state's popular vote, with no governor/legislature/VP interventions; secretary of state interventions to counter voter fraud according to criteria in the amendment, supervised only by courts (Republican concession).
In my opinion, an equal number of concessions from each party makes the rhetoric of compromise easier.
Your comparison to Europe is instructive. Abortion, same sex marriage, etc., all were accomplished democratically in European countries. That has made them not only durable, but has legitimized the results in the eyes of people who opposed them.
In the US, the left took a wrong turn and decided to use the Civil Rights movement as the default way of achieving social change. But that has meant decades of decisions where elites (whether Republican or Democrat, Supreme Court Justices are elites) shoved social change down the throats of the public. In reality, Black civil rights was a *sui generis* problem caused by unique historical circumstances that warranted an atomic bomb response from the Supreme Court. But repeatedly going nuclear on issue after issue—issues that were not unique and which other countries handled democratically—through the Supreme Court tore at the social fabric.
Beautiful article.
One thing this brought to mind is how much I wish conservatives had a better media outlet to voice their arguments than Fox News. The conservative instinct to say, "wait a minute, is this giant social/economic change really a good idea?" is often a healthy thing for liberals to have nearby. We need conservatives the same way Mulder needs Scully. But it helps nothing if people with different political instincts are also working under a different set of facts.
Thank you Noah, for once again providing balanced and enlightening coverage of some complicated and messy issues. (Have you ever thought of running for office? No, you’re too smart.) Being from Texas now living in California I am so tired of hearing about “red state- blue state” as if people know everything about me based on the place of my birth. This offends me more than the gender stereotypes I have encountered so much of my life.
Nice one. Those with nuanced views absolutely have to be louder.
So, a few things:
1. You're missing decentralization as a guiding principle for keeping the peace. We are going to have crappy federal institutions and a serious risk of civil conflict as long as every federal election result is viewed as an existential threat by >1/3 of the country (whether or not that view is correct)! If we want to not have that existential threat anymore, we need to lower the stakes: we need a settlement that credibly reassures Californians that nobody is coming for our abortions *and* reassures Mississippians that nobody is coming for their guns. We need, that is, a grand bargain that keeps the feds securely out of the culture war, and some of the bigger and more politically diverse states may have to make their own bargains that devolve power further. Our values and worldviews have become too different to reconcile otherwise.
2. Speaking of abortions, one really dangerous civil conflict scenario you haven't mentioned is
-- Republicans get a trifecta in the 2024 elections without technically cheating (no fake electors, "independent" state legislatures or similar) but without getting a popular majority either, due to their structural advantages. David Shor has been pointing out that this is a likely scenario. I think it's more likely than a steal.
-- They pass a nationwide abortion ban that is clearly unpopular, because they can, and their base won't let them pass up the chance.
-- The enforcement mechanisms for that ban become increasingly draconian, reminiscent of the Fugitive Slave Act. We know Republicans are going in this direction because the state laws being proposed are already there: restrictions on freedom of movement, speech bans, constant surveillance, etc.
-- The majority is outraged, but because of Republican minoritarian capture of federal institutions, we can't do anything about it within the existing system.
This, at minimum, would likely lead to levels of violence similar to the '70s stuff chronicled in _Days of Rage_. The last time we had a divide this passionate was over slavery, and now *both* sides explicitly see themselves as the heirs of the anti-slavery cause.
3. I don't see how you put our institutions back on a peaceable path without doing *something* about the Supreme Court. The pretense of its nonpartisan nature is gone forever; nobody can credibly commit to restore it and trying to keep up the charade is worse than useless. Having a blatantly partisan, culture-warring institution's balance of control determined by a combination of strategically timed retirements and randomly timed deaths is already egregiously unfair in what is supposed to be a democracy; Mitch McConnell's shameless game of Calvinball made the unfairness even worse.
Packing the court is a bad solution because it's not a stable equilibrium and invites retribution. But a move to fixed terms, or a jurisdictional reform, or both would at least regularize the process and shift the stakes. It seems wonky but it's no wonkier than fixing the Electoral Count Act.
Happy 4th Noah!
Good article. I know many left-coded individuals do not like this idea but the solution is simply the federalism of the American system.
The US needs to allow the separate states to work through their issues. As the map you have posted shows, there are large rural swathes of America which have zero interest or attraction to the Democrat Party. Likewise, there are enclaves where the Republicans are despised.
On extremely contentious issues we need to let the states work out their own internal disputes. That is how peace and stability are maintained.
Forcing national policies should be reserved for issues that are truly national in scope.
And there wasn’t a plot to assassinate a Supreme Court justice, a mentally ill man went to Kavanaughs house and then called the cops in
Americans' views of abortion are "nuanced" because they really no nothing about it, or are mightily confused by decades of profoundly dishonest forced birther propaganda, or believe ridiculous things they hear in church about how much their god loves and values zygotes, embryos, fetuses and even the "already born" when, of course, the evidence is completely to the contrary.
Of course, this is true of many other hot button issues: Ignorance and completely irrational prejudice makes it impossible to discuss, let alone implement, policy ideas based on, say, evidence and logic. The recent hysteria about transgender women in sports is completely emblematic of this: Lia Thomas wins a few NCAA races that almost no one would otherwise care about and, suddenly, the moral universe is risk of complete collapse. Not much to do about any of this but SMH.
Yes. You guys need to convince white people in rural US that rich non-white people moving in and making life difficult for their kids and grandkids by jacking up the price of homes and making it impossible to go to top unis, those crazy leftists in the West trying to change their world - attacking their religion and traditions - are toothless so their legacy and history will be preserved.
In short, Blue states need to celebrate the cultures of the Red states somehow. Basically, you need a Democratic presidential candidate who is from a Red state. The Democrats need to have more white folks at the leadership level just for the 2024 election who will then make way in time.
You guys probably need two white men as President and Vice-President for a term.
Stacey Abraham’s complaint was that voter suppression had stopped ppl voting, the exact thing you bring up 2 paragraphs after both-sidering acceptance of elections
I think the real issue in the case of a Civil War is to what extent and what side does Canada take. Obviously, Canada's agricultural production is almost as big as red America's so in turn blue America can rely on Canada instead of red America.
Happy 4th, Noah. Keep up the good work! 💚 🥃
Buckle up + think about the unexpected.
And yes, I'm of the view that Jan 6 was a dress rehearsal.
Good read. Thanks
great work!
Wow,. Extraordinary newsletter today.
I'm trying to make sense of my reading
Noah, have you thought about drafting a constitutional amendment that could actually pass 38 states by addressing worries each side has about the other side's respect for institutions? Maybe alongside a conservative blogger from The Dispatch or National Review?
Here's a rough 2-for-2 example, which I came up with on the spot, and don't feel strongly about:
-no expansion of SCOTUS (Democratic concession)
-new states admitted via 2/3 Senate supermajority, so obviously the Senate is being preserved too (Democratic concession re: DC, Puerto Rico)
-Voting Rights Act provisions restored and expanded, with pre-clearance everywhere; ex-cons can vote; college students choose where they vote; federal government automatically provides every citizen with voting-acceptable ID (Republican concession)
-no more electors; each state assigns its electoral votes to the winner of the state's popular vote, with no governor/legislature/VP interventions; secretary of state interventions to counter voter fraud according to criteria in the amendment, supervised only by courts (Republican concession).
In my opinion, an equal number of concessions from each party makes the rhetoric of compromise easier.