Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts

Monday, September 28, 2026

Obsessing Under an Autumnal Blue Sky

I finished the research project yesterday after losing myself to obsessive behavior these past 2 days. 

But I got the whole text down to the 30 pages the law review has as its limit. I cut and cut and then I screwed sentences until they screamed. Or maybe that was me. I did not go to church yesterday or Saturday, Which is not good. The church has kept my depression very much under control. I do not like this obsessive behavior that this article has been for me. It has swallowed most of my time since April, certainly since May. 

I am tired of Indiana's racist history. Finding bad scholarship that has steered Indiana constitutional law for about half of my life surprised me and all I can feel is appalled. A lawyer is supposed to disclose any precedent that contradicts their position. What I found in Indiana Supreme Court decisions were statements supported by cases that do not say anything like the statements for which they were supposed to be authority. And not once but several times in the same opinion. A law review journal from the Fifties by a man who became a respected legal scholar contained false statements - comments on text that are not what the ext says. If I had done the same when I was a lawyer and done the same, I would have been punished for unethical behavior. I would not be a government official with a good salary. 

No one keeps track of what is going on within the Indiana Supreme Court's opinions. The Indiana Lawyer barely tracks the news about the court: Indiana Supreme Court. Google Scholar does not show any criticism of particular opinions: "indiana supreme court". We stats, the early review of what has been decided, laudatory reminisces  of retiring justices, but no critical readings. Well, I have one on my computer.

Speaking of news from the Indiana Supreme Court:  High court weighs help for involuntarily committed. 

Burnt out and unable to shut off my brain, insomnia came to visit last night and early into the morning. I think I fell asleep around 3 AM. I missed Liturgy this morning.

I have been going for about 2 hours now. Without breakfast. I probably should do more about eating regularly. And finish the dishes and the laundry. I think I will go to a movie. All the things I have been neglecting. Get out of this apartment.

Anyway, I am done writing any time this week. Blog posts and email, nothing more. 

 The Roots of the Novel Are Parody, Pastiche, and Play - Lincoln Michel (Countercraft)

I’m not surprised that Don Quixote is hilarious and deranged. I’ve often found that the dusty classics that are supposed to be dreary chores to read are, in fact, far funnier and stranger than their reputations would suggest. However, I was surprised by how modern the novel feels. It is filled with metafictional conceits and techniques I associate with the postmodernists2 of the mid-to-late 20th century and various post-postmodernist works of today. Cervantes makes up fake ballads, interjects to complain about his protagonist, and has characters (in the second volume) who have read the book they’re inside. Even the premise of the book—an insane man goes on failed adventures while imagining he is a knight—feels like an extended bit novel I associate with postmodernists, Oulipians, and other more contemporary literary trends.

Yep, Don Quixote is a hoot. Anyone who doesn't laugh once while reading it has to be a literature professor. 

Decolonizing the Dead ( Los Angeles Review of Books ) is a review of the new China Miéville novel. He is in my mind as someone I should read. That is the other thing I need to do is get away from the computer and read some of these books piling up here.

The Rouse is decidedly weird fiction: it is, after all, about raising the dead, and whatever it is that haunts the dead themselves. It has a classic Lovecraftian sense of wanting to evoke the cosmic dread of that august project, which pushes at the limits of language and form. Throughout the book, there are linguistic breakdowns, gaps, absences, broken sentences, poetic glitchings, all to hint at the sublime collapse of language, meaning, consciousness, and even “life” itself when confronted with what lies beyond human limits. It’s at times a challenging, experimental read. But it is also propelled forward by a sense of apocalyptic dread, that something bad is coming, something worse than death—a kind of pulpy end-of-worldism that shares quite a bit with that Game of Thrones shorthand tag for an undead apocalypse: Winter is coming. The Rouse constantly quotes M. R. James’s eerie, haunting question from his classic weird tale “Oh, Whistle, and I’ll Come to You, My Lad”—“Who is this who is coming?”—and tries to answer it. Pulp horror and a dose of avant-garde aesthetics: that is quintessential weirdness.

At the same time, The Rouse is also fused with the Cold War spy novel. The book is about a top secret security agency called the “R Unit” in the British secret services, which is there to contain and explore the possible exploitation of supernatural energies. The R Unit explores REs—revenance events—and engages, we might say, with the roused dead. One of the book’s alternating narrative timelines focuses on a grieving mother trying to understand the early death of her military son Ewan in the 1990s, as she bumps up against the edges of a vast conspiracy, while a second thread follows one of the principal assets of the R Unit, a soldier called Allardyce, who joins the group just as Britain is starting to lose its empire in the 1950s. It is a book full of clandestine military networks, strange laboratories, black ops in far-flung places, and exhausted agents, crossed, double-crossed and triple-crossed in the field. It has the global reach of the Jason Bourne franchise, protagonists shedding identities and moving off-grid in ceaseless motion, popping up in unlikely locales. There are a lot of clandestine meetings at exotic dead drops where characters mutter enigmatic clues at each other.

 I have no real experience of the COVID lockdown. I was in prison and what you experienced during the pandemic is very much what I experienced starting in 2010. So, pandemic stories interest me. Such as The Impression of Living in a Ruin (Los Angeles Review of Books).

For many of these characters, the repetition and solitude of work have formed a kind of hopeless prison. The protagonist of “The Nightwatchman” patrols the halls of another unfinished space, in this case an apartment complex still under construction on the outskirts of the city, where he has been forced to move because his fiancée left him. The surrounding area is desolate, roads are deteriorating, and garbage dumps are overflowing due to the influx of new residents; it’s a soulless area where “nobody would ever walk” due to the lack of commercial properties. The emptiness in every aspect of the night watchman’s life leads to increasing dread:

So many late nights spent walking along dark passageways with his flashlight, attempting to catch any danger in the beam, had convinced him of the need for some kind of weapon as protection, even though nothing had ever happened. That word again: NOTHING. Nothingness was an existential concept.

In “The Animal Collector,” a street sweeper tries to fill the void he perceives in his life by adopting a menagerie of injured wildlife and household pets. His treatment of these animals quickly takes precedence over the wishes of those few people in his life who genuinely care about him, such as his partner of seven years, who tries to point out the selfishness of what he is doing. But, as the story’s narrator notes, “people tended to believe their motives to be quite different from what they really were.”

Another review of a writer I think I should be reading: Exit Party by Emily St John Mandel review – alternate visions of post-crisis America (The Guardian ).

Is the price of stability necessarily the loss of freedom? The question plays out daily in our political reality, its fictional possibilities providing inspiration for writers from Plato’s time onwards. The “upbeat-downbeat” ending Mandel chooses for her novel is not new in science fiction; indeed, it bears comparison to her own earlier take on the post-catastrophe novel, the 2014 blockbuster Station Eleven. What makes Exit Party a superlative example of the form is its structural cohesiveness, its expert play of signs and symbols, its psychological realism. Mandel’s imaginative landscapes have from the first been intricately constructed, an elegant dance in which plot, character and idea appear effortlessly matched. In Exit Party, her ability to handle a complex array of material while never once allowing her focus to drift from the human story reaches new heights. 

 A bit of fun: George Bush, murder and nautical infidelity: the Chicks’ 20 greatest songs – ranked! (The Guardian)

On “Derek,” Captain Ahab’s Evil Half Brother  by John Hay is actually enjoyable and educational and may make you wonder how much tinkering Hollywood does on with classics.

Remembering Grazia Deledda, the Sardinian Nobel Prize-Winner We Should All Be Reading (Literary Hub) may not explain why most people should be reading this writer as much as being another example of a renowned writer gone missing. However, for someone from a fly-over place, it does seem pertinent to those who think there are from a place not worthy of a literature.

In writing about the life of Deledda in Nuoro, Sardinian literary critic and author Giulio Angioni referred to the conjoined role of history and memoir in her stories, her “sort of sardography.” That “sardography,” Sardinia seen through the stories of Sardinians, was the splendor awaiting discovery by outsiders like ourselves, in so many forms. 

“To discover a prolific, but forgotten novelist is like stumbling upon a new species,” social critic Todd Gitlin wrote in the Chicago Tribune in 1998. After his wife discovered a novel by Grazia Deledda on a lonely pile in the corner of a bookstore in New England, he searched for the rest of her works, only finding them in small and university presses. He declared it was long overdue for a “literary resurrection” of the once famous writer with the “emotional power” of her novels. In the end, he only found five of her thirty-three novels.

Five Classic SF Stories First Published in Playboy (Reactor) is a reminder of Plyaboy as more than a skin mag.

Trying out a new widget from Blogger: 

 

I think it is the first new item in ages for Blogger.

Time and my stomach say enough of clearing out my tabs.

sch
 

Thursday, September 24, 2026

Nausea and The Law

 What do I do when I feel miserable, slightly nauseous, and tired? I work on revising a section of my paper on Indiana state Bill of Rights.

I do not go to church as I promised myself. The idea of getting nauseous and my bowels weakening in public bothered me.

 Nor do I go get the groceries I did not get the other day.

I do not go and pay two bills as I have planned for the last two days.

I do leave the the aprtment except for nicotine and caffeine. And sleep away two days.

This post barely gets done.

What follows is the raw research from the past day and a little of yesterday.  

Routledge History of Philosophy Volume II : Aristotle to Augustine - Routledge+History+of+Philosophy.2.Aristotle+to+Augustine.pdf

Aristotle_philosophy_and_politics_theory.pdf

() - Democracy_and_Political_Philosophy.pdf

THE PROPER PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS    

lp-3-16 - -3-16_2.pdf 

FLOURISHING, VIRTUE, AND COMMON GOOD CONSTITUTIONALISM 

Ethics, Politics, and Natural Law - Ethics, Politics, and Natural Law.pdf

Natural Law and the Pursuit of Happiness - Natural Law and the Pursuit of Happiness.pdf  

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 US 215 - Supreme Court 2022 - Google Scholar

Doe v. O'CONNOR, 790 NE 2d 985 - Ind: Supreme Court 2003 - Google Scholar

T.D. v. Wrigley | State Court Report

Wyoming Education Association v. State | State Court Report

Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana v. Planned Parenthood Great Northwest | State Court Report

aristotle politics flourishing - Google Search

Aristotle Politics PDF - Google Search

The Post-Dobbs Patchwork of Abortion Rights | State Court Report

Aristotle: Politics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

State Privacy Rights Are More Important Than Ever | State Court Report

The History of History and Tradition: The Roots of <i>Dobbs</i>'s Method (and Originalism) in the Defense of Segregation | Yale Law Journal    

sch 9/24       

Monday, September 21, 2026

Latest Items From My Constitutional Law Project

 Price v. State, 622 NE 2d 954 - Ind: Supreme Court 1993 - Google Scholar

Sidle v. Majors, 341 NE 2d 763 - Ind: Supreme Court 1976 - Google Scholar

Randall T. Shepard - Wikipedia

Second Wind for the Indiana Bill of Rights   

THE INDIANA BILL OF RIGHTS 20_3_Twomley.pdf 

T.D., et al. v. Wrigley, et al. - 219866

"chancellor kent" - Google Scholar

Breese v. Smith, 501 P. 2d 159 - Alaska: Supreme Court 1972 - Google Scholar

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Second Treatise Of Government, by John Locke

Individual Rights Under State Constitutions in 2018: What Rights are Deeply Rooted in a Modern-Day Consensus of the States? - Individual Rights Under State Constitutions in 2018.pdf     

The Maturing Nature of State Constitution Jurisprudence - The Maturing Nature of State Constitution Jurisprudence.pdf

An Unnatural Reading: The Revisionist History of Abortion in Hodes v. Schmidt - An Unnatural Reading: The Revisionist History of Abortion in <i>H.pdf

Fry v. State, 63 Ind. 552 (Ind. 1878) | HallApproved.com

Madison & Indianapolis Railroad v. Whiteneck, 8 Ind. 217 (Ind. 1856) | 

The History of History and Tradition: The Roots of <i>Dobbs</i>'s Method (and Originalism) in the Defense of Segregation | Yale Law Journal

State v. Wilson, 543 P. 3d 440 - Haw: Supreme Court 2024 - Google Scholar

S0738248019000427jra 821..845 - div-class-title-reading-the-constitution-1787-91-history-originalism-and-constitutional-meaning-div.pdf

Allegheny Reprod. Health v. DEP'T OF HUMAN, 309 A. 3d 808 - Pa: Supreme Court 2024 - Google Scholar

The Chancellor's Ghost - The Chancellors Ghost.pdf

MEDICAL LICENSING BD. v. Planned Parenthood, 211 NE 3d 957 - Ind: Supreme Court 2023 - Google Scholar 

sch 9/19     

Tuesday, September 1, 2026

State Constitutional Law

 Excuse the raw data dump. These are articles and cases that I have been reading lately for my research project on state constitutional law. I need to clear out my tabs!

SOME THOUGHTS ON BLACKSTONE, PRECEDENT, AND ORIGINALISM 19VtLRev5.pdf 

McKinster v. Sager, 163 Ind. 671 (Ind. 1904) | HallApproved.com

State v. Gerhardt, 145 Ind. 439 (Ind. 1896) | HallApproved.com

State ex rel. Sonneborn v. Sylvester, 26 Wis. 2d 43 - Wis: Supreme Court 1965 - Google Scholar

Terry Carpenter, Inc. v. Wood, 129 NW 2d 475 - Neb: Supreme Court 1964 - Google Scholar

Rudeen v. Cenarrusa, 38 P. 3d 598 - Idaho: Supreme Court 2001 - Google Scholar

Maine Pharmaceutical Ass'n v. BOARD OF COM'RS, 245 A. 2d 271 - Me: Supreme Judicial Court 1968 - Google Scholar

The Legacy of Slaughterhouse, Bradwell, and Cruikshank in Constitutional Interpretation - The Legacy of Slaughterhouse Bradwell and Cruikshank.pdf

Sears v. Board of Commissioners, 36 Ind. 267 (Ind. 1871) | HallApproved.com

Collins v. Day, 644 NE 2d 72 - Ind: Supreme Court 1994 - Google Scholar

Privileges and Immunities Clause - Wikipedia

REHABILITATING THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES          

State v. Gibson, 36 Ind. 389 (Ind. 1871) | HallApproved.com

Indiana Constitution (as amended 2024).pdf  

Madison & Indianapolis Railroad v. Whiteneck, 8 Ind. 217 (Ind. 1856) | HallApproved.com

State v. Labine, 733 NW 2d 265 - SD: Supreme Court 2007 - Google Scholar

Bailey v. Jones, 139 NW 2d 385 - SD: Supreme Court 1966 - Google Scholar

Article 6, § 1 of the South Dakota Constitution - Inherent rights. :: South Dakota Constitution :: Justia

NATURAL LAW IN AMERICAN COURTS: FROM THE CIVIL WAR’S END TO THE PRESENT 49.Helmholz.pdf     

Infringed 

Sanders v. State Personnel Com'n, 677 SE 2d 182 - NC: Court of Appeals 2009 - Google Scholar 

sch

Tuesday, August 25, 2026

How The United States Supreme Court Smiles and Smiles and Is A Villain

The maker of any good con is that the thing offered sounds too good to be true. The same goes for judicial theories. Originalism sounds fair and reasonable until a closer look shows it is just another way for the United States Supreme Court to take rights away from Americans.

The Supreme Court’s Archaeology of Authority (The Bulwark)

The idea that constitutional questions can—and should be—answered via historical analysis is simple enough (and echoes the conservative movement’s longstanding embrace of originalism). According to this view, judges should not impose their own values on the Constitution or decide cases according to their own moral or political commitments. They should instead look backward: asking whether a right or interpretation of a law is deeply rooted in the nation’s historical practices, language, and traditions.

History, in other words, promises to do what judicial philosophy long has not: remove judgment from judging.

The term just finished reminds us once again how central appeals to “history and tradition” have become to the Roberts Court’s constitutional project. Rather than promoting judicial restraint, however, key cases reveal how the “history and tradition test” has been weaponized to enable one of the most radical revisions to this nation’s constitutional order since the New Deal. It has been used not only to overturn previous decisions and precedent, but also to fundamentally shift the way the Court engages in judicial review.

Take the Court’s Second Amendment decisions as an example. On June 25, 2026, the Court issued its opinion in Wolford v. Lopez, striking down Hawaii’s restrictions on carrying firearms on private property that is open to the public.

Typically, when considering the validity of the Hawaii law, the Court would ask a familiar set of questions. For starters, does the state have a rational basis for regulating the issue in question (the basic question in the rational basis scrutiny test applied to all law)? Taking things a step forward, the Court often then asks whether there is a fundamental right at issue. And, if so, whether the law in question served a compelling government interest (national security, for example) and whether the law was narrowly tailored in service of that interest. This framework of tests does not eliminate judicial judgment, but it does make that judgment explicit. Courts weigh interests, assess evidence, and openly confront competing constitutional values.

In Wolford, however, the Court opted to adopt its new preferred methodology. Under the historical methodology announced in the 2022 decision New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Hawaii’s law stood or fell on an entirely different basis: whether the state could identify sufficiently analogous restrictions from the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

To put that in plain language: The question was not whether the law served a compelling governmental (or public) interest. It was whether a sufficiently similar law existed at some point during the nation’s founding.

sch 8/18 

Thursday, June 18, 2026

Saving The United States Supreme Court

 This one I cannot agree with.

How to make the Supreme Court fear being overturned  by Paul M. Collins, Jr. (The Hill) starts off fine with its diagnosis.

For decades, the court operated under a healthy, if unspoken, anxiety: the fear of reversal. This fear once acted as a structural brake, reminding the justices that if they strayed too far from the constitutional mainstream, the system would push back.

For instance, the 11th, 13th, 14th, 16th and 26th Amendments to the Constitution were passed to overturn Supreme Court decisions. Congress has reversed several decisions by passing statutes as well, as exemplified in the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009. And the Supreme Court occasionally overrules itself, including overturning Bowers v. Hardwick, which allowed states to criminalize same-sex sexual relations, in 2003.

 But the constitutional changes came at a time of crisis; the 13th and 14th came after the Civil War (and with the Union controlling enough states to pass them). The others were tune-ups to the constitution, mechanical upgrades to keep the government functioning.

 What has become our de facto method of amending the Constitution is Supreme Court decisions. 

The statutory revision process - Court striking down then Congress reworking - is the reason FDR floated a plan to pack the court. 

That same process has a flip-side: Congress passing to the Court the job of completing legislation. I first noticed this in the snail darter case.

We have a dysfunctional Congress, so his solution feels impractical:

 The most effective way to achieve this is a two-pronged structural reset. First, Congress should exercise its clear constitutional authority to expand the size of the court. Second, and more crucially, the justices should no longer sit as a permanent, monolithic body of nine. Instead, they should be required to hear cases in randomly assigned three-judge panels with final decision-making authority.

Okay, I agree with expanding the Court. There are nine Justices and around 13 federal circuits, so on a workload rationale there is a need for an expansion. 

Not that expansion by itself is enough to curb the Court from becoming a branch as a partisan extension of the elected branches. It only ups the partisanship to four more nominees.

 What Mr. Collins has done is apply the operations of the federal Circuit Courts of Appeal to the Supreme Court. It is clever, it may even improve its operation. I suppose there might be the right to an en banc hearing. It may be the only way to keep a 13 member court from becoming unweidly. What it does not do is prevent ideologues intent on forcing their ideology on all of America. It does not look upon the Senate milking partisan issues for their campaign funds as an issue underlying a court intent of ideologues. Not even his staggered appointments seem fitted to this problem.

Coupled with a larger pool of justices appointed across multiple presidential administrations, this system would dilute the winner-take-all stakes of judicial appointments. It transforms the court from a partisan prize into a functional institution where the law is shaped by a diversity of perspectives, rather than the iron grip of a permanent majority. 

 There is another power Congress has over the Supreme Court and that is impeachment. It seems Justices Thomas and  Alito have given Congress non-partisan grounds for their ethics. Others may have provided other grounds. That might give the court an incentive to impose on itself truly effective ethical rules.

Expansion, term limits, impeachments, and staggered terms are all good ideas and are necessary. However, there is one greater remedy: reinstating the amendment process, perhaps even making it easier. Until the federal government understands it does not run in a closed loop, there will always be a risk of ideologues intent on working their will on the people.

sch 6/17 

Thursday, June 11, 2026

Readings 6/8

Reading Petrarch on Cities, Time, and Heraclitus by Iván Parga Ornelas Antigone made me think of Thoreau. There is a difference between being alone and solitude. The former can be imposed and resented; the other is a peace and a joy.

The idea of a solitary life in some field or forest has probably appealed to many of us. But Petrarch’s solitudo is demanding. One must not only abandon the city, but everything it represents: ambitions, desires and appetites, and the wish for recognition and personal gain through others. Petrarch, in other words, would not approve of the digital nomad, nor of your plan to retire into a cabin in the woods and spend the day reading and writing for Antigone, if your motivation was to gain recognition and applause. 

RESTORING “LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS” 

Recognizing a Damage Remedy to Enforce Indiana's Bill of Rights 

Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books, vol. 1 

sch 6/8 

 

Wednesday, June 3, 2026

State Constitutional Law (Indiana, Mostly): A Reading List (5/28-6/3/2026)

 I got the idea this morning to make a list of what I have been reading since I started on my latest research project. The hope is that it will give me time to get my eyes to focus.

State Constitutions (Indiana Historical Bureau)

Originalism and Natural Law by Brian T. Fitzpatrick

Beyond Standard Legal Positivism and "Aggressive" Natural Law: Some Thoughts on Judge O'Scannlain's "Third Way" by Michael Baur

Has the Indiana Constitution Found Its Epic by P Baude 

The Natural Law in the American Tradition  by Hon. Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain

Matter of Lawrance 

Morrison v. Sadler 

Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books, vol. 1 [1753] 

SELF-DEFENSE, DEFENSE OF OTHERS, AND THE STATE, DARRELL A. H. MILLER

Wrigley v. Romanick 

INTERPRETATION AND AUTHORITY IN STATE CONSTITUTIONALISM , Paul W. Kahn

Interstate Dialogue in State Constitutional Law, Patrick L. Baude 

INDIANA'S CENTURY OLD CONSTITUTION by JOHN D. BARNHART and DONALD F. CARMONY

Kiste v. Red Cab, Inc., 106 NE 2d 395 

Matis v. Yelasich, 132 NE 2d 728 

MEDICAL LICENSING BD. v. Planned Parenthood, 211 NE 3d 957 

Meredith v. Pence, 984 NE 2d 1213 

Okla. Call for Reprod. Justice v. Drummond, 526 P. 3d 1123  

PEACHEY ET AL. v. BOSWELL, MAYOR, ET AL., 167 NE 2d 48 

John Pettit 

Price v. State, 622 NE 2d 954 

Pritchard v. State, 230 NE 2d 416 

Ratliff v. Cohn, 693 NE 2d 530 - 

Report of the Debates  

Richardson v. State, 717 NE 2d 32 

Schuchman v. State, 236 NE 2d 830 

Sidle v. Majors, 341 NE 2d 763 

Solomon v. State, 119 NE 3d 173 

Specht v. State, 163 NE 2d 581 

The Maturing Nature of State Constitution Jurisprudence Randall T. Shepard 

sch 

Friday, May 1, 2026

Liberalism, Beauty

Today's big post was inspired by Do Liberals Want a Beautiful World? from The Point Magazine. It impinges on many ideas I have had about my writing, about constitutional law, and politics. A grab bag, I know.

I generally dislike writing inspired by interviews, and this piece was like an interview, being a symposium. I have quoted what caught my attention, what made me think, and what showed me something I did not know. Please bear with these selections and read the original in full.

The topic is defined, always a good place to start.

I’m going to begin by summarizing the arguments of the piece, and I’m going to conclude by raising a few questions that I’ve been brooding over since it came out, and there will be another Trilling quote. But before I get into the weeds, it’s important to begin with a terminological note. What we on this panel mean by “liberalism” is not what is meant by, say, political commentators in the Opinion section of the New York Times. We do not mean the Democrats. We are referring to a political philosophy that arose in the seventeenth century as an outgrowth of Enlightenment moral philosophy and various Enlightenment-era conceptions of the nature of the self. Its hallmarks are an enthusiasm for autonomy, a propensity for diversity and a commitment to egalitarianism. I’ve offered a vague characterization of liberalism rather than a more concrete definition because the specifics are very much up for debate, and there are as many accounts of liberalism as there are liberal theorists. What matters for our purposes is that what we are talking about here is very much not the historically particular political orientation of the Democratic Party, much less in 2026 when it is peak listless; rather, a much broader political philosophy that has developed over the course of at least two centuries.

When the Republicans railed against liberals, they omitted that in the fuller world of political sides, they were also liberals. Now, it seems that with Trump, they have decided they oppose the ideas of equality of all persons and their inalienable rights.

I never knew of the distinction between perfectionist and non-perfectionist thinkers.

 An important divide among liberal thinkers is this: Some of them are perfectionist—that is to say, they think there is a substantive liberal conception of the good life, of the way that we ought to live. Their aim is to construct a political formation that reflects, protects and gives rise to this privileged form of life. Some liberal thinkers, however, are non-perfectionist. That is to say, in their view, it is the job of a liberal state to enable citizens to devise and realize their own conceptions of the good life. This doctrine, according to which the liberal state should not favor or disfavor a particular conception of the good is called the “doctrine of neutrality.” Here is an example of what I mean. Christianity takes a controversial and substantive stance about the nature of the good life. Christianity asks its adherents to believe certain contentious things about the world, for instance, that Jesus is the son of God, and thus asks his adherents to believe certain controversial things about how humans ought to live. For instance, that we ought to worship Jesus or emulate him. A non-perfectionist liberalism permits its citizenry to be Christian, but it remains neutral only insofar as it does not compel them to be Christian. The most prominent liberal thinker of the past century is my other patron saint, John Rawls, who embraced a non-perfectionist liberalism, as do I.

I side with the non-perfectionist. Work and life left Rawls mostly undread by me. Where I got the most food for thought that made me a non-perfectionist liberal came from studying Article I, Section One of the Indiana Bill of Rights:

WE DECLARE, That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that all power is inherent in the PEOPLE; and that all free governments are, and of right ought to be, founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and well being. For the advancement of these ends, the PEOPLE have, at all times, an indefeasible right to alter and reform their government

What I saw was a space for people to operate as they wanted to fulfill themselves without government interference, so long as their fulfillment did not injure other people. 

Which I think applies to aesthetics. The symposium worried that fascism expresses politics through aesthetics, and with liberalism's laissez-faire attitude toward what people do with their freedom, it was losing to fascism.

To come back to the question of what the good life has to do with aesthetics, one of the things I’ve been asking myself is: What creates a powerful aesthetic? It comes from a very convincing way of seeing the world, a very convicted way of seeing the world. I don’t think it necessarily needs to come from a vision of the good life. It could come out of a vision of how bad life is. We certainly know artists that have had aesthetics that arose from either side. But I think there is a question whether liberalism can provide something like this at all. Even in some of the higher points of what I might call “liberal art,” what you tend to find is a portrayal of society as good enough—not exactly beautiful or deeply meaningful in the sense that we often think of when we think of a strong aesthetic. And this problem is particularly acute at a time when liberalism is challenged by actually possible alternatives. So I think one of the things to discuss is whether we might need to reconnect with the imagination, even if it makes us uncomfortable, at a moment when liberals are being challenged politically.

***

This goes to what Becca just discussed, with regard to the Sontag and Trilling quotes about the great works of liberal society often being illiberal. This was one of the lessons of the 2010s, when progressivism did try to extend into the culture and make liberal art, in a sense: I don’t think the results were impressive. And so I don’t think the answer can be that liberals need to politicize art, but rather to make sure that we provide institutional structures and social arrangements that allow for the free development of art and ideas as much as possible. Another way of putting it would be to say that it is especially important for a society that does not offer a fully substantive vision of the good life politically, to create a public culture where we can work out our ideals and values for ourselves, including through art.

***

There’s one answer, let’s call it the “head’s answer” to Becca’s challenge, which is that liberalism allows for and realizes the aesthetics of freedom, pluralism, separation of powers, democracy and the rule of law. But in the end, the liberal commitments aren’t aesthetic commitments. They say, Everyone in this room, go for it. Whatever your conception of the aesthetic is, liberalism says, that’s yours. Make it yours. Exercise your agency. That’s the head’s answer.

The heart’s answer is that liberalism’s peak aesthetic is when Bob Dylan went electric—do you know this reference, even? This was like the most important moment ever, in the world. He played “Maggie’s Farm”: “I ain’t gonna work on Maggie’s Farm no more”—a song of liberty and pluralism. And he also sang “Like a Rolling Stone,” converting the state of rootlessness and of separation and exclusion into a song of freedom, a new national anthem. “How does it feel to be on your own / With no direction home, like a complete unknown? / Like a rolling stone”—sung with joy and celebration. When he was booed in England for not doing folk music, he said to his band, and it’s recorded on tape, “Play It Fucking Loud.” That’s a liberal aesthetic. That’s liberalism’s Riefenstahl. 

I can go along with those ideas. I would add The Clash's Complete Control. But what of the effects of capitalism in centralizing the arts? Maggie's Farm may have had that in mind, too. We have more people creating, more things being written than ever before, but they are all subjected to the rule of the algorithm. 



But the essential idea feels too right. Pluralism need not mean tribalism. In The Rebel, Albert Camus distinguished between unity (good) and totality (bad). Tribalism that communicates between tribes creates a pluralism; tribes that do not communicate lead to a social/political Manicheanism. The former promotes growth, the other dies shivering in a dark bunker.

 I disagree with mandating beauty. Where I prefer Shakespeare, someone else might prefer Edward Albee. If I mandate Shakespeare, have I not imposed upon the Albee fans? Or vice versa. 

But mandating beauty seems too much like mandating religion. Nothing has crippled religion more than mandating a state faith. A legal standard of beauty would be stultifying; I can imagine it dulling any sense of beauty in people.

Becca Rothfeld: I guess the original way you were posing the question made me think that it’s about the relationship between the content of policy and the aesthetic results of policy. And I think that the right-wing has no problem answering, Yeah, we should mandate beauty. We should mandate, like, neocolonial architecture and bad lip filler or whatever. I have strong disagreements with them about what they think is beautiful, but they don’t have a problem with that. A liberal obviously would have a problem with that. You can’t mandate beauty for various reasons, even if justice permitted it, it doesn’t seem like it would be effective. But what I think you can do is have policies that at least permit the pursuit of beauty. Another thing that you can do that Trilling gestures at in various ways, is have policies that are founded on an anthropology that, in turn, is the basis of good art production. What I mean by this is that one of Trilling’s criticisms of what he calls bureaucratic liberalism—what we would call technocratic liberalism—is that it has a really impoverished account of what people are like. He really likes Freud, not necessarily because he thinks that Freud is even correct, but because he thinks that Freud provides us with the resources to create better novels and such. And so I think that you could at least be careful to sort of write policy in a way that doesn’t assume an impoverished anthropology.

I find the thousand-flowers-bloom metaphor congruent with my ideas. It fits within my ideas of pluralism.

So what can be done? One Battle After Another is a liberal cri de coeur. It wasn’t produced by politicians. If politicians tried to produce a movie like that, it would be didactic and wouldn’t be very human. If you look at texts, either literary texts or not, that are part of our culture, they’re frequently liberal in character, and they gave rise to, you know, the civil rights movement, the movement for same sex marriage—a thousand things like that. What I’m saying now has a thousand-flowers-bloom quality, but we find that not exciting only because we’ve heard it so many times. And the challenge, I think, for this generation, is to find a conception of liberalism that celebrates and doesn’t nod bored at the relevant commitments and makes them new and real. Making something new and real is going to make them different.

There is much I found needing unpacked and considered in this paragraph:

To attribute social terribleness to liberalism is reckless. Liberalism isn’t a force in history. It’s not Voldemort. It’s not whispering behind married couples saying, sleep with your neighbor. It’s not telling fathers don’t pay attention to your kids. It’s not saying to people of faith, you should stop believing in God. This is recklessness. And I’d say exactly the same thing, if I may, about capitalism. Capitalism means people get to own things. So you get to own that green shirt and those blue jeans. Some of you probably own laptops; they can’t be taken from you because there’s private property. To believe in capitalism is to believe in something which is an engine of freedom from fear, which is a defining liberal ideal. The idea of post-liberalism, at least in some forms, is a recipe for subjection to fear, because freedom of speech starts to get smaller, and freedom of religion might get smaller too.

Unlike Marxism, liberalism does not think it is ordained by history. It turned out that Marxism was not, either. I consider liberalism to be an environment within which we get to figure out our purposes in this life.

Inducing fear and hate has been the mark of Trumpism. I have a sister who fears the coming of Sharia law. She has not explained to me how this is to occur in a country where Muslims are a distinct minority. The tech bros also seem ready to propagate fear. Musk, with his pro-white supremacy talk, comes to mind here.

Ignorance breeds fear. I did not see anywhere in this article any mention of education. Political education seems to me the balance to ill-liberal thinking. If we are looking for a liberal aesthetic, then education is the tool for its advancement.

The closest approach I found to education was in this paragaraph:

Becca Rothfeld: Can I answer more tyrannically? So I was just thinking like when Jon was talking about how liberalism and criticism have some natural affinity. Actually, I could not disagree more. The greatest tension in my life is that, as a critic, I am constantly making judgments of taste, and it’s a presumption of my vocation that other people should agree with me; I’m inegalitarian. I think that there’s a hierarchy of taste, and I presume to have a kind of authoritarian status when I’m writing a book review. I’m trying to persuade you; I’m trying to get you to agree with me. But I also think that you should think what I think. So, this is only a limited answer about what the good life looks like—I’m not taking a stance about what you should eat or whether you should stay married. (I don’t think you should stay married if your marriage is unhappy.) But my positive view is: beauty is good. The pursuit of beauty is something that you should spend your life doing. You should devote at least some part of your life to the consumption of difficult and important works of art. That’s a substantive commitment about the good life that I have and that I am willing to express. 

Finally, it is up to us to fight for our freedom. Here is one way to fight: create art that springs not from political mandate but from the anarchy of real life.

sch 4/28 

 

 

 

 

Monday, February 23, 2026

American History: Ideology

 With the law, I have no use for originalism. Not in law school and certainly not now has it made sense: the past informs, it is not a prison.

Considering the rampant ignorance of historical knowledge in Americans, it is dangerous. I have a sister who believes this country was set up as a Christian nation. She sent me this link: https://www.facebook.com/share/16XTpKuTji/. I sent her this response:

I sent you the piece about the applicability of Sahria law - this is some BS dreamt up to scare people. But what most people don't understand is that if you weren't from England proper you came here under a different law. Scotland, Germany, France, Switzerland all had a different system of law. The Irish had the Brehon law but I think the English took that from them. Louisiana operates under a different legal system than Indiana. Are we to get to get rid of that state?

People who come here are not slaves anymore. Slaves have to accept what their masters tell them. Free people can say whatever they like. The real question is if their complaints are justified or not? We are not getting Danes and their like here because we do not have a real national health care system. I suppose this fellow would tell anyone complaining about no national health care should be sent back to Denmark.

He repeats that nonsense about this being a Christian country. It was not. We were set up as a country without a national church. Our ancestors knew how vile that institution could be. Especially the Scots who weave in and out of the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention.I was going to suggest googling conventeer but just go here: https://scotland-history.com/the-rise-of-the-covenanters-and-religious-conflict/. I suspect the Livingstons came over here to get away from that. But you can google Thirty Years War.

How does one baptize a nation? Without baptism, there is no remission of sins.  What soul does a nation have? A nation has no more soul than a rock. We are a nation of Christians - and Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims. We always have been.

But then the question comes down to what kind of Christian. If only Protestants, then kiss colonial Maryland away. And if you will allow Roman Catholics, why are you a Protestant? Better check out the Northern Ireland Troubles if you want to see what "Christians" can do - in our own time.

Tell this fellow to read Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. He should also read the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and his state's Bill of Rights. 

But, assuming this was a Christian country, it is not now. Christians do not turn away the stranger; Christians do not applaud torture and governmental murder; Christians favor feeding the poor. This was the Gospel reading for today:

    MATTHEW 25:31-46

    The Lord said, “When the Son of man comes in his glory and all the holy angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
I do not know why people keep repeating this nonsense. I suppose it's not having stayed awake in their history classes. Or they are too weak-minded to double check what they are being told. I notice he gives nothing to support his blather. That should have told you something right there.

She has not responded.

I want to add Joseph Ellis's  Leadership of the Founder from American Heritage. Ellis is not some wild-eyed fanatic, nor is American Heritage a publisher of flaky ideas.

 Second, they created the first wholly secular state. Before the American founding, it was assumed that state support for an established religion was a mandatory feature of all viable governments, because it enforced a consensus on the common values that made a collective sense of purpose possible. While many of the states retained various Protestant establishments well into the nineteenth century, the founders insisted on a complete separation of church and state at the national level, thereby overturning the long-standing presumption that only shared religious convictions could hold a nation together.

Third, they rejected the conventional wisdom, agreed upon since Aristotle, that political sovereignty was by definition singular and indivisible and must reside in one agreed-upon location. The Constitution defied this assumption by creating multiple and overlapping sources of authority in which the blurring of jurisdiction between federal and state levels, as well as between and among branches of government, became an asset rather than a liability. The very idea of sovereignty became problematic, and its rhetorical depository, “the people,” an inherently elusive location.

Ellis points out the Founders failures and their particular successes—they were human beings who met their moment in history as best they could. It was a white country; their imaginations and nerves failed them to abolish slavery and integrate the former slaves into the citizenry. But they knew their hypocrisy on this point; they knew what they created was not limited to whites.

Peter Cozzens's book review, Being Thomas Jefferson (American Heritage) makes a relevant point:

Any discussion of Jefferson and slavery must consider his relationship with his teenaged slave Sally Hemings, his late wife’s half-sister. Because Jefferson never wrote of her, Burstein is unable to provide any significant insights into what attracted Jefferson to the girl. But he was an ardent pursuer of beauty, so Burstein suggests she was beautiful. He assumes Jefferson felt tenderness toward Hemings but no inclination to elevate her from her subordinate position in the Monticello orbit. Burstein posits that the loss of his wife so devastated Jefferson that he was unwilling to expose himself again to such pain. Rather than remarry, as was customary in Southern society, he took a concubine with whom he could maintain a sexually active life without deep emotional involvement. Burstein summarizes the relationship in the context of Jefferson’s nature thusly:

“I am suggesting that we should reckon with the ‘Saly Hemings story’ as we do with evidence of Jefferson’s personal anxieties as these emerge in all he wrote over the years. He rationalized almost effortlessly. On the basis of his extensive reading and thinking, he was convinced that he knew what was best. He felt morally secure. He doled out advice. He willfully shaped his legacy (or at least tried to), and he managed his little mountain [Monticello] as he saw fit.”

In Jefferson’s feud with Alexander Hamilton over the future of the federal government, which Burstein explores in depth, he delves into the darker side of Jefferson’s psyche. Toward this political rival who orchestrated his removal from the Washington administration, Jefferson felt the deepest “contempt and disgust.” He was unable to recognize any good in an enemy, whom he could only traduce, and against whom he maintained smoldering revulsion. In the political arena, Hamilton “didn’t just frustrate Jefferson. He was the better Machiavellian.”

 If you want originalism, then you need to acknowledge what the Founders knew where they were acting wrongfully.

By stoppering up American life and thought into a sterile past, we ignore how we have risen above our limitations. Therein is the true greatness of America,


 sch 2/21

Thursday, December 25, 2025

Get Rid Of The Criminal Jury - From England By Way of Australia

 Good thing that Indiana's Constitution protects the right to a jury trial, particularly since the United States Supreme Court seems to be giving up on the Constitution and the law.

Constitution of the State of Indiana, Art. 1, § 13 

Section 13. (a) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to a public trial, by an impartial jury, in the county in which the offense shall have been committed; to be heard by himself and counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof; to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.

(b) Victims of crime, as defined by law, shall have the right to be treated with fairness, dignity, and respect throughout the criminal justice process; and, as defined by law, to be informed of and present during public hearings and to confer with the prosecution, to the extent that exercising these rights does not infringe upon the constitutional rights of the accused.

 Constitution of the State of Indiana, Art. 1, § 19 

In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.

 § 19 has confused judges, lawyers, and legal writers for over a century, if not longer. Some things I have read in the distant past seemed to indicate the writer taking offense that mere citizens have such power.

Jury's Role Under the Indiana Constitution 

 Abstract

Despite existence of a provision which constitutionally mandates jury determination of the law as well as the facts since 1851, no definitive explanation exists of what a jury should do when it 'determines law.' Further, only minimal attention has been directed toward the role counsel can play in the constitutional scheme. Avoidance of these issues by the appellate courts of Indiana only detracts from the effectiveness of trial judges, juries, and counsel. To incorporate the positive implementation it has effected and to reconcile or eliminate the contradictions and inconsistencies which have appeared in the case law, the State supreme court should develop an operation model on the basis of theoretical placement of the jury in the judge's role, with modifications to accommodate the jury's collegial nature. The jury's attention could routinely be directed to legislative intent and be instructed to apply canons of construction. Such commonsense rules of interpretation would provide useful guidelines to the jury which until now has been forced to operate in a vacuum. In addition, the suggested model would provide a useful analogy in impressing jurors with the seriousness of their responsibility. However, some findings of law or fact, are not delegated to the jury under the model. Footnotes are included.

That full article is here: The Jury's Role Under the Indiana Constitution, Carolyn White Spengler (Indiana University School of Law).

But of England, Ralph Leonard's article The Strange Death of English Justice  (Quillette) describes what is going on there:

 This has been coming for some time. In July, the government commissioned an Independent Review of the Criminal Courts. The review, chaired by Brian Leveson, made some recommendations as to how to deal with the ever-growing backlog of cases in the Crown Court. These proposals include reclassifying some “either way” offences as “summary only” offences, meaning they will be heard in a magistrates’ court with no jury present. For other either way offences, where defendants previously had the option of choosing trial by jury, all juries will be replaced by a judge and two magistrates. Serious and complex fraud cases will also be assigned to judges only.

There is a contradiction at the heart of the revised justice system that is about to come into being. If trial by jury remains our method of trying the most serious crimes, this implies that it is the best way of litigating criminal cases. If so, then we are accepting that “non-serious” cases are going to be tried using an inferior form of litigation. That will create a two-tier legal system.

The irony is that, over the past year, public discourse has been obsessed with what some are calling a crisis of national identity. Does “Englishness” exist? If so, is it good? What are its ethnic boundaries?. Yet, jury trial, something that is very important to English history, identity, and our understanding of ourselves—something that has been an ancient, even ancestral, English right, is facing a wrecking ball. People outside the Anglosphere may not understand why this is such a big deal. But you cannot understand the English psyche without understanding the symbolic value of this practice, which has deep roots in English history.

 We should expect the same wreckage here, if anyone were foolish enough to make such a proposal.
As the American conservative thinker Russell Kirk observed when examining the “British roots” of American order: “The English people looked upon common law as their law, the product of their historical experience; it was not something imposed upon them from above.” He further speculated that “representative government” arose in England first because juries taught “free men to assert a share in public concerns.” 

The English Marxist E.P Thompson put it differently. Trial by jury, he explained, “rests upon a total view of the relation between the legislature, judiciary and the people; upon a notion of justice in which the law must be made to seem rational and even humane to lay jurors... and upon a particular national history of contests between ‘the people’ and the Crown or state.” 

Whether you accept Kirk’s Burkean organicism or Thompson’s Muggletonian Marxism, both were right to stress that civil liberty depends on involving the people in the judicial process. Juries are a popular restraint on arbitrary power. The legitimacy of the law comes from its embeddedness in our social relations, and the rule of law is the institutionalisation of the general will of civil society. 

And so in 1851, the Indiana Constitutional Convention made jurors judges of law and fact to keep the government honest.

sch 12/25 

 

 

Saturday, November 22, 2025

MTG Out, Trump Kisses Up to Mamdani; Indiana Republicans Swatted, Fixing Our Problems

 Running around this morning reading about politics for no good reason other than hoping the country does not go down the tubes.

Where I first heard the news:


Stephanie Ruhle - MTG & Trump meets Mamdani


I find it more interesting that she doesn't want to defend Trump in an impeachment proceeding. That seems like twisting a knife in the back.


Opinion | Trump’s Latest Epstein Gambit (Common Dreams) - everyone seems to agree that Trump will release nothing of substance.

Trump offers Zohran Mamdani nothing but praise after their first meeting (NBC News)

“I met with a man who’s a very rational person,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office following the private Friday afternoon meeting. “I met with a man who ... really wants to see New York be great again.”

“I’ll really be cheering for him,” Trump added.

Standing alongside the president, Mamdani described the meeting as “productive” and “focused on a place of shared admiration and love, which is New York City and the need to deliver affordability to New Yorkers.”

When asked by a reporter, Trump even said he would be comfortable living in New York City with Mamdani as mayor, saying they had more in common than he had expected.

How the redistricting fight has scrambled dozens of midterm campaigns across the country

In Indiana, the lack of Republican support for a redistricting effort there has led to Trump issuing broadsides at GOP leaders in the state, accusing them of “depriving Republicans of a Majority in the House, A VERY BIG DEAL,” and saying he’d support primary challenges against them. One Republican legislative leader was the victim of a swatting incident at his home hours later.

Bill Maher being cranky about woke, but under it all there is a ray of good sense; we get nothing by being sanctimonious prigs:

 King Donald, JD, and the Silicon barons (The Article)

The unaccountable barons of Silicon Valley, the main hub of AI, are, along with Trump, the main protagonists in the compelling story of democracies entering a new epoch.  How the political and the socio-economic are put together, combining to create a new political economy, is the $64 trillion question. The Greek economist and former politician Yanis Yaroufaxis in Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism (Penguin 2024), takes an entertaining crack at explaining how the tech giants make a fortune out of our addiction to small bright screens with their pictures and information, hoovering up masses of data in order to influence our behaviour.  It is a prodigious and worrying development.

Hybrid cars run on petrol and electricity.   In the US, political life runs on money and social media. The tech oligarchy offers both of them in exchange for proximity to and influence over government.  This relationship is analysed in BBC 1’s  November 3rd Panorama programme, “Trump & The Tech Titans”, revealing the malign consequences of the US Supreme Court’s 5/4 ruling in the crucial 2014 case, McCutcheon v Federal Election Commission.  The five Supreme Court judges declared unconstitutional 1971 legislation which had capped over two years political donations towards federal electoral campaigning, “the aggregate contribution limits”.  The issue was deemed to be one of freedom of speech, bearing no negative impacts on government and offering no opening for corruption.  The case cleared the way for floods of corporate and private money to enter and shape American politics.

BBC Panorama documented how the extraordinary wealth of the tech titans had been the lubricant for their entering the circles of power.   Their wealth is unprecedented: Elon Musk is worth $497 billion; Larry Ellison, who owns Tik Tok, CBS and CNN, $320 billion; and Peter Thiel, around 100th in the global wealth table at $23 billion, is a founder of Paypal and Palantir.  All are donors to the Republican party and are close to the Trump administration.

***

What the Panorama programme intimated, though never came right out and said, is that we should be worrying more about Vance than about Trump.  The tech barons – and the Republican Party — may well feel their money, influence and future are better invested in Vance than in an aging Trump. For Trump to run in 2028, he would need  to tear up the clear constitutional doctrine, enshrined in the 22nd Amendment, that no President can serve more than two terms.

Since before 2016 when he was denigrating Trump, Vance has made a 180 degree turn, and now holds to the whole of Trump’s extreme right-wing agenda. He could  even do another 180 degree turn. Vance and the power of his backers — yes, power not “agency” — would mean relatively uncontrolled development of AI.   He could also normalise fascist-leaning populism as the MAGA masses tire of Trump.  JD Vance is a clear and future danger to democracy. 

 Contributor: Trump's 'industrial policy' is just bad economics (Los Angeles Times)

The problem isn’t that industrial policy has been done badly. It’s just bad economics.

Dreams of reviving manufacturing jobs face the reality that modern manufacturing is capital-intensive and largely automated. Even if subsidies or government loan guarantees spur a factory boom — and history suggests otherwise — it won’t bring back 1950s-style armies of industrial workers unless we somehow outlaw productivity. Today’s factories run on robots and engineers.

Nor will tariffs bring a manufacturing revival. Taxing inputs and components only raises costs, weakens U.S. competitiveness and ultimately punishes the firms protectionists claim to support. True American industrial strength rests on productivity, innovation, competition and access to global supply chains, not on coddling producers behind walls of higher prices.

Mazzucato and her ideological opposites commit the same error. They imagine a politics-free technocracy that can “direct” the economy. In the real world, politics always dominate economics. Subsidies and tariffs are never tools of neutral expertise; they are invitations to lobby. Every “strategic investment” quickly becomes a political IOU.

Biden’s programs came loaded with child-care mandates, union preferences and “Buy American” rules. Trump’s industrial interventions are indeed erratic, but the notion that his protectionism would work if wrapped in a more “mission-oriented” narrative is even sillier. Industrial policy doesn’t fail because it’s chaotic, it fails because it’s political, and human politicians are incapable of the precision markets achieve every day.

After conducting a sweeping review of five decades of U.S. industrial policy, Economists Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Euijin Jung’s conclusion was unambiguous: Subsidies and trade protections for individual firms have been politically irresistible but economically ruinous. Government protection delays economic adjustments; innovation succeeds. In the rare cases when industrial policy showed positive results, the government limited itself to supporting open, competitive research and innovation — programs like DARPA or Operation Warp Speed — rather than shielding firms from competition or subsidizing failing industries.

Josh Marshall Hits A Home Run (Sheila Kennedy)

Talking Points Memo just celebrated 25 years of online political reporting. It’s a “go-to” source for many, if not most, political observers. Heather Cox Richardson, among others, frequently cites publisher Josh Marshall, and TPM is one of my trusted sources for insightful political analysis.

In a recent column, Marshall proposed a basis for evaluating Senators, and I strongly agreed with his criteria for “purging” those who don’t pass his tests. He identifies a series of issues that he says can give voters “a clear indication of whether they are serious about confronting the challenge of the moment or battling back from Trumpism.” He analogizes the process to a status interview you might hold if you were a new manager hired to turn around a failing company–a “sit down” with every employee to determine whether they’re part of the solution or part of the problem. 

***

Marshall identifies five issues. The first is the filibuster. He writes that lawmakers who support keeping the filibuster “are not serious about moving the country forward in any positive direction.”....

The second identified issue is Supreme Court reform....

Number three is (finally!) making DC and Puerto Rico into states. He acknowledges that this isn’t as essential as the first two, but it’s very important, and it’s the right thing to do. DC and Puerto Rico should in fact be states....

We now know that Marshall’s number four is especially important. He calls it “clearing the law books.”....

And number five? Here, Marshall proposes something near and dear to my heart: outlawing gerrymandering with a federal legal framework governing how maps can be legitimately drawn....

I think the fellow is right. We need to get over the excuse of how hard it is to amend the Constitution. Terms limits for the Supreme Court and Congress, must be added to the Constitution - among a few other changes.

 Overtime with Bill Maher: Killer Mike, Donna Brazile (HBO) has me wondering if Maher understands the military has never had to disobey unlawful orders.



sch