The case for moving to a red state
scottaaronson.com
scottaaronson.com
As for the "anti-democratic" American system of government, a cursory reading of the Federalist Papers would demonstrate that the Framers believed that majoritarian democracy was, in fact, tyranny of the majority. They were fundamentally correct - progressives love to praise Canada, but the office of the Prime Minister is, in only a slightly a hyperbolic sense, a 4-year elected autocracy with minimal checks and balances. Majoritarian rule stinks if you happen to fall into a minority, and that's the entire point of having a constitutional republic.
The beauty of America is that if you don't like your system of government, you can always move to another state. Trying to force your progressive values onto everyone via some sort of bizarre doctrine of cultural dilution is unbelievably wrong-headed.
They resent be told what to do by anyone. They were asked to wear masks by Dr Fauci, who is hardly a coastal elite, and many of them couldn't even do that.
I don't think republicans are necessarily bad people but their views are pretty bad and sure you can move to a red state for financial reasons or whatever but some people, especially minorities, can't just go and live with people who spread around covid or think cops are oppressed.
So you really believe that the 74MM Americans who voted for a Republican president, not to mention all of the people who voted Republican down ballot and in state legislatures, are all just anti-mask, minority-hating troglodytes who support anything and everything police do?
It's the ridiculous minimization of complex issues that leads to polarization, not "Trumpism". Why would anybody who voted Republican even want to entertain your point of view when you hold nothing but patronizing contempt for them?
But, just as republicans have generalised the motivations of democrats to justify certain destructive behaviours, I generalise the actions of republicans.
Well, it's also not the point to entrench minoritarian rule, either. With the structural advantages granted to less populous states in the Senate and presidential elections plus ruthless gerrymandering of House seats, that's entirely possible and arguably worse. Most actual tyrannies have been of minorities.
It's also not like the framers had everything figured out. Their electoral college system went haywire almost immediately, for instance. If their system becomes so dysfunctional and looses legitimacy in the eyes of the majority (which it may be on track to doing), it won't last, to the detriment of us all. IMHO, that will mean some way of eliminating partisan gerrymandering and and replacing the electoral college with a presidential popular vote (since nearly everyone views the former as a proxy for the latter, anyway).
You'll notice I didn't complain about that. What I did complain about was that Republican hardball tactics seem to headed towards the conscious goal of not needing to seek majority support in order to control the government. That's frankly unacceptable (and I'm not even talking about the recent nonsense about trying to literally throw out votes on a massive scale until they win a race they lost).
I'm no Democrat, and I think they need to mellow on cultural issues to appeal in rural states like they used to, but the Republicans seem to be playing a far more dangerous game to maintain power that risks the legitimacy of the whole system.
I doubt most people are in a bubble where they don't talk to Republicans in their day to day lives.
> ... You'll find that they're, by and large, decent people with the same basic motivations as you. ...
This sort of cuts both ways, but there has been a marked change in recent years
From my personal experience in the US, most people avoid talking about politics but once you get a die hard supporter of the current mainstream Republican party to start the stereotypes mostly hold up (there are also diverse viewpoints within the party, which unfortunately are now labeled as "RINO" by the party's mainstream voices). The supposed similarities seem to be more superficial and sometimes only justification for other deeply held beliefs.
Them calling people they disagree with "out of touch" seems to be more ingrained dogma than anything else since it ignores that the views they disagree with aren't limited to some "coastal elite," but are widely held by people across the entire country, including their own neighbors. Even more so when they dismiss other s within their own party who hold different viewpoints than them as being "RINOs" who are somehow not true Republicans.
This isn't to say that the US's Democratic party has members who are just as dogmatic, but I've personally observed a lot less of this behavior coming from the die hard members of that party.
> ... Trying to force your progressive values onto everyone via some sort of bizarre doctrine of cultural dilution is unbelievably wrong-headed.
Circling back to superficial similarities, many who are in opposition to the Republican party view Republicans as trying to force conservative and religious culture and views onto them. There is a debate between conservative stances which try to to preserve some form of the status quo in the US vs more liberal stances that argue that some of the ways in which someone can exercise individual freedoms (a local maxima of freedom) limits other people's individual freedom (a global maxima of freedom)
Neither party perfectly represents my views, nor would you expect that to happen if political parties are acting rationally. But the debate over the appointment of ACB struck me as a great example of why I find aspects of the Democratic platform to be objectionable. ACB is, in the tradition of Scalia, an originalist justice. She is not perfect, but her commitment is to interpret the constitution as it was understood when it was written, not as she wishes it to be understood today.
The principle objection to this appointment was that she might overturn Roe v Wade or the ACA... even if an originalist interpretation of the constitution might (but not necessarily would) show that the ACA is unconstitutional. It seemed like an indefensible position to be saying "we don't like her because she tries really hard to interpret the constitution correctly".
Other countries, like Canada, have a "living tree" method of interpretation that I find to be wholly objectionable because it puts unelected justices in the position of legislating from the bench. Understanding the reasons for America's amazing success over the last 200 years, and trying not to dismantle the system of government that has underpinned this success, should not really be an issue of party alignment.
Anyway, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that a lot of people seem to be distracted by the orange shiny object and don't bother looking at the substance of policy, even when they would probably find things to agree about in the analysis (if not the conclusion).
> The principle objection to this appointment was that she might overturn Roe v Wade or the ACA... even if an originalist interpretation of the constitution might (but not necessarily would) show that the ACA is unconstitutional. It seemed like an indefensible position to be saying "we don't like her because she tries really hard to interpret the constitution correctly".
Honestly, I'm not sure if that was the "principle objection." Maybe in normal times it would have been, but in these times her confirmation was egregiously hypocritical given the treatment Merrick Garland got (and the stated reasons for that treatment).
It's also a stretch that originalists interpret the Constitution "correctly" (and therefore others interpret it "incorrectly"), given there's no prescribed interpretive framework. The label "originalist" may be considered a clever bit of propaganda, because even Scalia, who did the most to define that view, would interpret it as he "wish[ed] it to be understood today" when it suited him (IIRC, he was called out on this in a dissent by one of the other justices in a gun rights case). This idea of judicial originalism also breaks down in light of the fact that you arguably can't apply "the constitution as it was understood when it was written" to things that were not understood when it was written.
In a novel situation, a judge is going to have to break new ground just to do his job, and that will be labeled "legislating from the bench" or not depending on if the commenter agrees with the decision or not.
What he argued was that, insofar as the original meaning of the text was scrutable, it should be decided based on the text itself. There are plenty of decisions where Scalia (or other justices) felt that the constitution did not address the topic at all, and thus the Court had nothing to say on the matter. There were also plenty of cases where the Framers had not contemplated the specific application of the constitution to the question at hand, such as first amendment rights as they relate to the radio / TV / internet.
As for "originalism" being propaganda, that strikes me as a cynical view. I've read much of Scalia's writings, and he believed in what he said on the topic. His failure to perfectly live up to his own ideals in every case does not make them any less worthwhile, any more than our personal moral failings are an indictment of morality itself.
Or you can enact the changes you want - that’s why Congress exists, to change the existing laws
Also found it interesting that, like the author, you also advocate moving to another state “if you don’t like the system of government”
>They resent being told what to do by what they perceive as elitist, out-of-touch folks in major coastal cities
You've implied that Republicans largely do not express the faults seen on social media, and then immediately described them as having those faults: Being motivated by petty identity politics, sorting people into rough categories and aiming hatred at those categories, etc. I'm not making a case that Republicans are worse in these regards - they're just the topic in this context, and I don't at all understand what you were trying to get across in your third sentence.
They have also cheered insanity madness bedlam & non stop perpetual & obvious lying for 4 years. Which is not new, entirely, but so so vain & thin & loud this time around.
I see none of the values of progressives as oppressive nor do I see them being forced on people.
That said - please don’t. I’m in a “red state” and I like it here very much. I moved back here because of the culture, and I find openly proposing a collective attempt to dilute and suppress that for political reasons to be odious at best.
> Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it.
Wow!
My 2c: if blue staters move to red states, it is very likely that they will turn red before they turn the state blue. Why? Those who can be convinced to move can be easily manipulated to act. Basic psychology. And are likely ‘followers’ rather than ‘leaders’.
But that’s just my theory. Will wait and watch to see how this plays out.
By all accounts blue states are doing just fine: https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/521875-democrat-run-citi...
Red states seem better at addressing homelessness, but that's about it:
https://appliedsentience.com/2020/07/30/economics-are-red-or...
I'm visiting the parents now & I think about how it used to be a competition to see who had left the least, who had ever gone the least distance from home. proud proud foolishness, this desire to experience little, a certitude that yours was the right & only way, utter closedness. repulsive vile & toxic behaviors, from people either concerned & blustering or deliberately ignorant, infatuated with their local world alone. everyone socially goading each other into fanaticism.
talking with the people of my contemproary urban world, there's a recognition that our values, our beliefs, carry no weight in this twisted electoral system, set up centuries ago. we have to become a democracy again, have to have some way to affect the governance of our nation, which we do not have, thanks to these electoral systems that favor the un-urban so heavily, that give them such voices. we think & muse about the travelling bands, the tribes of the willing hopeful better-making positive techies & others, that we can find ways to bring the connections we value in to a polticially active force, to try to deliberately rebalance, but it's so far off, so hard to actually imagine it happening. we need more suggestion, more dreamers, more material talking about, laying out this path. we hope. we are so tired of america being under the seat of these tribalistic demagogues, radicalized under some false spectre of socialism & general FUD, & we want some damned ability to progress this stuck nation. if we must spread out to spread our dreams, perhaps that is what we must do.