2022 Midterm Election MEGATHREAD

[Habbaku]

Yes, you guys have done an excellent job of describing humans.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Libertarians, just like evangelicals, are far less principled than they were given credit for.  A lot of them hate the government because it protects the people against non-government coercion that they favor.

My impression of modern day libertarians is that their ideology is constructed mostly on a combination of "I'm against any rules applied to me, I should be able to do what I want" and "I'll embrace any philosophical sounding rationale for having zero empathy for others", while still getting indignant about things that are inconvenient or harmful to themselves.

We call that "Yi doctrine" where you will always oppose government interventions that at all try to restrain private bad actors but get indignant if society in any way uses its own freedom to criticize you.

[crazy canuck]

Yes, you guys have done an excellent job of describing humans.

Humans are all asshole libertarians with a side of non principled evangelical? 

[Jacob]

Good description, fits my view. But that's actually a broad social trend, not just people that subscribe to libertarian movements.

Three trends:

1) Want to ignore rules applied to themselves.
2) Want excuse for having zero empathy to others.
3) Reserve the right to be indignant at personal inconvenience.

I think 3) is probably a universal human constant - with exceptions here and there. As such I doubt it's on the rise.

1) could probably be argued to be pretty universal also, but personally I disagree. I think people - broadly speaking - are pretty good at following rules they buy into. There's of course always tension between people who want to construct rules - and are okay with following them because they think they're fair and reasonable - and people who believe "rules should constrain others and protect me." I could buy an argument that the "rules are tools of power" side of things are growing stronger than the "rules are tools of justice" perspective beyond the general growth of Libertarianism and their fellow travellers, but I'm curious what you see as the evidence.

As for a general widespread trend to look for excuses to show no empathy, again I'm curious where else you're seeing strong evidence of this?

[The Minsky Moment]

I think Trump is important as marking a new bipartisan consensus that emerges after 2016 that the US is in real competition with China. So free trade gets entangled into national security, plus emerging industrial interests in the US.

There is such a consensus but its existence obscures where the political tea leaves stand on trade qua trade. Outside of the PRC, there doesn't seems to be much movement on trade restriction.  In fact, Trump himself endorsed the continuation of NAFTA - a traditional bete noire of the trade warriors - once the name was changed and some cosmetic amendments added. 

[Sheilbh]

Libertarians, just like evangelicals, are far less principled than they were given credit for.  A lot of them hate the government because it protects the people against non-government coercion that they favor.

I think it depends who you mean by libertarians and what their agenda was.

If it's the libertarians who booed Gary Johnson because he thought driving licenses were a good idea, I think they're fairly principled. I think Cato has been more principled than most right think tanks in the US.

As with evangelicals for a lot of GOP-aligned libertarians (especially big donor level people), I think they're probably closer to achieving their goal than ever because of the judges who've been appointed. There is, I expect, going to be a torching of the administrative and regulatory state which is what those people wanted - just like the evangelicals wanted Roe v Wade overturned. It may not be principled but I think it's lining up to deliver their policy agenda.

Although with libertarians in the GOP I think the point you have to query their principles is at least if not far more W Bush's administration than Trump's.

There is such a consensus but its existence obscures where the political tea leaves stand on trade qua trade. Outside of the PRC, there doesn't seems to be much movement on trade restriction.  In fact, Trump himself endorsed the continuation of NAFTA - a traditional bete noire of the trade warriors - once the name was changed and some cosmetic amendments added. 

Yeah - I think the bigger shift in terms of trade is the IRA and the expansion of what the US considers core, strategic, national security industries. I think that is directly linked to the consensus on China but equally impacts American partners such as the EU and basically anyone else even if the primary intended target was China.

It's not necessarily trade restriction, it's just massively tilting the playing field (but I think it's the right policy for the world on climate and for the US on nation security so....).

[Jacob]

Yes, you guys have done an excellent job of describing humans.

Not really. The need for a philosophical-rational reason to have zero empathy for others is not universally human. Many folks embrace empathy, and others aportion out empathy based on other reasons.

"His suffering is not my problem because freedom" is a uniquely (right-)Libertarian position. Left-libertarianism has a lot about social responsibility and mutual aid and so on, but that's not what folks mean in this day and age when they say "libertarian".

Similarly, the desire to have philosophical "rational" reason to avoid rules applying to you is far from universal. Plenty of people are okay with following rules for the common good and social cohesion. Plenty more are pretty okay with ignoring rules, but acknowledge that it is wrong or make relativist excuses ("in this case it's okay to break the rule because of some overriding reason"). The thing that is uniquely (right-)Libertarian IMO is the position that rules themselves (especially inconvenient ones) are immoral because they interfere with "freedom".

"Growing indignant at personal inconvenience" is pretty universal to humans, I'll grant you (and probably to all living things capable of feeling indignant). The reason it is worth noting for (right-)Libertarians is that their commitment to zero empathy and hostility to the idea of rules leaves them only with either "if you have enough money and power to do something about it good for you; otherwise sucks to be you" (the argument if they have the money/ power) and complete incoherence in support of their grievances (if they don't have the money/ power).

[Sheilbh]

Can someone explain why McCarthy isn't stepping aside? Is it just that they've not found an alternative candidate who has the votes?

[Valmy]

Ok I thought the Republicans would go home last night and work something out for today. It appears I was wrong and nothing has changed. Except now the Republican vaguely rebellious types are voting for somebody named "Donalds". I have no idea who that is.

So who knows how long this pointless charade will go on?

[Valmy]

Can someone explain why McCarthy isn't stepping aside? Is it just that they've not found an alternative candidate who has the votes?

No idea. As I said I figured the Republicans would hammer something out overnight but nope.

[Barrister]

Can someone explain why McCarthy isn't stepping aside? Is it just that they've not found an alternative candidate who has the votes?

No idea. As I said I figured the Republicans would hammer something out overnight but nope.

As far as I can tell McCarthy has already made so many concessions to the Freedom Caucus types no other candidate is willing to go even further.  Either that or the GOP moderates aren't willing to let the Freedom Caucus call the shots here.

[Caliga]

Are these recalcitrant assholes going to lose all of their committee assignments?  That's what has happened in the past to party members who won't cooperate in this case.

[Admiral Yi]

Does Congress cease functioning while we wait for a Speaker?

[Valmy]

Does Congress cease functioning while we wait for a Speaker?

That is my understanding.

[Barrister]

Does Congress cease functioning while we wait for a Speaker?

Yes.  As I understand it none of the members can even be sworn in without a speaker.