Tuesday November 8, 2022 is Election Day in the United States of America. In addition to Congressional "midterms" at the federal level, many state governors and other more local offices are up for grabs. Given how things shook out over Election Day 2020, things could get a little crazy.
...or, perhaps, not! But here's the Megathread for if they do. Talk about your local concerns, your national predictions, your suspicions re: election fraud and interference, how you plan to vote, anything election related is welcome here. Culture War thread rules apply, with the addition of Small-Scale Questions and election-related "Bare Links" allowed in this thread only (unfortunately, there will not be a subthread repository due to current technical limitations).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
So looks like I can review my prior thoughts on the PA statewide campaigns. Oz and Mastriano represented the two faces of Trump: celebrity crypto-moderate and blood-red culture warrior.
Most of the results are in, and it looks like both lost pretty conclusively. I would frame that as a pretty conclusive rejection of Trumpism, lock stock and barrel. It's really tough for me, as a local Republican, to look at this and not think that McCormick would have taken this election walking away if he hadn't run against his own best attributes; and Bill McSwain probably puts up a stronger fight for Governor with policies that are sane instead of policies like Abolish Public Schools with No Plan to Replace Them. There was a Red Wave coming in to shore, but PA republican primary voters chose candidates who couldn't swim. We could have kept Toomey's seat, and chose not to; and at least avoided a gubernatorial candidate that was a massive anchor dragging everyone else down. This will probably cost the Rs a SCOTUS seat, and possibly more. The stink of Oz and Mastriano might waft on through 2024 if they aren't shuffled off stage fast enough.
It's possible to frame this as a relative "win" for the Oz wing of Trumpism, on the theory that Doug got blown the fuck out while Oz lost narrowly; Fetterman should be sending Mastriano flowers and taking him out to dinner for saving Fetterman's ass by encouraging D turnout. But the difference is more likely to be explained by differences in the quality of their opponents. Shapiro was popular, well known, moderate and ran a tight campaign. Fetterman was doing pretty well, right up until he went from looking like Gritty to sounding like Gritty, and he was always a more radical left wing candidate at a time of high inflation. That Oz couldn't beat out a stroke victim with a spending plan that makes Bernie look like Grover Norquist is a pretty conclusive nail in the Trumpian crypto-moderate coffin.
Given that PA is likely to remain a critical swing state in 2024, Republicans should be looking at this result when picking a presidential candidate and honing a strategy. Arguably Trump is already triangulating against the culture war end of the party, labeling his likely opponent "Ron DeSanctimonious." Desantis should note this as well, and aim to moderate on the culture war front in favor of competence and general good governance principles. And the Rs should strongly consider running a true moderate candidate, an R governor from a blue state, like Hogan or Phil Scott; if they feel Desantis already poisoned the well with his goofy-ass Disney fight and such.
I feel like this reflects a failure to grasp the best of what DeSantis represents. Now, the Martha's Vineyard thing was, I think, a mistake, most especially since the immigrants involved didn't even leave from Florida. But Disney came out swinging against DeSantis. It wasn't his "goofy-ass...fight," it was Disney's goofy-ass fight. DeSantis' only real choice there was to remind them that they are a corporation and tell them to get back in their lane. Anything else would have resulted in DeSantis looking like a bootlicker who caves to Woke Corporatism the moment his moneyed masters yank on the chain.
Disney owns (and tyrannically enforces) a lot of beloved IP, so there will always be some people who think "Disney hates DeSantis, so I hate DeSantis." But politically speaking, "there are consequences to getting politically involved" was exactly the right message to send to businesses in this case. As they say--if you're going to take a shot at the king, don't miss. Disney sticking its corporate neck out to object to a bill forbidding schools from exposing young children to sexually explicit pedagogy was a horrible, horrible choice. They missed their shot, and DeSantis had exactly the correct response: punish defectors.
Indeed, while the opening scenarios were not directly equivalent, by standing his ground and "punching-back" Desantis passed the test that Cruz failed back in 2016.
More options
Context Copy link
If the Democrats would have responded in a sane fashion, simply housed the migrants for a while, and kept largely quiet about it rather than openly screaming about it being a humanitarian crisis (50 people, I remind you) then yeah. But that's not what happened.
It's just possible that Desantis has a better grasp of the tactical situation on the ground than you think.
https://www.yahoo.com/video/floridas-hispanic-voters-back-desantis-120000204.html
More options
Context Copy link
My problem is that it still hasn't been demonstrated to me that the action abolishing Disney's local control benefits the taxpayers of Florida, rather than harming both Disney and Florida. Lose-lose governance by deterrence does not appeal to me. Sanctity of contract is also highly important to me, but I'm not sure that carries broadly beyond business-Rs. I'm open to evidence that it's good, but I haven't seen it.
I think you're ignoring the "ignore it" option. DeSantis could have just said "You stick to cartoons, I'll run the state" and decried Disney's intrusion into politics, without wading into the muck with them. If you're wealthy, you probably own shares in many "woke corporations" and you don't want to get punished for what management does.
You notice how no other big corporations in Florida have decided to make any sort of major fuss about Florida's legislative actions, yes?
Do you follow the logic of "punch the biggest guy in the prisonyard so the rest of them leave you alone?"
Because Disney is one of, if not the biggest of several big dudes in the yard, and cowing them probably saved Desantis much hassle and political capital down the line.
No, no I don't. Many did more than Disney, most did about the same. The only difference was that DeSantis didn't have a big, shiny, public spectacle of a stick to bash Starbucks or Lululemon with; it just wouldn't have the same impact to deny a new Starbucks zoning approval or confiscate a Lululemon parking lot or whatever.
That you think that Disney was the only corporation that opposed it publicly is the result of the media spotlight, primarily created by DeSantis' actions against RCID.
Name a single instance of a corporation in in Florida publicly opposing a Desantis measure after the passage of the bill to dissolve the RCID.
This is silly since you ostensibly know that your posted story is from March, and the bill was signed on April 22nd.
https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/florida-gov-ron-desantis-signs-bill-to-eliminate-reedy-creek-improvement-district
Has there been any Florida Corporations speaking out against Desantis since April 2022?
Did Desantis pass another parental rights in education bill after April? If so I apologize, I wasn't aware of it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It benefits the people of Florida by ensuring that the people calling the shots are the politically accountable people, rather than (Californian!) corporations. There may or may not be a pricetag in dollars that will ultimately fall to Florida (I wouldn't even be surprised to see DeSantis backpedal on this under the right circumstances) but the political benefit seems obvious and arguably priceless. (For a much bigger example of this, see Brexit. The economic cost has been substantial, probably, but Brexit did accomplish exactly what it was supposed to: it liberated the UK from being a vassal state of Brussels.)
Same--but win-lose governance where leftists demand every W and conservatives are expected to eat every L appeals to me far, far less.
Right--then he's all talk, no action. Pass.
Then you should appreciate Ron DeSantis reminding management to stay in their lane, so as to avoid pointless confrontations with government actors. Woke Corporatism is a plague on politics, but it's not going to go away until it negatively impacts enough people's bottom line, so I think it is good to impose costs on corporations that seek to extract private profits by polluting the political commons. Of course, I say that as someone who misses the anti-corporatism of the late conservative Chief Justice Rehnquist. Presumably more pro-corporate conservatives will have a different view.
Inflammatory claim that needs some evidence surely? If you want to say it's supporters made that claim, then that is fine. But let's not assume facts not in evidence without at least substantiating your claim. The UK government was far from a vassal in my opinion. And I worked there!
What sort of evidence would you accept?
Forcing local cheesemongers only selling their cheese locally to use metric weights and sending trading standards after the non-compliant or is that only cheese vassalage?
Well we got input into what the rules were through a legal process, which the UK government freely entered into (and was able to leave), so if the UK was an EU vassal then every voter is a vassal of their own government at which point it's usage is so broad as to be worthless.
Indeed arguably internal political subdivisions like counties and states are more akin to vassals than the UK-EU relationship ever was, but people don't typically say that Staffordshire is the vassal of the UK government because it doesn't make a lot of sense in a modern context. It's a political and rhetorical stratagem. A good one admittedly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Guess I'm just not sufficiently plugged in to European politics to understand why this would be "inflammatory." In this context, "vassal" just means--
As a part of the EU, the UK was legally subordinate to decisions made in Brussels (the administrative center of the EU), so I was just describing the literal state of the law pre-Brexit. When you say "The UK government was far from a vassal" are you asserting something like, "the UK did get to participate in the decision-making process, and therefore was not a vassal" maybe? If so, I don't really buy that; the UK was not EU occupied territory (modulo, perhaps, some worries over immigration) and the UK was not an EU colony (see previous qualifier), but I don't think it's inaccurate to say that the people of the UK ultimately chafed at being in a legally subordinate position to Brussels.
But perhaps I have simply failed to understand something about your objection.
Correct. Otherwise every voter is a vassal of the government no? Which I don't think is something most people would accept (Libertarians as always excluded.). In any case the vassal framing was used by one particular side, so if you want to claim it is unconditionally correct, in an aside it probably requires more explanation.
Just like groomer, or Nazi, vassal has a set of emotional connotations which is why it is used by one side as an attack. It is a good political attack don't get me wrong. I certainly endorsed its use in that context (I may be a Remainer but I was being paid by (some of) the Tories at the time) but it isn't neutral, let alone indisputably accurate.
Indeed--every voter is a vassal of the government.
I don't want to say this without couching it very carefully, because it's pretty antagonistic standing on its own in ways I don't want to convey, but my initial reaction to this parenthetical was "well a hearty 'fuck you' to you, too"--followed by some indication that I say it with a smile. I'm not offended, genuinely. But if you think in terms of "libertarians as always excluded" then it's no wonder at all that you failed to take my meaning in the first place. If you think in terms of "libertarians as always excluded," then you have a very slim chance of genuinely understanding anything I write, ever. The community even has a rule about this, come to think of it...
I didn't know this, but it doesn't surprise me. Except that in this case I would say that the side that refused to use this framing was the side engaging in disingenuous rhetoric. It's literally true, and not in a weird edge-case way; every member state of the EU is a vassal of the central organization. Watching the EU force economic medicine on Greece is exceedingly strong evidence that this is so. Saying "but the Greeks participate in the decision-making process" is classic rhetorical bullshit. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. Doubtless many vassal states in empires across the ages got to "participate in the decision-making process" before they were ultimately given marching orders disregarding their contribution to the conversation.
It may not be neutral, and I accept your contextual explanation in that regard. But it does seem indisputably accurate, once you stop excluding libertarians (as, I would contend, you should). So I feel comfortable continuing to call groomers "groomers," Nazis "Nazis," and vassals "vassals," until such time as I have clearer words for the concomitant groups, behaviors, and/or phenomena.
Just because I missed this earlier. The people you call groomers would not call themselves that, the people the left call Nazis would generally not call themselves that etc.
If I definitively called Trump a Nazi in passing I would expect to be moderated HERE, because Trump does not regard himself as a Nazi. I could if I laid out supporting evidence and argument for why Trump is a Nazi perhaps. Your vassals comment didn't lay out why you believe that was a relevant term, you just dropped it in as if it were a given.
Consider:
The social cost has been substantial, probably, but 2020 did accomplish exactly what it was supposed to: it liberated the USA from being a Nazi state under Donald Trump.)
I am smuggling in controversial arguments there without support 1) That the USA needed to be liberated and 2) That Donald Trump is a Nazi. There are people who actually hold that opinion, but I don't think they should be able to say that in that way here, without getting some pushback.
More options
Context Copy link
Ahh perhaps I was not clear in my meaning here! Mea Culpa if so! I have a hearty level of respect for Libertarians. Most of the truly principled people and even politicians(!) I know are Libertarian or sway that way. But there are in my experience just not that many of you. If most people were Libertarian then I think your point would stand and maybe the world would be better for it. But that world is not as far as I can tell, this one. I exclude Libertarians not because you are wrong or because you don't count but because it is I think a given that a Libertarian would hold that opinion for basically any modern Western polity, so including them in the rebuttal is unnecessary. I really am very sorry if I did not communicate that well.
Having said that, I accept that Libertarians (often? always? mostly?) see themselves as unwilling vassals of our current governments and if that is your view then that makes sense. However there is one difference between you and the UK. The UK government opted itself to join the EU, whereas none of us have a choice as to which polity we are born into and thus bound by. The UK was not a vassal of the EU it was a willing member which traded some responsibilities for some benefits.
If you want to make the Libertarian point that the British people are vassals of their own government and THEREFORE were also vassals of the EU, because the UK government did not have the right to make that trade for them, then that makes sense from a Libertarian perspective. But it is a different thing than the UK as an entity itself being a vassal of the EU and not something that most non-Libertarians are going to agree with. Most people tend to agree that their elected government can take them into and out of various treaties as far as I can tell.
I am not being disingenuous when I say that I certainly did not view the UK as being a vassal of the EU. If for no other reason, that in my view, we were one of the wolves in this scenario, not one of the sheep. (For clarity the wolves would have been France, Germany, the UK and in name but little else, Italy). If you wanted to argue that Greece was a vassal state I think you might be close to being accurate even in my world view.
Sorry again for not being clear about my views on Libertarians and how it pertained here.
More options
Context Copy link
Kind of, yes. And from a libertarian-ish perspective, I think that’s a very good pro-remain argument. Brexit just changes where the asshole that decides your life sits, london or brussels. Is the cheese standardization he will inevitably impose on you, going to be in metric or imperial ? Those are the kind of monumental policy changes that hang in the balance here, justifying all this circus. Who gives a shit? Brexit, and all separatist movements, are a giant waste of time and political energy. Convincing common people to find honor and pride in being ruled by the near idiot instead of the far idiot.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Where is the “breaking of a contract” angle?
Guessing something about changing self governance but Disney is a political entity in this case and insubordination by a political appointee is grounds for firing.
I want to note that I'm against things like RCID before they happen, I've opposed them locally and will continue to. But breaking the deal after it happens is another thing entirely. A bargain was made, if the government won't stand behind it then investment can't be done on solid ground.
The basics of these kind of deals are that a corporation lobbies the state for special treatment, which will enable the corporation to invest serious money in the community in a profitable way. Disney held up their end of the bargain, modern Orlando exists because of Disney world. Disney brings in billions in tourist dollars every year, habituates the entire East coast to vacationing in Florida, it's the crown jewel of Florida's tourist industry. And it's immovable, Disney cannot remove its investment at this stage.
I can't really parse the "Disney is a political appointee" thing. Is your theory that one loses the right to speak after accepting economic benefits from the government, else those deals may be revoked? That would vastly impact property developers across the country. And also make RCID type deals even more dystopian, with governments blatantly handing out favors to those who will back them and revoking them if they don't stick by the government line. That is not a box we want to open.
No they are literally a government entity in Florida. And as such have been insubordinate. While I agree that deals should be kept - Disney seems to be the party that broke the deal by meddling in Florida politics not related to their business. At which point their just insubordinate.
This is as if Desantis fired a political appointee who worked against him. A football coach firing his Offensive Coordinator for not doing his job.
More options
Context Copy link
The problem is that if you argue that governments are NOT allowed to rescind these special districts, even through proper legislative action, for virtually any reason whatsoever, you're forced to accept that these corporations have some legal entitlement to said districts.
Which is also to cede the state's authority over political entities created by said state.
Which is just silly.
Not really, any more than signing a contract ever limits your rights. Saying that a sovereign state can't sign a contract limiting its own sovereignty gets too into "Could an omnipotent God create weed so dank he could not smoke it?" territory for me; but suffice it to say that whatever the proper procedure for unwinding an RCID type special district is, it isn't by legislative fiat motivated by momentary political spats.
The powers in question are based in the Florida Constitution.
If the Constitution doesn't limit the Government from dissolving the districts, what contract, specifically, would do so?
Who, specifically, is authorized to set that procedure, do you think?
I'll do half the work for you. Here's the actual body of law involved:
https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2015/Chapter189
More options
Context Copy link
There's a general principle that a legislature cannot bind a future legislature. Otherwise, any time a party got control of a legislature, it would pass as many laws as possible that limit the scope of action of future legislatures. As such, voiding a contract made by a previous legislature would require compensation as per the Takings Clause, but is a wholly permissible use of legislative power.
Is that happening here and I missed it? I'm not as familiar with the current state of play as I should be given how much shit I'm talking in this thread. Genuinely, I'm not saying that the RCID can never be revoked, or even that it oughtn't to be, merely that my understanding is that it is not a "win" for Florida at the end of the day, it is likely to end up costing Florida money to no obvious benefit.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not opposed to things like RCIDs as a general principle and support some actual ones; government can create significant benefits by setting them up. But if you think they are on net bad, isn't it good when a government creates substantial uncertainty for future ones and makes them much less enticing? There will now be fewer of them than there otherwise would have been.
Loyalty and paying one's debts are higher on my list of virtues than the principle that the government should not interfere in private markets. I'd place it higher than almost all other virtues. One stands by a deal, even a bad deal, even one in which one was tricked. Jacob served Laban, even though he was tricked into marrying the wrong daughter to double his time; Yudhishthira and the rest of the Pandavas stay in exile for 12 years despite the dice game being crooked. From Plutarch, quoting others:
The fact that I dislike RCID type deals doesn't excuse a government failing to stand by its predecessors statements. A government that doesn't stand by its deals makes business impossible, you can be most of the way through a huge project only to be told your approvals are revoked. The worst recent example being how the Keystone XL pipeline was jerked around for years by multiple administrations.
"This pipeline, created under these conditions, is environmentally safe" is a factual determination. It is or it isn't. Of course, governments routinely fudge this and make "factual" decisions that are really political. But just because the government does that, I wouldn't give the government the same slack that I'd give them on decisions that are supposed to be political in the first place.
So I see no contradiction in saying that it's okay to take back deals like Disney's (if process is followed), yet it's not okay to take back a pipeline approval. The pipeline approval wasn't political, it's a factual thing that doesn't change. If you made it political anyway, well, tough luck, you weren't supposed to, so you don't get the benefit of being political.
A special economic district is created under equally factual determinations: that bending these laws will produce more benefit (in investment and jobs and economic development) than it will cost in bent laws. Its no different from a zoning approval, or an environmental approval, just bigger and moreso. It's no more political than the Keystone XL decision.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I’m not sure I classify as wealthy but I’m not bad off. It pains me that there is a P-A problem when it comes to politics and big corporations. I think we might start seeing anti-ESG funds to try to control the P-A problem. Those funds will be successful if my thesis (ie the woke stuff is bad for the bottom line) is correct.
I do wonder if Delaware should revisit ultra vires rules. At a certain point, taking a position on K-3 education is so outside Disney’s core business it is absurd. Of course, anyone will make the argument “good PR helps bottom line” but I don’t think people truly believe that in egregious areas — especially where the PR is likely harmful.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link