site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   29304 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

California has a likely new Senator, and her background is a doozy if you're someone as cynical as I am about political figures. With Diane Feinstein having died, Gavin Newsome can now select anyone he'd like, and had promised that the position would be selected from a strict affirmative action pool of black women. He apparently failed to find anyone that actually lives in California that fits the bill, so he has instead selected Maryland resident Laphonza Butler for the position. What, you might ask, are her exquisite qualifications that would make her the top candidate for such an important position? Wiki's summary suffices:

Butler began her career as a union organizer for nurses in Baltimore and Milwaukee, janitors in Philadelphia, and hospital workers in New Haven, Connecticut. In 2009, she moved to California, organizing in-home caregivers and nurses, and served as president of SEIU United Long Term Care Workers, SEIU Local 2015.[4][5][6]

Butler was elected president of the California SEIU State Council in 2013. She undertook efforts to boost California's minimum wage and raise income taxes on the wealthiest Californians.[4] As president of SEIU Local 2015, Butler endorsed Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary.[7]

In 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown appointed Butler to a 12-year term as a regent of the University of California.[6] She resigned from her role as regent in 2021.[8]

Butler joined SCRB Strategies as a partner in 2018. At SCRB, she played a central role in Kamala Harris's 2020 presidential campaign. Butler also advised Uber in its dealings with organized labor while at SCRB.[9] She was known as a political ally of Harris since her first run for California Attorney General in 2010, when she helped Harris negotiate a shared SEIU endorsement in the race.[4][10]

Butler left SCRB in 2020 to join Airbnb as director of public policy and campaigns in North America.[11][5]

Butler was named the third president of EMILY's List in 2021. She was the first Black woman and mother to lead the organization.[12][4]

What exactly is EMILY's List?

EMILY's List is an American political action committee (PAC) that aims to help elect Democratic female candidates in favor of abortion rights to office. It was founded by Ellen Malcolm in 1985.[4] The group's name is an acronym for "Early Money Is Like Yeast". Malcolm commented that "it makes the dough rise".[4] The saying refers to a convention of political fundraising: receiving many donations early in a race helps attract subsequent donors. EMILY's List bundles contributions to the campaigns of Democratic women in favor of abortion rights running in targeted races.[5][6]

From 1985 through 2008, EMILY's List raised $240 million for political candidates.[1] EMILY's List spent $27.4 million in 2010, $34 million in 2012, and $44.9 million in 2014.[3] The organization was on track to raise $60 million for the 2016 election cycle, much of it earmarked for Hillary Clinton, whose presidential bid EMILY's List had endorsed.[7]

Chalk up a win for patronage models of politics! This is someone whose entire career is built on raising money for politicians, culminating in heading a powerful PAC that is more explicitly built around money, money, money even in their very naming than any other PAC I've seen. Obviously, anyone paying attention knows that PACs are always about raising money and that's their express purpose, but I don't think I've seen one literally just make their name an acronym for the patronage enthusiasm. Big donors give money to politicians and get what they want and the organizer for acquiring that wealth is awarded with a seat in the Senate. In all, I see three things of note that are often the subtext of various choices and decisions, but I rarely see so blatantly:

  • The appointment will be explicitly about race and gender. If you're anything other than a Black Woman, you need not apply.

  • The Democrat party apparatus does not care in the slightest whether this person represents California, states are a stupid anachronism anyway.

  • The appointment will go to someone that has demonstrated loyalty and usefulness in assisting with the funneling of hundreds of millions of dollars to preferred sources.

On the one hand, it's all rather offensive, but on the other hand, I can think of no better Senator from California than a transient grifter that makes her living off of identity politics.

6% of California's population is black. There are far more Asians and there is simply very little political representation for them. Asians are also a much wealthier bloc. It's actually quite impressive how overrepresented blacks are in California politics (LA Mayor and SF Mayor are both black women) given their lower demographic weight and generally speaking lower socio-economic success, which clearly doesn't impede their political influence.

One wonders if this is solely due to their own talents or if white liberals like Newsom is simply more comfortable with parachuted-in black women than he would be with a high-achieving Asian with roots in the state. So to me this is less about blacks than about relative Asian disempowerment in what is arguably their strongest state outside of Hawaii, coupled with a question if black overrepresentation is perhaps at least partly driven by white liberal preferences for that demographic over Asians.

I suspect many white liberals also support affirmative action because they don't want their kids to be outcompeted by Asian grinds at school and thus prefer lower-scoring blacks and Hispanics to create a more "balanced" milieu. Perhaps this is driven by a similar cultural impulse. This is of course all speculation, but I don't think we can disentangle white liberal preferences when things like this keep happening.

She's the mirror image of an ideal Republican candidate. Imagine 'Wayne Johnson' from Appalachia, graduate of UWV, who worked his way up at Koch Industries in Texas. Having done a decade of group organizing for gun rights, Johnson was elected President of a major Republican PAC in Nebraska, and is now being appointed as interim Senator from Texas. Makes sense.

Butler is 45, from a poor Mississippi town of 1,800 residents (currently). She graduated college and worked he way up to a solid position at AirBNB, having long taken leadership positions in union organizing, and is now President of a major PAC.

The only cynical thing I see is that skin color was mandatory for the latter candidate.

For reasons of entertainment, I'm hoping the next elected Senator from California is Meghan Markle. She has identity points, name recognition, and charisma. It would be funny if she ends up with more real power than the British royal family has.

I hope Meghan Markle runs. She would lose so badly that the resulting humiliation would solve a problem for the Royal Family.

and charisma

This is where it falls down. She really...doesn't. It's pretty telling she has nothing going now, despite being feted by a lot of the famous black elite originally.

Seducing a famously dim and insecure prince isn't a generalizable skill apparently.

My new crackpot theory is that the Palace PR played a blinder here, and it came back to bite them: they made lemonade and got everyone to act like a second-rank name on a third-rate show was Grace Kelly and, unfortunately for them, it stuck.

This pick makes sense. She’s spent her entire career in the Democrats’ political machine in some way or other, so she’s a team player who knows how the sausage gets made. She’s a black lesbian, so intersectionality points. She’s an abortion activist, so her pet issue is one she’ll have a hard time derailing the government over. And she’s a political nonentity who’s probably unelectable on her own, so when she loses in ‘24 she’ll go back to working in the political machine while owing Newsome a favor.

The residency stuff seems almost designed to distract. It's very salient, easy to argue about, but ultimately not as substantial as other criticisms.

If I had two candidates before me, equal in all ways except one has this controversy attached, I'd probably pick the one with the extra controversy. Better that the public debate is about state lines than about my commitment to choose a person of specific race and gender, or about the candidate's meager qualifications.

First, I am going to be very interested to hear why the mods are not telling you "move this to the Sunday question thread".

Second, if she's living and working in California, why is she still registered to vote in Maryland? Family home is back there? Legal address? Tax reasons?

  • -14

This post is fine, and if your post had put in half this effort it would have been fine too.

I don't have a question, I don't think it's small-scale, I included information that many people wouldn't be likely to know, and I think I articulated a position. Maybe you think it's a stupid position, or so thin that it isn't worth discussing, but I have no idea how it would be a better fit for the Sunday thread.

It's the whole "we don't moderate on length" bit that is chafing me. You basically are asking questions along the same line I was, but you phrased them at greater length. So why aren't you told "go to the Sunday questions thread, this isn't culture war material"?

I'm a little annoyed, but not hugely; at least you're raising questions that are provoking discussion that is giving me the kind of information I wanted in the first place. I'm stubborn enough to not let this go, however, even if it ends up hurting me. Because it honestly does seem, despite protests to the contrary, "stick in enough padding and it's okay".

The extra parts aren't padding, they're a functional element of a good post.

  • Facts provide background which helps outsiders (like me, on this topic) understand what is happening and why it is important.
  • Commentary is the meat of a comment thread, as we are here for discussion. Commentary in a top level comment provides a kickstart to the discussion and focuses it in one direction.
  • Questions are a poor-man's replacement for facts, and the "focus" half of commentary.

Comparing the two posts, I see:

Your post:

  • Facts:
    • Dianne Feinstein's death
  • Commentary:
    • N/A (implicit only)
  • Questions:
    • How do civics work?
    • What will they decide?
    • etc?

This one:

  • Facts:
    • Diane Feinstein having died
    • Gavin Newsome can now select anyone he'd like
    • promised...black women.
    • Maryland resident Laphonza Butler
    • qualifications (quoted/linked)
  • Commentary
    • win for patronage
    • rarely see so blatantly
    • all rather offensive
    • transient grifter
  • Questions:
    • N/A (implicit only)

They aren't similar at all by my framework.

I'm a little annoyed, but not hugely; at least you're raising questions that are provoking discussion that is giving me the kind of information I wanted in the first place. I'm stubborn enough to not let this go, however, even if it ends up hurting me. Because it honestly does seem, despite protests to the contrary, "stick in enough padding and it's okay".

I don't think the mods have disagreed with this. The idea is that the padding is a decent enough proxy for quality that it stands. I don't have an issue with it at all.

I like your contributions despite normally disagreeing, but I think you're off-base here and being (perhaps unintentionally) rude to OP.

The OP provided helpful background information, stated and backed up his position, and provides a good jumping off point for further discussion.

Doing this adds length to the post, yes. But adding an engine to a car and adding a steel block is materially different despite them both increasing the weight.

Just as an FYI, I'm not familiar with the moderation history you're irritated with, which is why my answer above is very literal rather than addressing any comparison. For what it's worth, I didn't wake up this morning and think I was replicating something with padding. I saw the story, thought, "wow, that's absurd, California politics are even more corrupt than I'd expect" and wrote accordingly.

Why would this get moved to Sunday questions?

Because it's not Culture War, or that's what I was told about asking who was likely to succeed Feinstein.

Because it's not Culture War

It is rife with culture war topics.

The mod note was: Low effort top level post. This is against the rules. I strongly doubt that you don't know this. 1 day ban.

So it wasn't because it was not Culture War, but because it was low effort surely?

Where were you told this?

We had a confusing back and forth conversation in my inbox. I dislike having conversations there unless someone provides a lot of context. But I'd just banned them, so its not like they could have the conversation publicly on the relevant post.

His post wasn't banned for culture war reasons, but it certainly fits as a culture war topic. I told them that the public mod note is why they were banned, which is what SSCReader repeated above:

The mod note was: Low effort top level post. This is against the rules. I strongly doubt that you don't know this. 1 day ban.

I was just being polite, tbh. I saw the conversation, but wanted to confirm he wasn't referring to some possible post I missed. I totally supported what you said back there.

No worries, I saw this and just wanted to clear up the confusion that could happen if only parts of our conversation are relayed.

Perhaps someone more versed in the subject can chime in, but my understanding is the U.S. Constitution dictates that senators must be a resident of the state they represent. In California that means being present in the state for 366 days before filing for residency. Is there any likelihood of this being challenged? Has something like this happened before?

She's had a string of jobs in Cali for the last decade, but twitter says she either posted from Maryland, or her bio says Maryland (I don't use twitter). Weighing that evidence, I'd bet she's a California resident.

Edit: actually on her wiki page it says.

They moved to Silver Spring, Maryland in 2021 when she assumed the presidency of EMILY's List.[17][18] Governor Newsom's office stated Butler would reregister to vote in California before taking office as a senator

The actual language is

"No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen."

The language of the Seventeenth Amendment provides for replacements:

"When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."

So it appears there is no constitutional requirement for an unelected replacement Senator to be an inhabitant of the state they represent.

Even if we interpret this as a Constitutional requirement that an appointed Senator be a resident of the state, it would be trivial to work around. Newsom could have had her move yesterday and appointed her today.

That said, this was almost certainly a drafting oversight, and Newsom is acting contrary to the spirit of the law. Seriously, there are a million black women in California. How hard could it have been to find one who would reliably vote with party leadership? Why not just pretend to care about the Constitution, when the stakes are so low?

Why not just pretend to care about the Constitution, when the stakes are so low?

I stand by my commentary above, that "[t]he Democrat party apparatus does not care in the slightest whether this person represents California, states are a stupid anachronism anyway". While I think GDanning credibly disputes my framing of whether she represents California here I think the punchline is that it doesn't really matter, that if they needed to reward a good soldier in Maryland, they'd reward her there, and if they instead got the opportunity to do it in California, that's fine too. The point is the national politics, not something that got written down a couple centuries ago; after all, they couldn't even fly then, so what did they know about how what it actually means to represent a state?

So it appears there is no constitutional requirement for an unelected replacement Senator to be an inhabitant of the state they represent.

Wasn't there an understanding about US VP that must cover all the eligibility criteria for president even if it is not explicitly stated in the constitution?

Wasn't there an understanding about US VP that must cover all the eligibility criteria for president even if it is not explicitly stated in the constitution?

It is explicitly stated in the Constitution. From the Twelfth Amendment: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

I am skeptical that the Seventeenth Amendment permits the appointment of someone who is ineligible to serve. However, whether she is eligible depends on what "inhabitant" means. Because there is a very important legal distinction between one's residence and his domicile. Whether "inhabitant" refers to "residence," "domicile" or something else is anybody's guess, but I am very skeptical that this issue has escaped the attention of the Governor, and it is very likely that all that matters is where she lives at the time that she is sworn in.

PS: See this Congressional Research Service report which seems to conclude that the only requirement is that the person be an inhabitant at the time that he or she is sworn in.

I think it's more productive to imagine who Gavin Newsom might have appointed, given political constraints and his national ambitions.

  1. They have to be a solid Democrat. This is uninteresting and would apply just as much to a Republican appointing a replacement for a Republican Senator.

  2. They can't be someone with ambitions for the seat. This is a bit less obvious, but choosing a particular candidate for the seat gives them a substantial advantage against rivals for the seat and generates bad blood.

2a) They can't be someone who plausibly would have ambitions for the seat. Once appointed, the Senator can very well say "actually I am going to run," which they will if it's best for their political ambitions. There'd be a bloody primary, but the appointee would know that should they win, everyone will rally around them (exact calculations complicated by California's jungle primary system). Newsom, on the other hand, has to deal with the fallout of causing a nasty, bloody primary.

So Newsom has to choose someone who 1) is a solid Democrat and 2) has absolutely no political base within California for any ambitions. Within those constraints, why not choose the person who earns you the most diversity points? And that's how you land on Butler. The fact that she's an out-of-state apparatchik is a plus in that constraint context, if anything.

My personal preference, for what it's worth, would have been James Sauls, Feinstein's Chief of Staff. Satisfies all the constraints and provides continuity of service in the meantime.

So Newsom has to choose someone who 1) is a solid Democrat and 2) has absolutely no political base within California for any ambitions.

Except that the news story I read about it made a point that she was not barred from running in the proper election. So while I get why Newsom didn't appoint Lee (who seems to be spitting feathers over this), it's because out of the three Representatives going for the seat (Lee, Schiff and Porter) if he picks one, he's going to piss off the other two, and he doesn't need that kind of in-fighting in California. Especially if he has ambitions himself for the presidency in 2028.

Maybe she doesn't have ambitions and/or a local power base, so that's why he didn't put any limits on it, she's not a risk to him while on the other hand elevating a pro-abortion fundraiser will give him that all-important 100% rating from NARAL for the presidential campaigning:

California Gov. Gavin Newsom will appoint EMILY’s List President Laphonza Butler to fill the seat of the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein, elevating the head of a fundraising juggernaut that works to elect Democratic women who support abortion rights, according to a person familiar with the decision.

...The announcement was expected to come Monday, and an adviser to the governor, Anthony York, told POLITICO that Newsom is making his appointment without putting limitations or preconditions on his pick running for the seat in 2024. That means Butler could decide to join the sprawling and competitive field of Democratic contenders seeking to succeed Feinstein, with special elections now layered on top of the March primary and November runoff.

Except that the news story I read about it made a point that she was not barred from running in the proper election.

She can run, but she would lose. Even if she somehow miraculously did find a way to run a competitive campaign, the point is that no one in the CDP even slightly believes that Newsom chose her thinking she could win an actual election. It'd be hard for Newsom to choose a less electable candidate intentionally (especially given that, until she establishes residency, she's not even eligible to run). Hence, no bad blood.

As far as her Emily's List work, I agree it's relevant, but with a different mechanism than a quid pro quo; NARAL won't care one way or another about this appointment come next Presidential election cycle. The real reason is that she's deeply ensconced in Democratic machine politics: those are her coworkers, friends, even her partner. Defecting in some unpredictable way would be far too costly to her professional and personal lives, so Newsom believes that she's reliable (and more pertinently, so does everyone else, so on the off chance she does go rogue no one will hold it against him).

I can see why Newsom picked her, she's all upside for him. But I can also see why Barbara Lee is furious about this, because this would be the perfect bedding-in for her in the seat she's wanted for ages, and then she'd have an incumbency advantage going into the primary proper. But if Newsom did that, given that Lee seems to be not guaranteed to win the primary, hence the other two going are strong enough in the party, then he'd piss off two other party members who might cut up rough later (and get their supporters to cut up rough) about playing favourites.

Tricky balancing act: has Lee enough clout to damage him if/when he goes for the nomination in 2028, or will Butler owe him a big enough favour that she can throw the women's and black women's vote behind him?

FWIW, I addressed this some in this comment.

Sauls seems like an excellent choice for, the reasons you outline. As in other comments, I'm really not just trying to whine that a Democrat picked a Democrat, that is both unremarkable and entirely appropriate, especially in a state that certainly will be electing a Democrat. That part is completely fine.

I read some articles over the weekend that Newsom was under pressure to appoint Barbara Lee. Supposedly she's angry that he didn't give her the seat (with all the electoral advantages of the incumbent.)

Butler joined SCRB Strategies as a partner in 2018. At SCRB, she played a central role in Kamala Harris's 2020 presidential campaign. Butler also advised Uber in its dealings with organized labor while at SCRB.

A union-busting group having a name that so closely resembles "scab" is like something out of a very unsubtle parody.

No, no. They were going for “Some Cops Aren’t Bastards.”

So, were you in Newsom’s unenviable shoes, who’d you have picked?

I have a sneaking suspicion that we could write similar blurbs for anyone with any political experience in the state. Even the Republicans. This list was a little more optimistic, suggesting various high-profile Californians and a few local functionaries.

It does mention Ms. Butler, emphasizing her role in the Harris campaign. More important, apparently, are her intersectionality credentials. Newsom has a track record of appointing LGBT candidates.

I don’t know about putting much stock in the state of residence. It feels more like a tan-suit situation, where any pick gets mined for political points. Also, I liked Silver Springs when I lived there.

@The_Nybbler is right that nonviability has taken on a perverse importance. Newsom is on record avoiding any of the candidates for next year’s election. In a functioning system, that would rule out all the best options. Since this is California, though, who can say?

So, were you in Newsom’s unenviable shoes, who’d you have picked?

Probably Karen Bass, if she wanted it. I still get the Black Woman points, but also select someone that has a more impressive political resume; there's at least a veneer of it not just being a national political favor.

If she didn't want it and I really wanted to pick someone that has zero chance of winning in 2024, I would not be inclined to have made the affirmative action promise in the first place. If you're Newsome, you don't actually have to go around promising things to black women all the time. Who else? I don't know California politics well enough to say, but I'd wager I could find a Latino guy or an Asian lady or even a white dude that actually lives in California, is sufficiently progressive to be a legitimate choice for the state. It's a big state! I don't know, grab the secretary of transportation and plug them in for a year, I'm sure they'll vote D and they don't have the ugliness of this selection. Here, grab this lady, I'm sure she's fine.

But really, I think the whole point is that Newsom is doing patronage politics because he's an effective politician, as where I'm a nobody that's viscerally offended by handing things out based on race and money. Newsom seems like he's angling for a 2028 run and securing things like donor money and national black support are smart moves. This is why he's going to be the Blue Caesar and I'm still going to be whining that it sucks that we have a Senator that was selected in this fashion.

She's being selected to represent the median voter in California, not you. Given the prominence of abortion issues these days, being the president of EMILY's list is a pretty great qualification for that! Also taking into account the issue pointed out here, she seems like a pretty great choice overall.

If there was a vacancy in Alabama instead, I could imagine myself making a similar rant about the possible literal creationist the Governor there might appoint---there's nothing more to it than not liking representatives from parts of the country with prevailing political views far from your own.

She's being selected to represent the median voter in California, not you.

No, she's being selected to represent the median Democratic voter, or even the median Democratic activist/fund raiser.

Despite California's reputation for being on the loony left, that characterization is more about the political class than it is about the increasingly Hispanic population. 57% of Californian's are pro-choice with 38% believing that abortion should be illegal.

Few will have views as extreme as an abortion activist.

You are are correct that in Alabama, a vacancy would likely be appointed by someone equally on the right, but let's not pretend this represents an average voter in any way.

If a governmor is going to making an appointment where people don't get to vote, one would hope for a more conciliatory choice, even if we would never expect it from Newsom. Using race and gender as the overriding factors feels icky to me as well.

Using race and gender as the overriding factors feels icky to me as well.

Shouldn't it feel icky? It's open racism and sexism, no different than the old days of "XXX need not apply" job postings. Not to mention it would literally be illegal for a private company to hire this way. What's weird to me is that Dem elites are so immersed in identity politics that this doesn't feel icky to any of them.

Doesn't really feel icky to me. The selection criteria for the appointment seems to be a reliable and unelectable Dem to keep the seat warm until the next election.

If you can do that and appoint a diverse candidate that will please part of your base, seems like a win-win.

Huh? The primary selection criterion, stated clearly and up front by Newsom, was "is a black woman". All other considerations, including the unobjectionable non-icky one you just changed the subject to, were secondary.

The primary selection criterion

Unless you think there is any chance he would have picked a Republican black woman, I think it's highly likely the primary selection criteria is "being a Democrat", whether being black or a woman ranks above being reliable or not being too powerful, or not having already announced they would run for the full seat is probably debatable, but it's not going to have outweighed political affiliation.

Do you think in a world where his choice was between a politically unreliable black woman who might run for election, or a non-descript white guy who wouldn't rock the boat, he would still choose the former? I don't.

The pool of "warm reliable bodies" is large enough where he can choose whatever arbitrary conditions he wants to score some political points.

So, I guess your argument is that it doesn't feel icky because you claim he's lying when he says he's doing the icky thing, and his hidden motivation is more practical (and, well, moral)? That's still beside the point - the fact that Dems are completely fine with announcing a racist appointment is the problem, not the 4D chess Newsom might be playing.

Also, I actually do think Newsom would have chosen somebody completely unsuitable, with the right characteristics, if he'd had to. We've seen a string of skin-colour-and-genital based appointments already from the Dems, from Karine Jean-Pierre to Ketanji Brown Jackson to Kamala Harris herself. I'm sure there are more, but I don't pay that much attention. It would be coincidental if all these people, selected from a favoured 6% of the population, really were the best choices. It really does seem like this is just what you have to do to play ball on the Democrat side.

I think I stated three objections, in bullet points, that are not mere policy disagreements. I expect California's governor to select a senator that wouldn't be to my liking, but I would have generally expected him to select one that lives in California, to have at least pretended that the Latinx community had a legitimate claim to the role, and to pick someone that had some career history other than attracting and dispensing patronage dollars. Likewise, I would expect Alabama to select someone far to my right and quite religious, but I wouldn't expect them to pick someone that lives in the Dakotas and inform everyone that isn't a white man that this is specifically a White Man seat.

The three objections you list seem to be about par for the course for senator badness. I could list five that are equally objectionable about one of the current senators from Alabama, but I'm not sure simply listing flaws of ideological opponents is a productive way to discuss anything. It's a bit too close to making isolated demands for rigor.

The point is that Butler's pros as pointed out by many other commentators outweigh the specific cons you listed for the sort of voters whose opinion matters to Newsom even though they may not do so for you. This is the exact sort of thing thing I would say to myself about Tuberville or Trump.

have at least pretended that the Latinx community had a legitimate claim to the role, an

The last time Newsom appointed a Senator, to a de facto permanent seat, no less, rather thana de facto 15 month gig, he appointed Alex Padilla, a Latino.

to have at least pretended that the Latinx community had a legitimate claim to the role

Latins are way below blacks on the oppression hierarchy, though, and most of the qualified Latinos are quite light skinned and prone to going off the reservation(remember, affirmative action hires aren’t Shaniqua either- these are PMC black women immersed in democratic patronage and have more in common with their white coworkers than with the hood granny from last weeks thread).

By the by, Latinos hate the use of the x suffix. If you're looking to speak on their behalf, you'd best start with not using a meme that is essentially an implicit attack on their language.

It is an attack, an awkward one at that, but fully deserved. Grammatical gender is a dumb feature and I will fight the whole of the world West of the Urals and South of the Himalayas on that point. At least English somehow managed to have some positive changes to it during the middle period even with the Normans doing their best to make things worse.

Even some of the progressives have picked up on this, and are moving to "Latine", which has the advantage of not sounding absolutely stupid.

Hopefully it's pronounced differently than "latrine".

which has the advantage of not sounding absolutely stupid.

Unless you speak Spanish, in which case it still sounds stupid.

I mean, come on, English already has ‘Latin’ and ‘Hispanic’ as a gender neutral term. Inventing much dumber ones is, well, dumb.

Latine would be the correct gender-neutral Spanish form, if Spanish-speaking culture cared about being gender neutral. So I don't think it sounds stupid in Spanish, just like a word only a politically correct person would use. In much the same way that "African-American" is a perfectly cromulent English word, but the group it refers to mostly prefer "Black".

Spanish doesn’t have a gender neutral form that wasn’t made up 30 seconds ago, and most -e words are masculine anyways(what would be the article, anyways? Le is already taken, it’s a masculine objective form).

It still sounds less stupid than any attempt at pronouncing "Latinx" in either language.

My framing above is intended to indicated how I would expect the governor of California to behave, which would include use of the term "Latinx".

From Newsom’s perspective he doesn’t want to pick winners in the 2024 race, and Butler definitely isn’t going to win.

And his presidential bid, like any ‘moderate’ or business democrat’s, will rely on winning the heavily black southern primaries, where most black voters are black women. This prevents any issues on that front.

The Democrat party apparatus does not care in the slightest whether this person represents California

An odd argument re someone who moved to California at age 30, was a labor leader in the state, was a regent of the University of California, worked for Kamala Harris, and moved out of state 2 years ago only to pursue a job opportunity

She doesn't live in California. I have associations with states other than the state I presently reside in, including business interests and property ownership, but I would be blatantly and obviously lying if I claimed that I am a legitimate representative of those states.

Let's try it another way - do you think she would be a legitimate representative for Maryland? If so, what parameters are the relevant limiting factor for which state one can represent? In any sense that I would think of as legitimate, you would need to pre-select the state and/or locale that represent, not simply carpetbag to any state that you have a tenuous connection to when it's convenient. I'm sure I have no legal argument on the matter, as carpetbagging is a time-honored and perfectly legal tradition in many cases, but it seems pretty clear to me that you can't actually be simultaneously just as legitimate a representative of Maryland as California.

The relevant factors for which state one can represent are best determined by the voters in that state. It's a persuasive rather than a dispositive factor. It's a perfectly legit criticism to lob, but voters are perfectly free to ignore it if they feel an outsider represents their interests better than an insider for various reasons.

It's a tradition that dates prior to the revolution, wealthy Englishmen were known to buy "rotten boroughs" where there were few enough votes and they were obedient enough that enough money could buy a seat in the Commons.

I'm on the record here crucifying Dr Oz for running for the PA Senate seat, on the other hand I support(Ed) McCormick's run for the same seat. Neither currently lived in PA, McCormick grew up in PA, and his family was prominent in PA before. Oz' ties were based on his in laws and part of his education, at best. That's a judgment I made personally, at the booth.

She doesn't live in California

So, if Jerry Brown had moved to Maryland two years ago to head Emily's List, he would be an illegitimate pick as well? Clearly, "moved to Maryland for a job two years ago" is not per se proof that you can't be a legitimate representative of California.

Correct, my position is that moving to a different state, establishing your residence there, declaring that you reside there, and registering to vote there means that you are no longer a legitimate representative of your former state. I would be open to the position that someone should instead only be eligible for their previous state since two years is obviously not long enough to become legitimate in the new residence. I reject the idea that someone can be Schrödinger's representative, equally legitimate in all places that they could register in once appointed.

Well, that seems a bit extreme, given my Jerry Brown example.

I reject the idea that someone can be Schrödinger's representative, equally legitimate in all places that they could register in once appointed.

That is a strawman that you have created. No one has argued otherwise.

I am indeed the kind of extremist that reads Article I, Section 3 as applicable, even if it were the venerable Jerry Brown that had moved:

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

I guess you can get around that by saying that she's not being elected. That would suggest that it would be perfectly legal to select a teenager from Australia though, which doesn't strike me as likely.

Regarding Schrödinger's representative, I suppose the correct analogy isn't that they could register in any place, but merely that they are equally resident in both places as necessary until declaration. That does seem to be exactly what you're claiming, no? That Butler would be legitimate in Maryland or California and that Brown would likewise be equally legitimate in either place if he moved. As mentioned, I'm open to the suggestion that Brown could only ever be a legitimate representative of California and that two years residence in Maryland wouldn't change that one jot, but it doesn't really match up with a plain reading of the text.

Dude, that is a completely different issue than the one you raised. If Jerry Brown moved to Delaware, he might be constitutionally ineligible to serve as Senator from California, regardless of whether he is capable of representing the interests of Californians. Your claim was re the latter.

I believe those claims are entirely consistent - someone is ineligible precisely because it's fairly obvious that they're not representative of a state that isn't actually their state of residence. This was codified precisely because someone's residence does actually inform us about who they represent.

More comments

I think the appointment effectively accomplishes Newsom's two goals of appointing someone who (1) will be a reliable Dem vote in the Senate and (2) has a low chance of winning re-election in 2024. I'm sure there are plenty of prominent California Democratic party politicians Newsom could appoint, but is concerned about how many of them could finagle that into re-election. His stated goal is to not decide the 2024 race with this appointment. I think appointing a relatively unknown outsider does this effectively.

She's also a lesbian

One other point is that she's got zero chance to be competitive in the election next year. So Newsom makes no enemies within the party by favoring one candidate or another.

So Newsom makes no enemies within the party by favoring one candidate or another.

If reports are true, Lee is angry about not being picked. Does this mean she's not as favoured as thought, or that Newsom thinks he can weather any action against him she might take in the party?

On Sunday, Congressional Black Caucus Chair Steven Horsford wrote to Newsom urging him to appoint Rep. Barbara Lee, a candidate for the Senate whom the governor recently ruled out over worries about giving someone a leg up.

Newsom fulfills the promise he made to name a Black woman to the upper chamber following the departure of Harris to the vice presidency and his selection of Sen. Alex Padilla to her old seat in 2021. Newsom also avoids veering directly into next year’s Senate contest between rival Reps. Katie Porter, Adam Schiff and Lee, all Democrats from California. Lee had spent years angling for the possible Senate appointment, only to learn in recent weeks that Newsom was intent on not tipping the scales in her favor, prompting her to sharply rebuke his public pronouncement.

Either he miscalculated, or he wouldn't pick Lee anyway so he was going to piss her off in any case, or he figures her support would have been worth less than the enmity of the others had he picked her.

Does this mean she's not as favoured as thought

She is not favored at all, neither by the polls nor by fundraising.

Yikes. On the money end, Porter and Schiff are way ahead of her (for now). No wonder she wanted to be a shoo-in by Newsom. I guess this demonstrates he really does know how to play the game in Californian Democrat internal politics, and that he figures pissing off Lee won't be enough of a liability to harm him when he goes for the big stage, because Butler will deliver the black women's vote for him in quid pro quo.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats