The lyrics don’t quite fit the situation, but the spirit of this song seems appropriate for today: Goodbye to You!
The Day After
Some thoughts on last night
First, I think what happened (so far) is the most optimistic election result that anybody could have hoped for. Electoral college? Popular vote? Senate majority and growing? Probably keep the House with expanded majority? Yes, please. Trump’s margins may shrink and the growth in seats in the Senate and House may stall to something less than spectacular but this was an amazing result.
Second, I bet the Democrats will develop a strange new respect for the filibuster and federalism. Always remember in our system where ambition is to be checked with ambition, the reason you keep the filibuster around is not out of some sentimentality but rather because you will find yourself needing it one day.
Third, on the Powerline podcast last night Steve Heyward speculated if this was the election that finally marked the shift from the traditional media model to podcasts. Maybe though we’ve waiting for that death for a while. There was a lot of chatter in the past about how social media was going to be the one to torpedo the “SS Traditional Media”, keep in mind the Russian influence hysteria of 2016 centered on their purchase of ads on Facebook.
Fourth, I would imagine this is finally going mark the fall of House of Obama and maybe even get him to move out of Kalorama. That’s okay, I’ve heard he was renting anyway.
The Road Ahead
I know it’s trite to offer electoral predictions, but here are mine.
I have no idea who will president at 12:00 PM on January 20, 2025.
As I have written before, just as Election Day has become “election season” with early and mail-in balloting, the election campaign will stretch out into the weeks and months ahead after Election Day. Not only does past experience suggest it, but as I wrote yesterday the Electoral Count Act practically guarantees litigation.
The dates of December 16, when electors meet in the various state capitals to cast their votes, and Jan. 6 will be the key checkpoints that offer the chance to channel what promises to be a chaotic aftermath into something approaching normality. Any successful attempt to upset the proceedings on those days means all bets are off.
After that I don’t know; the future is unknown.
In analytical work, you seek to unite the various data points into a coherent picture through the use of capability and theories of intent. Civilization in general works to keep intent below the horizon of capability. After all, there many things that you are capable of doing that would never occur to you given the way you have been socialized into various norms. By contrast the sociopath has no self-restraint and the equilibrium between their capability and intent is only governed by external force.
We as a society have spent the past eight years breaking norms. There have been cabals of government and media to censor information and spin narratives favorable to a given political party. There has been the weaponization of the security services to spy on political campaigns and entrap people for crimes, in order to derive political gain. The use of law enforcement to hunt down and punish political candidates and their supporters. The collusion of media and government in covering up the machinations and foibles of the current administration and orchestrating a coup to replace the incumbent candidate with another.
In all fairness, you also have norm-breaking on the other side. I don’t care much for mean tweets, but you take the bad with the good. Ronald Reagan left the building a long time ago. I compare Trump with his times, not with some halcyon past.
So the question is, what are the Democrats capable of doing? How close will their intent match their capability? There is no small amount of naivete, a normality bias, on the part of many so-called people of the Right, who seem to form a predictive baseline centered on hope rather than empirical evidence.
The past history above leads to the conclusion that the Democrats have not let critical norms limit their behavior in the past, and that they have raised their stakes to apocalyptic levels within the past year by stating that Trump’s return to the White House would mean an end to democracy. They have escalated to the point where they are trapped by their own past rhetoric and actions; the only paths forward are either to escalate further or to pull back from the brink and risk collapse.
The other, and perhaps more troubling, factor to consider is that the Democrats and the Left in general no longer feel much attachment to either our political system or the Constitution, seeing it all as illegitimate artifacts of an ancient and evil past.
In escalating, nobody picks collapse. It’s also true that nobody picks Armageddon. The way escalation works its evil magic is that the losing, desperate side convinces itself that with just one more shot of escalatory juice, victory will be theirs… and it never is. Desperate people do desperate things. Desperate people with power do catastrophic things.
Also remember Rahm Emmanuel’s famous quip about never letting a crisis going to waste. He was simply, in his own sweet Chicago way, regurgitating Lenin’s older dictum about crises offering revolutionary opportunities to those who possessed both the organization and the sense of historical daring to seize them.
Accordingly, I expect the Democrats to maximize every opportunity at their disposal to alter the vote count, litigate the results, and attack the process up to and including an American equivalent of a color revolution.
The path forward will be a little clearer later tonight, as results from a number of states roll in. The appearance of a decisive Trump and of the Republicans’ keeping the House and taking the Senate would go a long way toward keeping the post-election chaos to a manageable level. Anything short of that and the road to Hell is open.
My prediction? Normally I run probabilities and prepare for the top two or three, but that would be weaselly. So my leading theory, my prediction: Trump wins beyond the margin of steal and the Democrats are forced to largely fold tents to figure out how to fight another day, their Progressive wave having crested for now.
However that’s not the way I’m preparing. You always prepare for the worst…
The Electoral Count Act and Lawfare
Our old friends in Maricopa County are back in the limelight again, having to deal with 90,000 last-minute voter registrations, 40,000 of which are too damaged to be processed. Wait until some of those 40,000 show up at the polls and find out they aren’t eligible to vote: can you say allegations of voter suppression?
I had outlined the Democrats’ obsession with “voter suppression” in a previous post; a term which seems to encompass any imposition of a requirement or restriction on voting. If you survey their various writings and pronouncements, you notice the topic has become part of their version of a Nicene Creed of belief regarding an unholy trinity also incorporating “fascism” and “Christian nationalism.”
I wrote in the same post about their hysterical response to the 2021 Election Integrity Act in Georgia which Joe Biden called “Jim Crow in the 21st Century.” The voter ID provisions that Biden and others pointed out as evidence of the return of Jim Crow? Overwhelming support among blacks in Georgia. The voting experience of blacks during the 2022 Georgia election? 72.6% said their experience was excellent with 0.0% citing a poor experience.
The two lessons from the Georgia experience are 1) blacks support common-sense voting requirements and 2) modern-day racial voting suppression for Democrats is a symbol with as much empirical evidence for its existence as the bogey-man. The best evidence that the Georgia laws didn’t suppress black turnout is that the Democrats no longer talk about it.
Put that aside for a moment. Let’s talk about the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 (ECA) and what lawfare might look over the next few months.
The Squirrel, the Raccoon, and the Bureaucrats
The sad story of Peanut the Squirrel and Fred the Raccoon has inspired many people to think about the nature of bureaucracy. I’m reminded of a few stories:
When the fire alarm went off at Como Park High School in Minnesota in 2013 , a 14-year-old girl was rousted out of the swimming pool–dripping wet and wearing only a swimsuit–and was told to go stand outside where the temperature was sub-zero and the wind chill made it much worse. Then, she was not allowed to take refuge in one of the many cars in the parking lot because of a school policy forbidding students from sitting in a faculty member’s car. As Bookworm noted:
Even the lowest intelligence can figure out that the rule’s purpose is to prevent teachers from engaging sexually with children. The likelihood of a covert sexual contact happening between Kayona and a teacher under the actual circumstances is ludicrous. The faculty cars were in full view of the entire school. There was no chance of illicit sexual congress.
But the whole nature of bureaucratic rules, of course, is to forbid human judgment based on actual context.
Fortunately for Kayona, her fellow students hadn’t had human decency ground out of them by rules: “…fellow students, however, demonstrated a grasp of civilized behavior. Students huddled around her and some frigid classmates [sic], giving her a sweatshirt to put around her feet. A teacher coughed up a jacket.” As the children were keeping Kayona alive, the teachers were working their way through the bureaucracy. After a freezing ten minutes, an administrator finally gave permission for the soaking wet, freezing Kayla to sit in a car in full view of everybody.
As Bookworm notes, this sort of thing has become increasingly common. In England in 2009, for example, a man with a broken back lay in 6 inches of water, but paramedics refused to rescue him because they weren’t trained for water rescues. Dozens of similar examples could easily be dredged up.
In Sweden, also in 2013, there was rampant rioting that included the torching of many cars. The government of Sweden didn’t do a very good job of protecting its citizens and their property from this outbreak of barbarism. Government agents did, however, fulfill their duty of issuing parking tickets…to burned-out cars. Link with picture.
The behavior of these bureaucrats is very similar to the behavior of a computer program confronted by a situation for which its designers did not explicitly provide. Sometimes the results will be useless, sometimes they will be humorous, often they will be harmful or outright disastrous.
Here’s an essay written by a Spanish naval official in 1797, on the subject ‘Why do we keep losing to the British and what can we do about it?’ The pathologies that Don Domingo Perez de Grandallana saw in his country’s naval operations are now disturbingly present in many American organizations.
Thoughts from Peter Drucker, the great writer on management and society, on the nature of bureaucracy.
An old SF story, “Dumb Waiter,” by Walter Miller, is very relevant to the subject of mindless and destructive bureaucratic behavior. (Miller is best known for his philosophical/theological novel A Canticle for Leibowitz.)
In the story, cities have become fully automated—municipal services are provided by robots linked to a central computer system. But when war erupted–featuring radiological attacks–some of the population was killed, and the others evacuated the cities. In the city that is the focus of the story, there are no people left, but “Central” and its subunits are working fine, doing what they were programmed to do many years earlier.