Excellent article, Gabe. You nailed the basic problem with our entrenched 2-party system right on the head. It's encouraging to see more and more Americans NOT identifying with either major party. I long for the day when we have a truly dynamic political system, where parties are 100% about ideology, and are constantly forming, dying, merging, and splitting.
I almost didn't read further than the 1st 2 paragraphs because they irritated me with their "false equivalence." The whole set-up for the hypothetical is wrong on so many levels. First, the feds are on federal land, not in our neighborhoods like ICE is. Second, there have been countless instances of douchbaggery by ICE, culminating in the killing of Alex Pretti, but in Gabe's scenario this is a one-off. You missed the mark, Gabe. (I liked the rest of the post tho)
Appreciate you sharing your thoughts, Mark. Agree it was not a 1:1 comparison — I meant more as a thought experiment than a perfect hypothetical. Appreciate your willingness to keep reading even when you felt the first part missed the mark.
Sorry, Gabe, but your completely unnecessary hypothetical is a bridge too far for me. There is no reason to be so inflammatory, especially in the current climate. Too bad, the difference between campaigning and governing is an interesting topic. Cancelling my subscription.
Canceling seems a bit excessive to me. I also wouldn't characterize his hypothetical as inflammatory. Although I don't totally agree with it either, I think it would depend on on who initiated the violence and how much. Conservatives protest with assault rifles slung over their shoulders all the time and they don't get attached by law enforcement. So the specifics of the altercation make a large difference. But generally, he's right, most people are going to somewhat blindly follow their "tribe."
This was such a great read - your writing skill is definitely on display, and this was a helpful breakdown of an issue I've been turning over and over in my mind in recent years. Thank you!!
Thank you for posing the questions at the end. For something as lethal as a gun, we should individually know where we stand. I personally could never carry or own a gun because I am afraid of being put in a position to use it with the possibility I could very easily miss the mark and kill someone else. But it’s in our constitution. I look forward to the day when we are reasonable about the lethality of a gun and, like the lethality of car ownership, register, insure, have smart gun keys, demand training and prepare for the time when a gun accidentally kills someone we love, remembering that two thirds of gun deaths are suicides.
Fascinating discussion. It sounds like our attachment to political parties is a lot like our attachment to sports teams, which may or may not be a good thing. The discussion raises (not begs) a couple questions. Why are we stuck with two teams? Why isn't there some kind of rising development of a third party? I think a partial explanation might lie in the way power is allocated within government. The hold that our current two parties have on various levers and levels of our systems are such that it's impossible to imagine a serious alternative. Of course, party-sourced funding is also hard to compete with; that said, the rise of such personal fundraising machines of individual politicians has made that less vital, I think.
Angus King and Bernie Sanders are pretty lonely outliers. The more interesting question is why there are so few on the GOP side of things, outside apostate members like Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, or even MTG? My sense is that we will see some kind of similar kids of breaks on that side, too. But whether those dissidents in both parties will establish some kind of coalition that leads to a new party is impossible to say. We're not like British or German governments and parties that form various coalitions.
Another way of looking at all this, in terms of sports teams, is who stays loyal when the team owner moves it. I imagine there's no one left in St Louis who follows the Rams, for example, and I imagine there are few Raider fans left in Oakland. Could the same thing happen if the party simply moves too far away from its base? Those two parties are captive, too, in ways that make it difficult for them to move but so far. That's why we're in these odd, polarized, and paralyzed times. There's simply no place for those folks in the middle to meet. That's not healthy in the long term,. So what's next?
Excellent article but leaves me thinking or troubled. I was a registered R until 2008. Two reasons, where I lived (congressional district wise in NJ) was 65% or so R. So to have any impact on the election, I need to vote in the R primary election. And I mostly agreed with their positions.
What caused me to move was M. McConnell's statement in late Jan. 2009 that his #1 priority was to make Obama a 1 term president. So instead of doing what is right for the country, it was clear the R leader put his party's power over country. I made me sick.
Of course, his leadership of R during the impeachment of Trump for the 1/6 events further showed just how little he and most Rs care about the country.
Bottom line, despite the Lewis analysis, people change party when it moves too far.
I understand that this article is meant to tease apart the properties that give way to the right/left divide in America, and I agree that there is no real unifying front that unites either side.
But, I wonder what the political scientists who authored the books you quote would say about the oligarchy, and how that plays into the illusion of "left vs right". The truth is it's never been about right versus left. It's been about top versus bottom.
Many liberals have always defended the right to bear arms, you just have to know where to look. Black Panthers are a perfect example. Native tribes as well. Gabe, you touched on this when you said gun rights has been predominately about fighting back against "big government", but you didn't mention that "big government" is a facade for "big money". Big oil, big coal, Monsanto, big pharma...all these corporations profit off of the illusion of left vs right.
What we are seeing now, is the uprising of the working class to fight back against a system as old as time, desperately trying to remain in control. It is finally starting to unveil the curtain, showing us that the working class has a lot more in common than they want us to see. Most Americans as whole believe we need some form of gun regulation, regardless of their political affiliation, just as most Americans want to be able defend themselves from thug militias and dictators.
Don't forget Hitler wrote his playbook by studying slavery in America. He was fascist before he was a xenophobe. Same with Trump, Noem, Miller, Patel, etc. They are fascists before they are racists. Through and through. Top before right, bottom before left.
Do not let this right vs left illusion make you forget what really does unite us all, regardless of class, demographic, political affiliation: resources (sometimes, money, but can also be land, water, food, shelter, etc.), a means to survival. It is and has always been the top 1 % vs the working class. That is the underlying common theme among every single country, nation, resistance, movement, protest, etc. See Russia taking over Ukraine. See Israel wiping out Gaza. We see it when Big Banks get bailed out, but the working man gets killed. It has been like that since forever. Now it's just rearing its big ugly head more clearly than ever.
They perpetuate the culture war to their advantage. Think about it. Trump used to support democrats when he was barely in the news, you can find a quote about him supporting Clinton (rich and powerful support each other when it suits them). As did Jay D Vance, who wrote an autobiography talking EXACTLY about the working class. Then, as they gained power, they switched to "right" talking points so they can profit. BUT if their schemes for profiting are in danger because someone with a gun was murdered by their gestapo-like police force, of course they will switch gears and destroy gun rights. That is the next step in the authoritarian playbook. It's all about remaining in power. Blame the immigrants, blame the Jews, blame the gun rights, its everyone else's fault except those at the top 1%. That's it. Top vs. Bottom. Fascism at its best. Simple as that.
Like a few comments, I don't like "whataboutisms". One difference between Left & Right can be illustrated this way: I don't like guns, but if that's the law, maybe I want to own a gun for protection, but owning a gun doesn't mean I've switched to a gun-mentality nut. No one likes paying taxes, but that's the law, so you pay. But for those of us who believe in some things, those beliefs still hold true. Not so with trump, or many conservatives - it's "rules for thee, but not for me", from pardoning January 6 criminals, many violent, to drug traffickers, from "we want small govt", but love anti-abortion intrusion, the hypocrisy is mind-boggling. That's the difference.
Appreciate the thought and work that went into this piece (and your other pieces). A minor nit-pick: you note that most Democratic states ban the right to carry a gun at a protest, then link an Everytown article that breaks down which states prohibit bringing LONG GUNS to a protest. A long gun is a rifle/shotgun. It is impossible to “conceal carry” a long gun (unless you’re 400 lbs, seven feet tall, and somehow have space to shove it down your pants. Good luck I guess! I suppose some may argue that a folding stock rifle, for example, is concealable in a backpack—but most states with CC restrictions consider conceal carry to reference a handgun only. Of course there are exceptions.) The legal prohibitions around bringing a LONG GUN to a protest are typically separate from state/local prohibitions around where conceal carrying is appropriate, they are not a 1:1 comparison. Even with my valid conceal carry license, I am still prohibited from carrying a handgun in/around state and city buildings and other “sensitive” places, which does, in essence, prevent me from carrying at a protest, which usually take place in such areas. You can make arguments that this is or is not constitutional. But laws around CONCEAL CARRY restrictions should not be equated to laws around CARRYING LONG GUNS, which is typically an “open carry” issue—as there is, again, almost no efficient way to conceal a long gun.
In short: I think distinctions matter, as pedantic as they may seem, and there is a distinction between CONCEAL CARRY restrictions and LONG GUN restrictions. Such restrictions *may* have overlap, but more likely do not.
I have been following your work for years and have enormous respect for the depth of your knowledge and commitment to educating your readers. Having said that, this piece is seriously problematic and distorts the issues. To illustrate, a suggestion a few edits to your counterfactual thought experiment. “So, instead, Harris decides to deploy her executive power. She uses federal land, like national parks, to set up abortion clinics in red states “- (edit here) and nominates for key cabinet officials responsible for law enforcement individuals with little or no professional experience, social media popularity with fringe groups, who publicly flaunt pictures of right wing activists and crying new mothers in chains—
“Anti-abortion protests quickly spring up outside the new clinics. Yellowstone National Park becomes a flashpoint. Pro-life activists in Wyoming rally against the Harris administration, supported by the state’s Republican governor—(edit here) the Harris administration de-authorizes local government, and sends in a paramilitary force with the message that they do not need judicial warrants and have immunity from criminal prosecution. When one shoots a protestor, calling her a “f’ing bitch,’” Harris blames the protestor, and the justice department begins an investigation into her husband’s religious, conservative family.” This counterfactual is completely unthinkable because the issues at hand are not actually primarily about conservative cause versus progressive cause. These issues can win sympathy from political constituencies, but are not what is most central
. The larger issues are 1) elimination of competent, accountable public servants 2) choice of personnel based on fealty, appearance and lack of scruples 3) creation of narratives designed to desensitize the public to authoritarian control and sadistic violence and 4) weaponization of justice systems against opponents, while eliminating accountability for administration enforcers.
If these tactics were being used for prochoice political goals, as a proud liberal and prochoice woman I would be outraged, would be writing letters and protesting. Similarly, there really is no contradiction in believing in gun control, having concerns about concealed carry laws, and recognizing that when this is the law, someone legally carrying a weapon in a responsible manner should not be treated like a criminal.
It is difficult to come up with a true thought experiment in which the left systematically, ruthlessly violates the civil rights of conservatives because, contrary to right-wing narratives, the left has consistently bent over backwards to try to make room for “both sides” to air opinions and to limit authoritarian violence. Is there bad faith sometimes on the left? Yes, hypocrisy is a human quality— and the American left is constantly calling out its own hypocrisy, often resulting in paralysis, while conservatives who are not burdened by these concerns run amok.
I have been reading Gabe for quite a few years. This is not the first time I have felt that he gives too much benefit to the Trump contingent and their positions. It would have been more appropriate to say "what if XYZ had happened under Biden." We know what did and didn't happen then, as we do with the Trump administrations actions so far. There are too many hot button issues in Gabe's hypothetical; it seems designed to make everyone upset and takes away the focus from his point, unfortunately, because it is an interesting one.
I see a lot of examples of how Republicans are being hypocritical and wavering in their positions. I am having a harder time seeing the similar examples where Democrats are.
There was that one graph about isolationism vs interventionism, I guess. But I would assume it would have a lot to do with the specific actions being taken. And yeah, it seems FDR did an about face with the Big New Deal and government spending. Definitely doesn't seem anywhere on the level of the Republicans though.
Hi CJ, thanks for writing! Obviously the main example concerning Democrats in this piece is their sudden embrace of the Second Amendment (and then, historically, FDR’s New Deal). But I do think there are others worth noting. One polling trend I’ve written about before is voters in both parties embracing presidential power... when they’re side is in the White House (https://www.wakeuptopolitics.com/p/why-harris-fascism-charges-might). In the Biden era, two specific examples that come to mind are Biden’s student loan debt cancellation and his eviction moratorium. Biden was obviously elected criticizing Trump’s use of executive power, and both of these were actions that *Biden himself* said would be unconstitutional during his campaign and early presidency. But in both cases, he eventually reversed himself, which serve as strong examples of the trend of parties criticizing exec power when out of office but utilizing it once they’re there, considering Biden specifically said that those two actions would be out of bounds for a president ... until he did them. (Both were overturned by the Supreme Court.) Obama’s 500+ drone strikes (compared to 57 under George W Bush) after being elected as a critic of the war on terror also serves as a strong example of a Democratic reversal after taking office, as he used many of the same tactics (and ambiguous legality) that he criticized Bush for using while out of power.
Unusually, Gabe, you've missed an important point about 2A supporters who said something along the lines of "you shouldn't take a gun to a protest". They are NOT, as you imply, softening their stance on carrying. What they ARE saying is, anyone with a carry permit should exercise common sense when carrying. Where training is required for a carry permit, the training emphasizes over and over the need to exercise common sense. First, don't run TO trouble; whenever possible, run FROM it. Second, never brandish (apparently Pretti did not). Don't draw your weapon unless you need to in order to protect yourself or others (waving it around as a threat doesn't count). Third, always immediately obey law enforcement. In fact, if you are carrying and are stopped by the police, the very first thing you do is raise your hands and tell them you're carrying. Pretti violated the first bit of advice, followed the second bit, and it's unclear about the third, although it doesn't appear he did that. So the 2A supporters who said "don't carry to a protest" were just reflecting the common sense that all responsible gun owners are expected to have. They are NOT waffling on the 2A.
Hi Judy, appreciate you sharing your thoughts. For what it’s worth, this is certainly what *some* Second Amendment supporters are saying, and if they are being consistent with their previous positions, I have no problem with that. But this post was meant more to respond to people in positions of power (like Noem, Patel, Tuberville, and others not quoted) who have flat out questioned why someone would bring a gun to a protest (and suggested that was inherently suspicious), without applying the reasonable caveats you add.
I found Tuberville comment 'interesting'. While home is NJ, I spend quite a bit of time in Huntsville, AL as part of my prior job. I can't quite square it okay for some to have a semi automatic rifle over their shoulder at Walmart (seen more than I expected) as okay but its not okay to have pistol secured on your back at a protest.
I am not sure what the 2nd amendment means if having a gun means it is okay to shot someone.
It has been a while, but the original Tea Party, post our Revolution, had party members bring guns to demonstrations, rifles, all in clear sight. They were merely displaying their right to bear arms. Regardless as to my own opinion, they had and have the right to do that, and will continue to, so long as the 2nd Amendment is not changed.
Excellent article, Gabe. You nailed the basic problem with our entrenched 2-party system right on the head. It's encouraging to see more and more Americans NOT identifying with either major party. I long for the day when we have a truly dynamic political system, where parties are 100% about ideology, and are constantly forming, dying, merging, and splitting.
I almost didn't read further than the 1st 2 paragraphs because they irritated me with their "false equivalence." The whole set-up for the hypothetical is wrong on so many levels. First, the feds are on federal land, not in our neighborhoods like ICE is. Second, there have been countless instances of douchbaggery by ICE, culminating in the killing of Alex Pretti, but in Gabe's scenario this is a one-off. You missed the mark, Gabe. (I liked the rest of the post tho)
Appreciate you sharing your thoughts, Mark. Agree it was not a 1:1 comparison — I meant more as a thought experiment than a perfect hypothetical. Appreciate your willingness to keep reading even when you felt the first part missed the mark.
Awesome, Gabe! BTW, I coach high school We the People Constitution Team. We love your content!
Sorry, Gabe, but your completely unnecessary hypothetical is a bridge too far for me. There is no reason to be so inflammatory, especially in the current climate. Too bad, the difference between campaigning and governing is an interesting topic. Cancelling my subscription.
Canceling seems a bit excessive to me. I also wouldn't characterize his hypothetical as inflammatory. Although I don't totally agree with it either, I think it would depend on on who initiated the violence and how much. Conservatives protest with assault rifles slung over their shoulders all the time and they don't get attached by law enforcement. So the specifics of the altercation make a large difference. But generally, he's right, most people are going to somewhat blindly follow their "tribe."
This was such a great read - your writing skill is definitely on display, and this was a helpful breakdown of an issue I've been turning over and over in my mind in recent years. Thank you!!
Thank you, Sara!
Thank you for posing the questions at the end. For something as lethal as a gun, we should individually know where we stand. I personally could never carry or own a gun because I am afraid of being put in a position to use it with the possibility I could very easily miss the mark and kill someone else. But it’s in our constitution. I look forward to the day when we are reasonable about the lethality of a gun and, like the lethality of car ownership, register, insure, have smart gun keys, demand training and prepare for the time when a gun accidentally kills someone we love, remembering that two thirds of gun deaths are suicides.
Fascinating discussion. It sounds like our attachment to political parties is a lot like our attachment to sports teams, which may or may not be a good thing. The discussion raises (not begs) a couple questions. Why are we stuck with two teams? Why isn't there some kind of rising development of a third party? I think a partial explanation might lie in the way power is allocated within government. The hold that our current two parties have on various levers and levels of our systems are such that it's impossible to imagine a serious alternative. Of course, party-sourced funding is also hard to compete with; that said, the rise of such personal fundraising machines of individual politicians has made that less vital, I think.
Angus King and Bernie Sanders are pretty lonely outliers. The more interesting question is why there are so few on the GOP side of things, outside apostate members like Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, or even MTG? My sense is that we will see some kind of similar kids of breaks on that side, too. But whether those dissidents in both parties will establish some kind of coalition that leads to a new party is impossible to say. We're not like British or German governments and parties that form various coalitions.
Another way of looking at all this, in terms of sports teams, is who stays loyal when the team owner moves it. I imagine there's no one left in St Louis who follows the Rams, for example, and I imagine there are few Raider fans left in Oakland. Could the same thing happen if the party simply moves too far away from its base? Those two parties are captive, too, in ways that make it difficult for them to move but so far. That's why we're in these odd, polarized, and paralyzed times. There's simply no place for those folks in the middle to meet. That's not healthy in the long term,. So what's next?
Excellent article but leaves me thinking or troubled. I was a registered R until 2008. Two reasons, where I lived (congressional district wise in NJ) was 65% or so R. So to have any impact on the election, I need to vote in the R primary election. And I mostly agreed with their positions.
What caused me to move was M. McConnell's statement in late Jan. 2009 that his #1 priority was to make Obama a 1 term president. So instead of doing what is right for the country, it was clear the R leader put his party's power over country. I made me sick.
Of course, his leadership of R during the impeachment of Trump for the 1/6 events further showed just how little he and most Rs care about the country.
Bottom line, despite the Lewis analysis, people change party when it moves too far.
I understand that this article is meant to tease apart the properties that give way to the right/left divide in America, and I agree that there is no real unifying front that unites either side.
But, I wonder what the political scientists who authored the books you quote would say about the oligarchy, and how that plays into the illusion of "left vs right". The truth is it's never been about right versus left. It's been about top versus bottom.
Many liberals have always defended the right to bear arms, you just have to know where to look. Black Panthers are a perfect example. Native tribes as well. Gabe, you touched on this when you said gun rights has been predominately about fighting back against "big government", but you didn't mention that "big government" is a facade for "big money". Big oil, big coal, Monsanto, big pharma...all these corporations profit off of the illusion of left vs right.
What we are seeing now, is the uprising of the working class to fight back against a system as old as time, desperately trying to remain in control. It is finally starting to unveil the curtain, showing us that the working class has a lot more in common than they want us to see. Most Americans as whole believe we need some form of gun regulation, regardless of their political affiliation, just as most Americans want to be able defend themselves from thug militias and dictators.
Don't forget Hitler wrote his playbook by studying slavery in America. He was fascist before he was a xenophobe. Same with Trump, Noem, Miller, Patel, etc. They are fascists before they are racists. Through and through. Top before right, bottom before left.
Do not let this right vs left illusion make you forget what really does unite us all, regardless of class, demographic, political affiliation: resources (sometimes, money, but can also be land, water, food, shelter, etc.), a means to survival. It is and has always been the top 1 % vs the working class. That is the underlying common theme among every single country, nation, resistance, movement, protest, etc. See Russia taking over Ukraine. See Israel wiping out Gaza. We see it when Big Banks get bailed out, but the working man gets killed. It has been like that since forever. Now it's just rearing its big ugly head more clearly than ever.
They perpetuate the culture war to their advantage. Think about it. Trump used to support democrats when he was barely in the news, you can find a quote about him supporting Clinton (rich and powerful support each other when it suits them). As did Jay D Vance, who wrote an autobiography talking EXACTLY about the working class. Then, as they gained power, they switched to "right" talking points so they can profit. BUT if their schemes for profiting are in danger because someone with a gun was murdered by their gestapo-like police force, of course they will switch gears and destroy gun rights. That is the next step in the authoritarian playbook. It's all about remaining in power. Blame the immigrants, blame the Jews, blame the gun rights, its everyone else's fault except those at the top 1%. That's it. Top vs. Bottom. Fascism at its best. Simple as that.
Like a few comments, I don't like "whataboutisms". One difference between Left & Right can be illustrated this way: I don't like guns, but if that's the law, maybe I want to own a gun for protection, but owning a gun doesn't mean I've switched to a gun-mentality nut. No one likes paying taxes, but that's the law, so you pay. But for those of us who believe in some things, those beliefs still hold true. Not so with trump, or many conservatives - it's "rules for thee, but not for me", from pardoning January 6 criminals, many violent, to drug traffickers, from "we want small govt", but love anti-abortion intrusion, the hypocrisy is mind-boggling. That's the difference.
Appreciate the thought and work that went into this piece (and your other pieces). A minor nit-pick: you note that most Democratic states ban the right to carry a gun at a protest, then link an Everytown article that breaks down which states prohibit bringing LONG GUNS to a protest. A long gun is a rifle/shotgun. It is impossible to “conceal carry” a long gun (unless you’re 400 lbs, seven feet tall, and somehow have space to shove it down your pants. Good luck I guess! I suppose some may argue that a folding stock rifle, for example, is concealable in a backpack—but most states with CC restrictions consider conceal carry to reference a handgun only. Of course there are exceptions.) The legal prohibitions around bringing a LONG GUN to a protest are typically separate from state/local prohibitions around where conceal carrying is appropriate, they are not a 1:1 comparison. Even with my valid conceal carry license, I am still prohibited from carrying a handgun in/around state and city buildings and other “sensitive” places, which does, in essence, prevent me from carrying at a protest, which usually take place in such areas. You can make arguments that this is or is not constitutional. But laws around CONCEAL CARRY restrictions should not be equated to laws around CARRYING LONG GUNS, which is typically an “open carry” issue—as there is, again, almost no efficient way to conceal a long gun.
In short: I think distinctions matter, as pedantic as they may seem, and there is a distinction between CONCEAL CARRY restrictions and LONG GUN restrictions. Such restrictions *may* have overlap, but more likely do not.
I have been following your work for years and have enormous respect for the depth of your knowledge and commitment to educating your readers. Having said that, this piece is seriously problematic and distorts the issues. To illustrate, a suggestion a few edits to your counterfactual thought experiment. “So, instead, Harris decides to deploy her executive power. She uses federal land, like national parks, to set up abortion clinics in red states “- (edit here) and nominates for key cabinet officials responsible for law enforcement individuals with little or no professional experience, social media popularity with fringe groups, who publicly flaunt pictures of right wing activists and crying new mothers in chains—
“Anti-abortion protests quickly spring up outside the new clinics. Yellowstone National Park becomes a flashpoint. Pro-life activists in Wyoming rally against the Harris administration, supported by the state’s Republican governor—(edit here) the Harris administration de-authorizes local government, and sends in a paramilitary force with the message that they do not need judicial warrants and have immunity from criminal prosecution. When one shoots a protestor, calling her a “f’ing bitch,’” Harris blames the protestor, and the justice department begins an investigation into her husband’s religious, conservative family.” This counterfactual is completely unthinkable because the issues at hand are not actually primarily about conservative cause versus progressive cause. These issues can win sympathy from political constituencies, but are not what is most central
. The larger issues are 1) elimination of competent, accountable public servants 2) choice of personnel based on fealty, appearance and lack of scruples 3) creation of narratives designed to desensitize the public to authoritarian control and sadistic violence and 4) weaponization of justice systems against opponents, while eliminating accountability for administration enforcers.
If these tactics were being used for prochoice political goals, as a proud liberal and prochoice woman I would be outraged, would be writing letters and protesting. Similarly, there really is no contradiction in believing in gun control, having concerns about concealed carry laws, and recognizing that when this is the law, someone legally carrying a weapon in a responsible manner should not be treated like a criminal.
It is difficult to come up with a true thought experiment in which the left systematically, ruthlessly violates the civil rights of conservatives because, contrary to right-wing narratives, the left has consistently bent over backwards to try to make room for “both sides” to air opinions and to limit authoritarian violence. Is there bad faith sometimes on the left? Yes, hypocrisy is a human quality— and the American left is constantly calling out its own hypocrisy, often resulting in paralysis, while conservatives who are not burdened by these concerns run amok.
I have been reading Gabe for quite a few years. This is not the first time I have felt that he gives too much benefit to the Trump contingent and their positions. It would have been more appropriate to say "what if XYZ had happened under Biden." We know what did and didn't happen then, as we do with the Trump administrations actions so far. There are too many hot button issues in Gabe's hypothetical; it seems designed to make everyone upset and takes away the focus from his point, unfortunately, because it is an interesting one.
I see a lot of examples of how Republicans are being hypocritical and wavering in their positions. I am having a harder time seeing the similar examples where Democrats are.
There was that one graph about isolationism vs interventionism, I guess. But I would assume it would have a lot to do with the specific actions being taken. And yeah, it seems FDR did an about face with the Big New Deal and government spending. Definitely doesn't seem anywhere on the level of the Republicans though.
Hi CJ, thanks for writing! Obviously the main example concerning Democrats in this piece is their sudden embrace of the Second Amendment (and then, historically, FDR’s New Deal). But I do think there are others worth noting. One polling trend I’ve written about before is voters in both parties embracing presidential power... when they’re side is in the White House (https://www.wakeuptopolitics.com/p/why-harris-fascism-charges-might). In the Biden era, two specific examples that come to mind are Biden’s student loan debt cancellation and his eviction moratorium. Biden was obviously elected criticizing Trump’s use of executive power, and both of these were actions that *Biden himself* said would be unconstitutional during his campaign and early presidency. But in both cases, he eventually reversed himself, which serve as strong examples of the trend of parties criticizing exec power when out of office but utilizing it once they’re there, considering Biden specifically said that those two actions would be out of bounds for a president ... until he did them. (Both were overturned by the Supreme Court.) Obama’s 500+ drone strikes (compared to 57 under George W Bush) after being elected as a critic of the war on terror also serves as a strong example of a Democratic reversal after taking office, as he used many of the same tactics (and ambiguous legality) that he criticized Bush for using while out of power.
I feel like Ranked Choice voting would stop this problem.
It would clearly help!
Unusually, Gabe, you've missed an important point about 2A supporters who said something along the lines of "you shouldn't take a gun to a protest". They are NOT, as you imply, softening their stance on carrying. What they ARE saying is, anyone with a carry permit should exercise common sense when carrying. Where training is required for a carry permit, the training emphasizes over and over the need to exercise common sense. First, don't run TO trouble; whenever possible, run FROM it. Second, never brandish (apparently Pretti did not). Don't draw your weapon unless you need to in order to protect yourself or others (waving it around as a threat doesn't count). Third, always immediately obey law enforcement. In fact, if you are carrying and are stopped by the police, the very first thing you do is raise your hands and tell them you're carrying. Pretti violated the first bit of advice, followed the second bit, and it's unclear about the third, although it doesn't appear he did that. So the 2A supporters who said "don't carry to a protest" were just reflecting the common sense that all responsible gun owners are expected to have. They are NOT waffling on the 2A.
Hi Judy, appreciate you sharing your thoughts. For what it’s worth, this is certainly what *some* Second Amendment supporters are saying, and if they are being consistent with their previous positions, I have no problem with that. But this post was meant more to respond to people in positions of power (like Noem, Patel, Tuberville, and others not quoted) who have flat out questioned why someone would bring a gun to a protest (and suggested that was inherently suspicious), without applying the reasonable caveats you add.
OK, that wasn't clear.
I found Tuberville comment 'interesting'. While home is NJ, I spend quite a bit of time in Huntsville, AL as part of my prior job. I can't quite square it okay for some to have a semi automatic rifle over their shoulder at Walmart (seen more than I expected) as okay but its not okay to have pistol secured on your back at a protest.
I am not sure what the 2nd amendment means if having a gun means it is okay to shot someone.
It has been a while, but the original Tea Party, post our Revolution, had party members bring guns to demonstrations, rifles, all in clear sight. They were merely displaying their right to bear arms. Regardless as to my own opinion, they had and have the right to do that, and will continue to, so long as the 2nd Amendment is not changed.
Outside the hypotheticals ( which generally never ring true) excellent article. Thanks