I see that Daniel Henninger has discovered Jane’s Law judging by his latest Wall Street Journal column:
The political problem for Democrats and Joe Biden surfaced by the Monmouth poll is that the post-Floyd protests put the progressive urban policing model to an unexpected real-world test, which it has failed demonstrably and disastrously. It has led not to what President-in-the-wings Harris this summer described as “reimagining how we do public safety in America†but instead a virtual collapse of the police function.
The result is an abrupt spike in urban crime and moblike political protesters exploiting official restraints on police. It’s a perfect, still-raging storm of progressive failure. Which now means Democratic failure.
So my argument: The Democratic left has turned certifiably insane, if one definition of irrational behavior is the refusal to recognize the damage being done, primarily to black and Hispanic neighborhoods, by catastrophic violence. Voters, it appears, have begun to notice.
I’ve mentioned Jane’s Law here before. It was proposed by Megan McArdle back when she was blogging under the name “Jane Galt”:
The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane.
The open question is whether the fever will pass when power changes hands or whether it will just change sides. To my eye there are pretty strong signs that both of our major political parties have gone mad. Also that they are smug and arrogant. Does that mean that they are both in power or that they are both out of power?
My guess is that whoever wins the elections in November you ain’t seen nothing yet. I don’t believe that a Biden victory will mollify the far left and that it would enrage most Republicans. Guess for yourself what a Trump victory would bring.
‘I don’t believe that a Biden victory will mollify the far left and that it would enrage most Republicans. Guess for yourself what a Trump victory would bring.’
The violent left will redouble their efforts with a Harris win and redouble their efforts with a OMB win. You can pretty much bet on that, because a Democratic win will encourage their belief that they made the difference and an OMB win will justify their methods of ‘resistance’. They want absolute political power and they want it now, and they aren’t going to wait around for a whole ‘nother election cycle to seize it. It’s just a question of who puts them down, when, and how bloody it will be.
” put the progressive urban policing model to an unexpected real-world test, which it has failed demonstrably and disastrously.”
We dont have a functioning progressive urban policing model. No financial changes have been made yet. What we have are police taking paid vacation, blue flu. A progressive model probably looks like no or at least fewer no knock raids, Crisis response teams trained in mental health to deal with the mentally ill, fewer arrests of non violent, non property crime, like decriminalizing pot and some other lower risk drugs.
Steve
“To my eye there are pretty strong signs that both of our major political parties have gone mad. Also that they are smug and arrogant. Does that mean that they are both in power or that they are both out of power?”
I agree and yes.
For the Democrats, however, there are other problems, namely they are currently engaged in a massive circular firing squad that’s manifesting in two ways:
1. The ideological inquisition of the progressive left against the less progressive left. Example: Be a progressive data analyst and tweet a link to a validated conclusion from a study by black author that’s historically proven and aligns with common sense, and you’ll get ostracized by your peers, fired, and shunned for being racist or at least racist-adjacent. You only get a new job when you agree to keep secret who hired you.
2. The current riots and unrest which are taking place exclusively in Democratic-controlled cities, are worst and longest-lasting in the most progressive city in America (Portland), and have local Democratic politicians battling with other Democratics and Democratic-appointed police leaders and police unions. Despite claims about right-wing hooliganism, the actual fighting is taking place almost entirely under the Democratic umbrella while the GoP concern-trolls for political advantage.
All this has got me thinking about Steven Taylor’s (and James Joyner, to a lesser extent) near-constant posts and comments, practically a drumbeat, about the structure of the electoral college and governing system (the Senate) and how unfair it is generally and for Democrats specifically.
The constant Quixotic calls for EC and Senate reform at OTB and other places while saying essentially nothing about Democratic party reform (or even achievable structural reforms like uncapping the House) is a weird kind of faith-based analysis I really don’t understand.
Regardless, where they see structural problems as the root cause for Democrats losing in the EC and for dysfunctional politics generally, I see party dysfunction. A “party” (and parties today are more akin to brands than coherent political entities, hence the scare quotes) that attracts a popular majority in national elections, yet is consistently unable to turn that majority into a coherent and competitive coalition to win the EC is a party in serious, serious trouble. I have wondered for a long time why Democrats can’t seem to compete consistently in the EC despite the obvious fact that is the only way to win the Presidency.
Yet perhaps all this infighting explains what is going on. After all, if the Democrats are so divided in their own coalition, loose as it is, to the point of excusing violence that primarily affects their constituents the most, and cancelling those who fail ever-changing ideological litmus tests, then the chances of them coming together to bring in or compete for constituencies that would give them an EC advantage would be difficult.
Not that the GoP doesn’t have its own infighting, its own problems, and it’s own inability or unwillingness to attract a majority coalition wedded as it is to the cult of Trump.
It seems both of them are becoming de facto rump parties while retaining all the built-in advantages of a “major” party in a two-party system. It’s really hard for me to imagine how this will play out in the future but at this point the trends appear – to me at least – to be pointed in the wrong direction.
Again, i largely agree with Andy. I find it hard to whole heartedly support the Democrats. Way too many flaws. I cant see myself worshipping any politician the way large numbers of conservatives do Trump. However…
“I have wondered for a long time why Democrats can’t seem to compete consistently in the EC despite the obvious fact that is the only way to win the Presidency.”
While there is some truth here, I think the response also has some truth. “If the other team has paid off the ref you just have to score more points to win. Stop complaining.” Sure.
Steve
Dims befuddled by the ‘nature abhors a vacuum’ axiom.
The American Constitution is designed as “Representative government”, to disperse power between institutions and fractions (between the President and Congress, between the House and Senate, between the Federal and the States).
The observation that both parties act as if they are in AND out of power is a reflection of reality. Trump has the Presidency, Republicans the Senate, Democrats the House, the States divided (with the most influential, California, solidly Democratic).