DISQUS

Noah Millman · 2 years ago

Will: you might be more taken with the idea of an ideal theory than I am, or Reihan is. I suspect Reihan is more of a collagist: he puts together bits and pieces of policies that, individually, he favors, in some cases for underlying reasons that are mutually contradictory, and then he steps back and tries to impose a coherence on the composition as a whole. It's not marketing spin; it's trying to back into what you believe big-picture from what you believe small-picture.

Then again, sometimes Reihan is the South Asian Tevye. "He's right and he's right? They can't both be right!" "You know: you are also right."

As for Reihan's actual argument: all the work in the second quote you pull out is done by the word "determined." Of course our underlying political theory of legitimacy is majoritarian: that's why the Constitution begins, "We the People" and not, "I, Solon." But it is usually considered a very bad sign for a political system when the mob takes it into its head to actually rule, regardless of how the authorities respond to that determination by the mob. We are, thank God, no where near that level of determination. So why start thinking politically as if we are?

Will Wilkinson · 2 years ago

Noah, Thanks. Rings true about Reihan. But I don't think you can say our underlying theory of legitimacy (insofar as there is such a thing) is majoritarian just because the Constitution starts "We the people," since the whole thing embodies the very vision of an anti-majoritarian political system. It is carefully designed to keep majorities from getting their way, and we the people like it that way.

Will Wilkinson · 2 years ago

Also interesting: G. Morris got his way with the opening line, but there was a pretty heated debate over whether it should say "We the people of Massachusetts, Virginia, Delaware," etc....

Nicholas Weininger · 2 years ago

"All but a few Americans just shrug and accept it when courts overturn popular laws as unconstitutional"? I think this is too strong. All but a few do accept that it's necessary to bow to the current verdict of the courts as long as that verdict stands. But plenty nonetheless grumble and say to themselves, "we've gotta get some different judges up there", and vote/contribute/etc accordingly. And I don't think it's too cynical to say that they do so not on the basis of any actual theory of legal rules, but just because the courts have reached a conclusion that goes against the majority's.

mizzle · 2 years ago

I find Reihan's writing interesting but overly palaverous.

Also, you're exactly right to say that his motives are obscure--I would go one further and say they're opaque.

Sounds to me like: 4th way = Fascism minus the racism and violence.

Perhaps that's why Salaam refuses to write clearly?