Paul’s insightful and important post yesterday, “Ron DeSantis: ‘All action and no talk’," got me to thinking about what we can do to confront and defeat Wokeism.
A good friend of mine learned in the law observes:
I love the concept but fear that reliance on the criminal justice system will be insufficient. This is so not only because vigorous enforcement of any criminal statute is dependent upon the politics of both the prosecutor (see, e.g.,Soros, George) and the investigative agency (see, eg., Thibault, Timothy), but also because, even under the best of circumstances, investigative and prosecutorial resources are subject to a plethora of competing - and often compelling - demands.
But what if private citizens were incentivized to enforce the statute through private civil actions? Indeed, what if private LAWYERS were incentivized to do so by the possibility of attorney fees upon a successful lawsuit? Such laws already exist with respect to enforcement of laws regarding housing discrimination (42 USC 3613) and voting rights (52 USC 20510). (I think federal law also incentivizes private enforcement of the securities laws, fraud against the government, antitrust, and racketeering - and in at least some of those instances, the private litigant can collect more than just attorney fees). Can the same incentives make it too expensive for public schools to engage in wokism?
Law suits by parents also. Remember the school that withheld and hid national merit awards that students had earned which would have helped them get into colleges and to get scholarships until it was to late? To my mind the parents can sue the school personnel who did that personally as well as the school districts because it can be fairly easily proven the school administrators harmed those students financially by their actions.
Asking that states adopt a proposal raises the question: Why haven’t those states firmly controlled by the GOP not done so already? DeSantis also finds this perplexing as should you. Missouri, as an example, is firmly controlled by the GOP at the state level and yet has lagged well behind Florida. Josh Hawley is the exception, not the rule. Most GOP representatives are like the governor Mike Parsons and retiring senator Roy Blunt: good old boys in it for the glad-handing, back-slapping, deal-making venality of it all. You can push these folks on the cultural issues but they will slip and slide their way away from them every time: bad for their business as far as they are concerned. This isn’t to nay say the recommendations here, but understand what the obstacles really are. And, it highlights the signularity of DeSantis.
Trump’s candidacy pointed a very bright light on an open path for politicians that has been open for some time. Many politicians were and remain horrified. And for that alone, Trump will never be forgiven. I’ve long said that the next Trump is out there watching and learning; maybe that’s DeSantis. But, rest assured there will be another and with that one DJT will seem tame.
I agree that most "conservative" politicians don't have the guts to really fight, and DeSantis so far is a refreshing change. However, I reject skyzyk's view that Trump illustrated an alternative, a politician who fights the "glad-handling, back-slapping, deal-making venality of it all." Trump is and was always the epitome of a guy who talks tough but is too much of a wimp to take on a real opponent.
Take Obama's Iran deal, for instance. For all Trump's whining, his actual policy was the same: Do nothing while Iran develops nuclear weapons, and leave the sanctions relief in place longer than Obama himself did. How could it be otherwise? The only way to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons is with force, and Trump utterly rejects the idea of using force. So he denounced Obama's deal while insisting he would negotiate a better one, then as soon as he took office spent a year "reviewing" the deal. What was there to review? The answer is that since Trump despised the outcome of the Iran deal, but also despised doing anything which would produce a different outcome, the only thing to do was to trash-talk Obama. This is exactly what politicians like Greg Abbott do with conservative values: They talk tough but don't fix the University of Texas, for instance.
Was there ever a more pathetic case of "glad-handling, back-slapping" than Trump's friendship with Kim Jong-Un? He doesn't have the guts for a fight. Paul's old posts on Powerline relate how Trump left progressives in charge of the Department of Labor. It's the same phenomenon. Bullies are used to intimidating people, and have no idea what to do when they run into someone tougher than they are.
A good friend of mine learned in the law observes:
I love the concept but fear that reliance on the criminal justice system will be insufficient. This is so not only because vigorous enforcement of any criminal statute is dependent upon the politics of both the prosecutor (see, e.g.,Soros, George) and the investigative agency (see, eg., Thibault, Timothy), but also because, even under the best of circumstances, investigative and prosecutorial resources are subject to a plethora of competing - and often compelling - demands.
But what if private citizens were incentivized to enforce the statute through private civil actions? Indeed, what if private LAWYERS were incentivized to do so by the possibility of attorney fees upon a successful lawsuit? Such laws already exist with respect to enforcement of laws regarding housing discrimination (42 USC 3613) and voting rights (52 USC 20510). (I think federal law also incentivizes private enforcement of the securities laws, fraud against the government, antitrust, and racketeering - and in at least some of those instances, the private litigant can collect more than just attorney fees). Can the same incentives make it too expensive for public schools to engage in wokism?
Law suits by parents also. Remember the school that withheld and hid national merit awards that students had earned which would have helped them get into colleges and to get scholarships until it was to late? To my mind the parents can sue the school personnel who did that personally as well as the school districts because it can be fairly easily proven the school administrators harmed those students financially by their actions.
Asking that states adopt a proposal raises the question: Why haven’t those states firmly controlled by the GOP not done so already? DeSantis also finds this perplexing as should you. Missouri, as an example, is firmly controlled by the GOP at the state level and yet has lagged well behind Florida. Josh Hawley is the exception, not the rule. Most GOP representatives are like the governor Mike Parsons and retiring senator Roy Blunt: good old boys in it for the glad-handing, back-slapping, deal-making venality of it all. You can push these folks on the cultural issues but they will slip and slide their way away from them every time: bad for their business as far as they are concerned. This isn’t to nay say the recommendations here, but understand what the obstacles really are. And, it highlights the signularity of DeSantis.
Trump’s candidacy pointed a very bright light on an open path for politicians that has been open for some time. Many politicians were and remain horrified. And for that alone, Trump will never be forgiven. I’ve long said that the next Trump is out there watching and learning; maybe that’s DeSantis. But, rest assured there will be another and with that one DJT will seem tame.
I agree that most "conservative" politicians don't have the guts to really fight, and DeSantis so far is a refreshing change. However, I reject skyzyk's view that Trump illustrated an alternative, a politician who fights the "glad-handling, back-slapping, deal-making venality of it all." Trump is and was always the epitome of a guy who talks tough but is too much of a wimp to take on a real opponent.
Take Obama's Iran deal, for instance. For all Trump's whining, his actual policy was the same: Do nothing while Iran develops nuclear weapons, and leave the sanctions relief in place longer than Obama himself did. How could it be otherwise? The only way to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons is with force, and Trump utterly rejects the idea of using force. So he denounced Obama's deal while insisting he would negotiate a better one, then as soon as he took office spent a year "reviewing" the deal. What was there to review? The answer is that since Trump despised the outcome of the Iran deal, but also despised doing anything which would produce a different outcome, the only thing to do was to trash-talk Obama. This is exactly what politicians like Greg Abbott do with conservative values: They talk tough but don't fix the University of Texas, for instance.
Was there ever a more pathetic case of "glad-handling, back-slapping" than Trump's friendship with Kim Jong-Un? He doesn't have the guts for a fight. Paul's old posts on Powerline relate how Trump left progressives in charge of the Department of Labor. It's the same phenomenon. Bullies are used to intimidating people, and have no idea what to do when they run into someone tougher than they are.
Saul Alinsky.