4 ms·

They aren't mutually exclusive of course. Obviously both parties are going to fight at all levels but in recent history GOP controls far more of state governm

They aren't mutually exclusive of course. Obviously both parties are going to fight at all levels but in recent history GOP controls far more of state governments than Democrats so they strategically favor states rights. My original point is still that they haven't shifted away from that strategic view of states rights since the election because they still hold those advantages. When Democrats dominate at state level I'd expect the poles to shift but that has not happened yet.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Obviously both parties are going to fight at all levels but in recent history GOP controls far more of state governments than Democrats so they strategically favor states rights. No, they tactically see success on certain issues operating at the state level; they don't, strategically or otherwise support states rights (that is, any consistent protected domains where states are free to act as they will without federal interference.) They do like, since the adoption of the Southern Strategy, to use the phrase “States Rights”, but that's a 150+-year-old American political code for “we support and demand systematic oppression of blacks”, not a position on the relative distribution of power between the federal and state government.
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  Whenever I see one of these “parties purport to disagree on this issue, but neither is actually for it” I wonder if it would be a good keystone for a new moderate party, built on consensus. The idea being, taking a principled stance on the aspects of those issues on which there is consensus, while not taking a stance on the part which does not have agreement, would expose the other parties as frauds and give you a rhetorical advantage over them. I wonder if states rights is one of those issues.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Whenever I see one of these “parties purport to disagree on this issue, but neither is actually for it” The parties don't purport to disagree on the issue; one party paints it as a point of disagreement, but even that is just using the term as a coded reference to a real disagreement on race policy, not a reference to a disagreement on the policy suggested by what the words otherwise seem to mean. > I wonder if states rights is one of those issues. “States rights” isn't, because it's not an actual issue, it's a slogan for an issue people don't like to directly describe. Now, you could come up with a model of a coherent set of protected zones of state authority and try to organize a movement around them, but that's not an existing ideology that is getting lip service but no actual support, it would be a whole new issue.
    - erikpukinskis 9y ago
      Yes, agreed on all points. I'm just saying that "whole new issue" would take the wind out of the fake talking points version of the "states rights" debate, and draw some of those voters.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Obviously both parties are going to fight at all levels but in recent history GOP controls far more of state governments than Democrats so they strategically favor states rights. No, they tactically see success on certain issues operating at the state level; they don't, strategically or otherwise support states rights (that is, any consistent protected domains where states are free to act as they will without federal interference.) They do like, since the adoption of the Southern Strategy, to use the phrase “States Rights”, but that's a 150+-year-old American political code for “we support and demand systematic oppression of blacks”, not a position on the relative distribution of power between the federal and state government.

erikpukinskis 9y ago
Whenever I see one of these “parties purport to disagree on this issue, but neither is actually for it” I wonder if it would be a good keystone for a new moderate party, built on consensus. The idea being, taking a principled stance on the aspects of those issues on which there is consensus, while not taking a stance on the part which does not have agreement, would expose the other parties as frauds and give you a rhetorical advantage over them. I wonder if states rights is one of those issues.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Whenever I see one of these “parties purport to disagree on this issue, but neither is actually for it” The parties don't purport to disagree on the issue; one party paints it as a point of disagreement, but even that is just using the term as a coded reference to a real disagreement on race policy, not a reference to a disagreement on the policy suggested by what the words otherwise seem to mean. > I wonder if states rights is one of those issues. “States rights” isn't, because it's not an actual issue, it's a slogan for an issue people don't like to directly describe. Now, you could come up with a model of a coherent set of protected zones of state authority and try to organize a movement around them, but that's not an existing ideology that is getting lip service but no actual support, it would be a whole new issue.
  - erikpukinskis 9y ago
    Yes, agreed on all points. I'm just saying that "whole new issue" would take the wind out of the fake talking points version of the "states rights" debate, and draw some of those voters.