There are other methods of changing society and addressing problems, and in a free country, those levers are more likely substitutes for free-wheeling wonkyness than violent revolution.
or maybe
The most likely outcome, and the most sensible one, is for progressives to just do what conservatives do—try to win elections and appoint judges who interpret the constitution in a way that’s friendly to progressive policy aims.
Which was the sentence after the one he chose to quote.
That, boys and girls, is how you get to be a fill-in blogger at the Atlantic. i guess it explains McMegan a bit more.
You fail to understand the distinction between Matt's argument and my own. I am responding to his hypothetical about constitutional law being fixed with conservatives as victors – a hypothetical in which his "try to appoint judges whose interpretations are friendly to progressives" argument doesn't apply.
ReplyDeleteAnd in that hypothetical, violent revolution still wouldn't occur, because progressives could use non-government levers to accomplish some of their ends, even if conservative dominance of the courts restrained their means.
I am happy to have critics who disagree with me. But next time you level an accusation of hackery, be sure you understand the argument to which you're responding.
On the contrary, I think that you willfully misstated his point.
ReplyDeleteThat makes you at minimum dishonest and at most a hack.
I do appreciate your taking the time to comment though. Too bad that I couldn't do that same at your place.