Why have Democrats gotten so bad on civil liberties?

[Benjamin Frank]

I know they got pretty bad on economics, and I know a lot of them began supporting needless wars. But how and why have the Democrats become so bad on civil liberties, especially regarding covid?

I know the Republicans are guilty of this too, but I and many other folks thought that if there was a major crisis during the Trump years, the Trump administration would stand alone in its extreme violations of basic civil liberties. Man, were we ever wrong!

In some countries (maybe a vast majority), the more left-leaning parties are more lenient regarding covid than the more right-leaning parties. Sweden is an example. But I'd say the Democrats certainly are not left-leaning at this point.

Is it just because bigger states are more likely to have Democratic governors now, and more urban areas are a little more wary of contagious diseases? I'm near a big city, but in some ways I'm more rural-oriented, and I never worry anymore about covid from an epidemiological standpoint.

What issues remain that the Democrats haven't gotten bad on?

Maybe because Democrats regard living as a civil liberty.

[Benjamin Frank]

Maybe because Democrats regard living as a civil liberty.

Then why are so many people dead?

Because Trump is the President and a lot of stupid people listen to him and they think it's their 'right' to not wear a mask.

Ask Jeffrey Toobin how not wearing an article of clothing worked out for him.  (Though he hasn't been criminally charged, to be sure.)

The idiots who are most opposed to mask wearing tend to be also the most opposed to lock-downs.  If they had a brain, they'd realize it's their not wearing masks that is leading to the re-lock-downs.



Somebody brought up Megyn Kelly to me earlier today and I mentioned that she got into an argument on Fox News with a Muslim professor of religion (Reza Aslan) over him being a Muslim but studying Jesus and Christianity.  So, I found what I thought was the clip of that argument.  It turns out it wasn't Megyn Kelly who had the argument with Reza Aslan.

However, in the clip with Megyn Kelly, they showed a person in a city hall somewhere in Virginia going on about some proposed Mosque in the area and the person saying "You're not going to build that Mosque here, all Muslims are terrorists." (and getting a fair amount of applause in response)  

That is what violations of civil liberties based on irrational fears look like.

Of course, this is somewhat subjective, but a fear of a virus that causes death in approximately 1 in 200 people that get it, is not irrational.

[Benjamin Frank]

"In some countries (maybe a vast majority), the more left-leaning parties are more lenient regarding covid than the more right-leaning parties. " This is absolutely not true, Sweden is the outlier there-not America.

Nicaragua is pretty lenient, and it has one of the more left-leaning governments out there.

Someone on another board said British Columbia under the NDP is much more lenient than Ontario under the Conservatives.

Living in British Columbia I can answer this. We are more lenient, at this moment, because we have better circumstances.

There are two reasons for this I think:
1.Ontario tried a good deal of the 'muh freedom' approach, Doug Ford resisted locking-down until the numbers got so bad he was warned by health authorities that not locking down would lead to a uncontrollable explosion in cases.  It's basic exponential arithmetic.  Cold equations don't care about your abstract principles.

2.The city of Toronto and the Greater Toronto region is one of the largest by population and densest regions in Canada/USA.  Not as large or as dense as New York City to be sure, but in the top five.

Density plays a large roll in the spread of the virus.  British Columbia's densest region, Greater Vancouver, is about 1/2 as dense.  It also has a large East Asian population where mask wearing has been an accepted practice for years.  I know there is also a fairly large East Asian population in the GTA, but I believe they are much more concentrated.

[Benjamin Frank]

Besides, the Democratic coalition as of 2020 is no place for anyone who scores low on trust in authority. They've always laughed at us anyway and will be happier cavorting with people who thought that Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign was a height of decency in politics.

This isn't wholly true. Authoritarians are overrepresented in the leadership roles of all parties and the Democratic electorate is probably less skeptical of government in the abstract than it was 20 years ago, although the same is true for the Republicans, for better and for worse. The coronavirus-themed elephant in the room has seen major global policy shifts, most of which don't see very durable to me, but besides that, Democratic policymakers have generally pushed in a more civil libertarian direction in recent years. Whether that translates into a less authoritarian federal government remains to be seen, but the party seems more willing than before to push for expanded voting rights/access, more ambitious policing reforms and drug decriminalisation. There are areas of regression like freedom of speech but I'd wager that activists are pushing for more socially liberal policies, although that isn't necessarily coming from a socially liberal philosophy.

I think the overbearing response to the pandemic deserves more weight, especially in states like New York and California. It shows you how far they are willing to go when a crisis moves public opinion and there's no real opposition to check their power.

To be clear, "trust in authority" and authoritarianism mean different things to me and I used that phrasing deliberately. Both parties are becoming more authoritarian even as they move in opposite directions on the first of those dimensions.

e: This post at Scholar's Stage sums up my thinking better than I can:

Americans were once accustomed to solving problems themselves—less as rugged individuals, than as rugged communitarians. When a novel problem occurred, they would gather together with others affected, and would together take action to resolve the problem before them. This lived experience of jointly solving novel problems has largely disappeared from American life.

Americans have spent several generations the subject of bureaucratic management, and are rarely given real responsibility for their own affairs. The "Karen" like impulse of contemporary life is to defer to experts; when a novel problem arises, the default solution is an appeal to management. The problem with all this: managers come from the same stultified society as the managed. Once they attain power they realize they have no more experience building problem-solving institutions than the rest of us.

I'm not going to accept this argument: unless you believe in abstract principles of civil liberties in all circumstances you are an authoritarian.

As Keynes said: “When facts change, I change my mind,”   The situation in the world has changed with this pandemic.  It is not a hoax and it is not 'no worse than the normal flu.'

Have there been some over-reactions from authorities, sure.  However, mask requirements and lock-downs to significantly reduce the spread of the virus (i.e macro quarantining) are both rational responses to a genuinely deadly virus that can't be seen.

I think the obvious paranoia here is from those who argue that the governors of California or New York or Michigan are using this pandemic to realize their dream of some authoritarian society. That's idiotic paranoia.

Also, if you are in an indoors public space not wearing a mask, you are not fighting for 'civil liberties' you are fighting for 'I don't care about anybody else, including I don't care if you die.  All that matters is 'muh freedom.'"

[Benjamin Frank]

↑Averroes, I get what you're saying, particularly with that last quote on individualistic problem solving, but right now, what we're getting is individualistic problem making, with many Americans choosing not to protect themselves and others in a misguided attempt to demonstrate that historical ruggedness.

Individualized approaches to problem solving as a society will not work if a good chunk of local/nationwide communities/social circles are working to undermine the efforts of the rest of the population. Top that off with the disaster from the present administration, and you have a recipe for a pandemic disaster, where tens of thousands of lives are lost beyond the bare minimum.

I won't go into the minutia of all the other points unless you want to, but I feel that individualism is limited to actually working for the greater whole. What we would be getting is collective destruction right now instead of any problems being solved.

Two, three, or four weeks to slow the spread were justified given how little we knew and how quickly the hospitals in New York City and elsewhere were overwhelmed. As strong as my feelings on this question have become, I am not an ideologue.

But there's no broader strategy now. When does it end? If the idea is that we must live with mandatory restrictions on how we interact with others until there is a vaccine, that needs to be acknowledged, and we need to be willing to discuss what has until now been a forbidden question: Given the likely timeline - at this point putting distribution around mid-2021, if we're lucky, and it could be years if we're not - is it worth continuing to live like this?

I'm not going to accept this argument: unless you believe in abstract principles of civil liberties in all circumstances you are an authoritarian.

As Keynes said: “When facts change, I change my mind,”   The situation in the world has changed with this pandemic.  It is not a hoax and it is not 'no worse than the normal flu.'

Have there been some over-reactions from authorities, sure.  However, mask requirements and lock-downs to significantly reduce the spread of the virus (i.e macro quarantining) are both rational responses to a genuinely deadly virus that can't be seen.

I think the obvious paranoia here is from those who argue that the governors of California or New York or Michigan are using this pandemic to realize their dream of some authoritarian society. That's idiotic paranoia.

Also, if you are in an indoors public space not wearing a mask, you are not fighting for 'civil liberties' you are fighting for 'I don't care about anybody else, including I don't care if you die.  All that matters is 'muh freedom.'"

Let me be specific rather than allowing you to invent details about my purported beliefs.

I wear a mask indoors and will continue doing so through at least the end of the upcoming flu season. What I don't support is public health messaging that demonizes anyone who isn't enthusiastic about masks. (You have people on this website bragging about hectoring service workers for failing to enforce strict mask rules. That kind of entitled behavior has become typical.) Nor do I support the suggestion that it's reasonable for us to mandate masks indefinitely, or that wearing them is only a small sacrifice. It's not a small sacrifice for workers who must wear them all day while doing physical work or struggling to hear customers and understand how they are feeling. It's not a small sacrifice for someone with asthma. It's a significant burden for many people, an impediment to normal socializing, and probably not great for childhood development. I also think that the idea of a national mask mandate is stupid and unconstitutional.

I don't support telling religious groups that they can't meet. I don't support kicking students out of college for hanging out with their friends unmasked. I don't support forcing children to stay at home when they should be in school. I don't support telling people that they can't travel to visit relatives for the holidays. I don't support keeping bars and restaurants closed or well below their normal capacity or punishing businesses for not fulfilling demands that they constantly police social distancing rules.

There's a limit to what people can reasonably be expected to sacrifice, and it's time for us to recognize that the data on suicides, drug overdoses, hunger, housing, small business closures, and mental health indicate that the sacrifices have been substantial. Did you know that lead poisoning cases are on the rise because more children have been forced to spend their days at home in substandard housing units? I didn't until I talked to someone who works in a public health department in Upstate New York. We should not subordinate every other aspect of public health to virus suppression, but that is what we are doing.

Yes, I agree with many of these concerns.  However, I go back to my initial point:  were it not for the idiots who refuse to wear masks indoors in public spaces or engage and who engage in other risky behavior, most of the rest would very likely not be necessary.  The idiots who are generally the loudest whiners regarding the lock-downs are the very same idiots necessitating the lock-downs.

I appreciate there are difficulties for some people wearing masks.  It is more than an inconvenience for some, but I don't buy the 'hearing customers' nonsense.  

If you are such a great civil libertarian, what do you think of
1.legalizing sex in public
2.legalizing all drugs
3.legalizing urination at least in nature spots
4.legalizing public nudity
5.Legalizing prostitution

[Benjamin Frank]

I think it's unfortunate that the definition of principles seemed to be increasingly determined by absolutists: unless you are 100% for 'muh freedom' you are an authoritarian.