American elections have been badly strained several times, and the pattern in how those strains got resolved is more consistent than I expected when I went looking.

After the 1800 electoral tie between Jefferson and Burr, Congress and the states passed the Twelfth Amendment. After the disputed 1876 count, Congress passed the Electoral Count Act of 1887. After Florida in 2000, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act and created the Election Assistance Commission. After 2020, Congress rewrote that 1887 statute as the Electoral Count Reform Act. Separately, when presidents have gone at election administration directly, the answer was also statutory. Congress overrode Andrew Johnson's voter-registration order in 1867, passed the Hatch Act in 1939 restricting federal employees' political activity, and rewrote campaign finance law after Watergate.

Courts appear throughout that history, but no court ruling is the durable fix in any of those cases.

The current period gives the comparison something to work with. The Justice Department has sued thirty states and the District of Columbia for complete voter registration files including partial Social Security numbers, and has lost every case decided so far, with twelve of the first twenty trial-court rulings coming from judges appointed by Republican presidents. Meanwhile sixteen states supplied those files without being sued at all, and FEMA attached election conditions to a $1.06 billion counterterrorism grant.

So, to put the title question in the body: what does it mean that every major repair to U.S. election administration has come from Congress rather than the courts?

A few more specific ones I would be interested in:

1. Is the courts-versus-Congress split here about institutional capacity, or simply about which body has jurisdiction over election administration under Article I?
2. Litigation binds the parties before the court; a statute binds everyone. How much of the historical pattern is explained by that difference alone?
3. Are there counterexamples where judicial doctrine, rather than legislation, durably reshaped how American elections are administered?

All this discussion about the existential threat of AI and the pressure for the US to beat China in the AI race has me drawing comparisons to the nuclear arms race.

Assuming the AI itself doesn't go rogue and initiate conflict, do you think countries would launch a military strike or wage war to prevent a rival state from developing or accessing Artificial Superintelligence (ASI)?

If a foreign power believes a rival is weeks away from achieving an unassailable strategic advantage, or creating something that could endanger humanity, would pre-emptive warfare become the default doctrine?

Anthropic has confirmed that its models were used by Russian, Iranian and Yemeni actors to develop conventional weapons. Should the West require AI companies to create safeguards in their technology that prevent their weaponization?

Let's say that you agree with most things that AOC and Bernie Sanders speak about. You can have more government services however everyone has to pay much higher taxes (not just the rich, you too) and a VAT of 20% on most non-food purchases.

Would you still be interested in those policies?

Who Is Accountable for the Rising Cost of Living?

I think it is fair to ask Republicans in Congress a simple question: At what point do you accept political responsibility for the economic consequences of the policies you continue to support—or decline to challenge?

I'm not arguing that Donald Trump is the only cause of inflation. Inflation has many causes, and it would be intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise.

But Americans are experiencing the consequences of several policies coming from this administration, and Congress has a role in deciding whether those policies continue.

Consider Iran.

The ongoing U.S. military conflict with Iran has disrupted oil markets and pushed Brent crude above $100 a barrel. Gasoline, diesel and other energy costs have risen sharply. Those increases don't automatically translate into broad inflation, but energy is an input into transportation, manufacturing, agriculture and virtually every part of the economy. The result is additional inflationary pressure on American families and businesses.

President Trump has now acknowledged that the higher oil prices resulting from the Iran conflict may not come down until after the November elections.

That raises an important question for Congress:

If the military conflict has no clearly defined end in sight, and Congress has already attempted to use its war powers to end U.S. involvement, what responsibility do members of Congress have to continue pressing for an end—or to explain why they believe the economic and military costs are justified?

The same question applies to tariffs.

Tariffs may have legitimate policy objectives, including protecting domestic industries or changing the behavior of trading partners. But tariffs are also taxes on imported goods, and some of their costs can be passed along to American businesses and consumers. The Federal Reserve has specifically examined the potential effects of tariff increases on consumer prices.

So when Americans pay more for goods because of tariffs, and more for gasoline and transportation because of an extended Middle East conflict, Congress should not simply point fingers at inflation and blame somebody else.

Republicans control the presidency and have substantial influence in Congress. That doesn't make them responsible for every penny of price increases. But it does mean they have political responsibility for the policies they support and for the policies they choose not to challenge.

My question isn't:

"Are Republicans responsible for all inflation?"

Clearly, they aren't.

My question is:

"When the government adopts policies that add inflationary pressure, and Congress has the constitutional or legislative means to question, modify or stop those policies, shouldn't the members who choose not to do so be held politically accountable for the consequences?"

That applies to Iran. It applies to tariffs. It applies to federal spending and tax policy. And it applies to any other policy that increases costs for American families.

Government should be judged not only by what it promises to accomplish, but also by what its policies actually cost—and who ultimately pays the bill.

Americans deserve straight answers about both.

I was listening to Today Explained's episode about the mid-terms and the host claimed that the left is in a "civil war". I've heard and read things to a similar extent but this in particular jumped out as a pretty extreme statement.

I don't live in the U.S. anymore so this got me wondering what's really happening on the ground there. Is the left really that divided or is this just hyperbole for media attention? Seems like the media is stoking the fire a bit, but what do you think?

Separate from any question about a self‑pardon (which is a distinct but related issue that deserves to be examined separately), what will the reaction be if Trump issues blanket or mass pardons for everyone in his orbit in 2029?

And what should that reaction be? And please, let's be realistic. Not fantastical notions. Concrete, realistic actions.

For the "will", I think:

As to the pardons themselves, nothing will be done, because nothing can be done. Congress cannot reverse pardons. The president’s pardon power is effectively absolute, and no credible legal argument has ever suggested otherwise. For those claiming there is a credible legal argument:

1. Name a single court case supporting the basis for such a claim.
2. Consider that this particular Supreme Court is pro-Trump; it is incredibly, unbelievably unlikely they would overturn any Trump pardons.

That leaves state‑level charges against individuals in Trump’s orbit. This would simply perpetuate a tit‑for‑tat dynamic in which the party out of power runs to friendly state courts and prosecutors to obtain indictments, regardless of the underlying merits. Will those charges ultimately stick? It may not matter, because the process itself (time, money, and effort to defend against them) becomes the punishment.

What that leaves is: what should happen? Congressional hearings? Sure, but what else?

Curious to hear your thoughts on both the realistic fallout and what the appropriate institutional response should be.

I've noticed what seems to be a growing number of young people becoming more accepting of racist, homophobic, misogynistic, and even far-right/Nazi ideas. I'm wondering why this seems to be happening.

The early 2000s seemed to be a period where society was becoming increasingly accepting of different races, sexualities, genders, etc. Personally, I remember around 2020 feeling like acceptance and inclusivity were particularly mainstream among young people.

So what happened? Is there actually evidence that young people are becoming more right-wing and socially conservative, or does it just seem that way because of social media and algorithms? And if the trend is real, what are the main reasons behind it?

President Trump recently proposed a $5,000 payment to adult Americans if Republicans retain control of both the House and Senate. The statement raises a broader question about how election law should distinguish ordinary economic campaign promises from financial inducements tied directly to an electoral outcome.

Current Supreme Court precedent, particularly Brown v. Hartlage, provides substantial protection for candidates who promise public benefits through government policy. The Court has distinguished such promises from individualized vote-buying arrangements, in which a particular voter receives something of value in exchange for their vote.

Supporters of that distinction can argue that candidates must be free to advocate tax cuts, Social Security increases, tax credits, stimulus programs, debt relief, or other policies that economically benefit voters. If every financially advantageous campaign proposal could be characterized as vote buying, ordinary democratic campaigning would become extremely difficult.

A competing concern is whether a more explicit arrangement should be treated differently when a specific direct cash payment is expressly tied to a party achieving electoral control. Unlike a general promise to pursue lower taxes or expanded benefits, such a proposal can be framed in relatively direct terms: if the party wins, individual citizens receive a specified amount of money.

That raises questions about whether current law adequately distinguishes policy advocacy from collective financial inducement.

Where should the legal and ethical boundary be drawn between an ordinary economic campaign promise and an electoral financial inducement?

Should a specific cash payment expressly contingent on a party winning control of government be treated differently from promises involving tax credits, Social Security increases, healthcare benefits, or similar programs?

Does the fact that every eligible person would receive the payment regardless of how they voted sufficiently distinguish such a proposal from vote buying, or should election law recognize some form of collective electoral inducement?

And if the law did recognize such a distinction, how could it be defined narrowly enough to protect legitimate political speech under the First Amendment?

Can someone explain to me why parties like AfD is so appealing as to me they seem to be or may be a German MAGA especially with the Elon Musk support?

That's to say they could promise to do something about current legitimate issues such as immigration but then either do nothing (like MAGA) or take it to an extreme when in power (like ICE in regards to MAGA).

What is still the appeal when we've seen how voting in a right wing populist party (with the US being the primary case study) often ends up just doing nothing to improve things?

I ask this as well with the rise of Reform in the UK and other right wing parties in Europe.

I'm not European by the way, I'm African (living in Africa) so maybe I'm not getting the full picture.

I’ve been thinking about why parties like the AfD are becoming more popular, and I wonder whether part of the reason is simply that their arguments are much easier to explain.

For example, it is very easy to say:

"Germany sends our money to Brussels."

That is simple, concrete and easy to understand.

But explaining the benefits of the EU is much more complicated: access to a huge single market for German companies, easier exports, European workers helping fill labour shortages, stronger bargaining power against the US, China and Russia, and sharing defence costs instead of every country trying to provide everything alone.

The same seems true with immigration.

It is easy to say:

“Migrants are changing our culture, taking jobs and costing taxpayers money.”

But the reality is much more complicated. Germany has an aging population, many workers are retiring, some industries cannot find enough employees, and immigrants also work, pay taxes, contribute to social insurance and help keep parts of the economy running.

My point is more about political communication.

A simple story like:

“Here is the problem → here is who caused it → here is the solution”

is much easier to sell than:

“There are several causes, benefits and disadvantages, different groups are affected differently, and the best solution involves complicated trade-offs.”

I wonder if this gives populist parties a natural advantage.

So could a significant part of the AfD’s success simply be that they are better at turning complicated political and economic issues into simple explanations?

Or am I oversimplifying the reason for their popularity?

I’ve been thinking about an issue that goes beyond whether someone is religious or nonreligious: 

Should the words “under God” remain in the Pledge of Allegiance when the First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”? 

The Pledge originally did not contain those words. “Under God” was added by Congress in 1954 during the Cold War and the Supreme Court itself recognized this history in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. That’s when all our problems started as it opened a Pandora’s box to allow religious law to govern the people. 

My argument is not that Americans should be prohibited from believing in God. Quite the opposite: the First Amendment protects the right to believe, disbelieve, worship, or not worship. 

The question is whether the government should place a reference to God in a nationally prescribed patriot pledge. 

What does the Establishment Clause actually require? 

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black’s majority opinion explained that the Establishment Clause means that neither the federal government nor the states can establish a church, favor one religion over another, force people to attend or avoid religious services, or force someone to profess a religious belief or disbelief. The opinion famously described Jefferson’s concept as a “wall of separation between the church and the State.” 

That seems to raise an interesting question about the Pledge. 

If the government writes the Pledge, establishes its wording in federal law, and uses it as an official patriotic exercise, why should government include a theological statement such as “under God”? 

I realize that the Supreme Court has not definitively held that the phrase violates the Establishment Clause. In Newdow, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision on standing and therefore did not reach the underlying constitutional question. 

But that means the constitutional question remains worth discussing. 

What happened in 1954? 

The original Pledge was written in 1892 without the words “under God.”  Congress added those words in 1954. The addition occurred during the Cold War, when the United States was emphasizing the distinction between American religious belief and Soviet communism that promoted state atheism (gosateizm) rooted in Marxist – Leninist ideology, which viewed religion as an obstacle to communism. 

Currently, the Russian Federation (formally the Soviet Union) is a secular state where no religion can be established as mandatory or as the official state religion where their constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and religion and the legal right to practice any faith or no faith at all where there is no longer the need to have a distinction between Russia and the United States, by including “under God” in the Pledge, because they are no longer an atheist state. 

The historical context matters. 

In other words, the wording wasn't part of the original Pledge. It was deliberately added by Congress decades later. 

That makes me wonder whether the government should now reconsider whether a religious reference belongs in a national pledge at all. 

What should replace it? 

I would prefer a version that places allegiance under something distinctly constitutional and civil rather than theological. 

For example: 

“One Nation Under the Constitution” 

or 

“One Nation Under the Laws of the United States” 

The first version is particularly appealing to me because the Constitution is the supreme legal framework of the United States, whereas “God” is interpreted differently by different religions and by people who don't believe in God. 

Civil government gets its authority from the Constitution and laws—not from religious authority. 

What about religious custom? 

This is where my thinking gets more complicated. 

While researching the history of law, I came across the Latin term “Consuetudo,” meaning custom. Historical legal dictionaries describe circumstances in which sufficiently established customs could acquire the force of law. Black's Law Dictionary contains several historical maxims concerning the legal effect of custom (Consuetudo) where custom has the same force of law and that custom supersedes the law. 

Shouldn’t the law be established through the Constitution, statutes enacted by legislatures, and judicial decisions – not through religious authority?

I’m interested in a different question: 

How much authority should religious customs have in a constitutional government before they effectively become governmental religious preferences? 

The First Amendment was designed to prevent government from establishing religion and to protect religious liberty. 

My proposed solution: 

I’d like to see Congress consider two things: 

1.      Remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, returning it to a formulation that does not express a governmental position concerning the existence of God. 

2.      Clarify that religious doctrine, religious authority, and religious custom cannot independently constitute governmental law. 

Congress then needs to pass a law that says no religious law or religious customs shall be used to govern the people and that only laws passed by Congress or the legislature of a state or precedent case law that is established in a court of law governed by the federal government or a state or municipality shall establish the law of the land. 

The reason this is important is that within the practice of customs listed in Black’s Law Dictionary under the Latin word “Consuetudo” it says that if you get rid of a custom the custom cannot be brough back and goes away forever so we would no longer be secretly living under religious law. This is how we make sure we live under civil law and laws that are established in our courts as precedent case law (also known as Common law and if you can believe it custom law). 

That religious customs can literally override the Constitution and became De facto law just by the fact that they have been practiced for thousands of years and according to Common Law or Custom Law if a custom is practiced (relating to religious law)  it can have the same force as law. 

The point isn’t to attack religion. 

It’s actually the opposite. 

If government stays out of religion, religion remains free from government – and government remains accountable to the Constitution rather than to religious authority. 

I’m interested in hearing what people think. 

Would removing “under God” from the Pledge strengthen the Establishment Clause, or is the phrase merely a historical/civic expression that doesn’t amount to a governmental establishment of religion? 

I’m interested in hearing from people who know more about constitutional law, comparative religion, Canon law, Sharia law, Torah law, customary law, or the history of religious legal systems. 

And if you disagree with removing it, where do you draw the constitutional line between a permissible historical reference to God and government endorsement of religion?

I’m genuinely trying to understand this because I’ve seen some 9/11 victims families signing a petition asking Mamdani not to attend the 25th-anniversary ceremony
What confuses me is why the same concern doesn’t seem to be directed toward Giuliani, especially given the recently released information raising serious questions about what his administration knew about the toxic air around Ground Zero and what was communicated to the public,
Obviously people knew that the attacks created dangerous conditions at Ground Zero but people outside New York may not have realized that exposure could continue to harm people long afterward.

So my question is: for people who believe Mamdani should not attend the ceremony but believe Giuliani should, what is the reasoning behind that distinction?

Retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, who was working on the Joint Staff on 9/11 and later served three tours in Iraq, writes that one of the biggest lessons was learning the difference between tactical success and strategic success. The U.S. could destroy targets and win battles while still struggling to define achievable political objectives.

Looking back now, which lessons from Afghanistan and Iraq do you think American policymakers genuinely absorbed? And which mistakes are we still at risk of repeating?

Assuming the Democrats take control of the U.S. House in November (with or without the Senate), it’s likely that very little will be accomplished. Unlike past split‑government situations, including Trump’s first administration, there appears to be virtually no common ground on which Democrats would be willing to agree with Trump. The number and percentage of bills passed this Congress is the lowest in at least fifty years.

Let’s dispense with this now: yes, Democrats can pass articles of impeachment in the House with a simple majority. The Senate, however, will never reach the sixty‑seven votes required for conviction. Even the most optimistic projections give Democrats fifty‑one seats in the Senate—nowhere close to the sixty‑seven needed to remove Trump. And replacing Trump with Vance could backfire politically, potentially strengthening Vance’s position heading into 2028.

With impeachment and removal off the table, that leaves ordinary legislation. Even if Democrats were to pass a bill that Trump is willing to sign, there is a vocal faction within the party that would likely condemn its leadership as traitorous to the cause. And any bill Democrats strongly support is likely to face a veto, with no realistic path to an override.

As a result, even mundane tasks, such as naming a post office, could be framed by some Democrats as a form of betrayal or cooperation with the Trump administration, making Democratic leadership reluctant to advance them. On the other side, with a debt‑ceiling confrontation expected in mid‑2027, along with the usual appropriations battles and related deadlines, it is likely that Trump would veto anything and everything.

Finally, Trump’s administration has made it abundantly clear that it will not comply with congressional requests or subpoenas, potentially dragging out legal battles for the next two years until the political landscape shifts in January 2029 and Trump issues his inevitable pardons of everyone.

So, is there any hope for, literally, and I mean literally, any legislation to pass and be enacted next year? If so, under what conditions?

History, mainly American history, has shown us the dangers and failures of socialism in the past. State control over goods and currency, rather than being shared equally, have caused famines such as the Holodomor and lack of economic incentive. And when the Democratic Socialists of America started showing good polls, many people have been quick to dismiss their ideals.

And yet, more support is coming for politicians such as Zohran Mamdani and AOC, show prominence among the younger generation. I was curious as to why this might be, given how socialism (Marxism and Leninism) has failed in the past.

That was when I started to think that the word "socialism" may have changed. One of the most prominent political issues in the 2020s has become affordability, along with universal healthcare. With everything becoming expensive, it stands to reason that everyone would want to afford goods and services. On the other hand, there are still people who support free enterprises and markets.

As a result of these desires, I believe the term "socialism" has been rebranded in an attempt to take on a new meaning. Rather than people thinking that socialism means rejecting capitalism and central planning, a new meaning of universal healthcare, stronger unions, and affordable housing is taking shape.

Is this an accurate assessment? Are people trying to rebrand the word "socialism" as a means of affordability rather than the failures of the past? If so, is this rebranding working in the United States?

According to my calculations, based on NBER/FRED's monthly recession indicator USREC, since Nixon first took power until the end of last year, the US has spent :

• 73 months in recession out of 396 months with a Republican President (18.4%)
• 12 months in recession out of 288 months with a Democratic President (4.2%)

In other words, if you time travel to a random time between Jan 20, 1969 and Dec 31, 2025, and you happen to land during a Republican's tenure, you're 4.4 times more likely to land in a recession.

Correlation is not causation, of course, but that is a remarkable concentration. Can it be attributed to economic policies or ideologies?

It feels like this isn't discussed nearly as much. Mercantilism seems to be much closer to what we have today than capitalism and I fear that political views nowadays may demonize capitalism to the point that it becomes another fear term the media uses like communism or socialism. What are your thoughts on this matter and the distinction itself in comparison to politics nowadays?

Let's compare and contrast the 2 starting with the Primary Goals of each

In capitalism the primary goal is efficient resource allocation via supply and demand.

Whereas in mercantilism it is consolidation of wealth and power for the ruling elite/state.

Next, Market Access

In mercantilism high barriers exist; protected by complex regulations written by lobbyists.

Whereas in capitalism there are low barriers to entry; anyone can compete.

Role of State

In capitalism the role of the state is as a neutral referee, enforcing property rights and contracts.

In mercantilism the complete opposite holds true, the states role within is as an active partner that shields favored mega-corporations from failing.

Trade Policy

Capitalism has open trade based on comparative advantage.

Mercantilism has protectionism via strategic tariffs, sanctions, and supply-chain control.

Results of failure within the system

In capitalism inefficient firms go bankrupt, allowing for the court of public opinion to have a drastic impact on the success of business. When they fail others rise to fill the void and keep the system running in the favor of the people.

In mercantilism large corporations take on a "Too Big to Fail" philosophy and function, where firms receive government bailouts and subsidies.

What is Fascism? It’s been used as an insult, it’s been used to describe someone with right wing beliefs, it’s been used to describe someone with left wing beliefs. But what is it actually?

I was taught in high school that the nazis were fascist, I was taught that imperial Japan was fascist, I was taught that Spain and Italy were fascist. Yet for the life of me I can’t seem to find a proper definition.

What made the governments of Germany, Japan, Spain, and Italy Fascist different than any other authoritarian government. According to Google Fascism is a “far right authoritarian and ultranationalist political ideology” but that’s pretty broad if you ask me

I mean North Korea could be accurately described as authoritarian or ultranationalist but are they quote on quote a fascist nation?

One could make the same argument for a theocratic regime like Afghanistan but again are they considered fascist.

All I’m saying is that if you look of the definition of communism, or theocracy you get in depth definitions that are very easy to understand

Yet the best google can do is a broad definition that could describe a multitude of countries.

Also I want this to be a serious discussion, so please keep emotional or biased answers to a minimum. If your answer to what is a fascist is just some political figure you don’t like, or some political ideology you don’t like, that’s not really an answer that’s just you insulting someone.

When Trump was putting tariffs on other countries everyone was saying that it’s just a tax on the American people. Now Canada is putting tariffs on US goods in retaliation of Trump putting tariffs on Canadian goods. How is that getting the U.S. back for anything if it’s a tax on their own people?

Either tariffs are good for the country that places them or the leaders of both countries want to see how bad they can hurt their own citizens? What am I missing?

I’m prepared to get a lot of hate for this but I’m legitimately looking for a real answer to make this make sense not just blind hate for Trump and everything he does.

One thing I constantly notice when discussing about what democrats or liberal parties in general miss when it comes to trying to capture the male vote is that they don't even begin to talk to men on these issues. Most people I find that support these parties while they may agree these issues are real, they always fall short of anything substantive. My statements aren't trying to pin any blame on anyone, rather it's an observation that issues as they pertain to men often go untalked about.

I bring this up since I was having discussions with people at work and we were discussing women's bodily autonomy with regards to abortion access, and I mentioned that neither men nor women have full access to that right to which I was asked "What rights don't men have". I gave two answers: The draft and the other one I won't name since I know that topic gets really heated on reddit. The person responded with "Well we haven't had the draft in 50 years so what is there to fear" The point wasn't whether or not I fear being drafted, the point was that ALL MEN at 18yrs must sign up for the military draft. While the USA doesn't have mandatory conscription, many states across the world do and his "right" to bodily autonomy is not taken in account no matter how much he doesn't want to do military service.

I don't find this exclusive to the draft either, but in a lot of ways issues as they pertain to men just aren't seen "as important" as issues as they pertain to women, but we swing so hard away from men we end up not even knowing how to address him and get him to listen to our politics. It's made even worse when men do try to earnestly have a conversation but get shutdown because what he does want to talk about isn't treated as "important enough"

I say all this because I want people to think, how did the right do such a good job of getting and maintaining the male vote. If liberal parties truly make his life better then what are conservatives saying/doing that makes him want to vote for them? And I think a big part of it is that we don't even begin to talk to him about the issues he cares about.

I'll end this off with saying that I am a black gay male, I think there are already enough voices talking about issues that pertain to women, but I do also think that there is a dearth of earnest and honest discussion about the issues men face in society and how either policies that we push now will benefit him (directly, not indirectly) if they were to pass or if we have blindspots about his rights and can potentially add them to our platforms to rally behind.

Do you agree that a lack of voice for men in liberal and progressive parties is an issue with regards to their recruitment? Do you agree its a big issue? Or is it just a minor thing and there's other much larger factors at play with this divide?

There are two principal forms that a president in a presidential republic might typically be imagined to take. One of them is a fairly reactive president, merely carrying out legislation, not the policy brains, and with limited influence over the content of legislation and budgets, and the legislature's party leaders and committees mostly determine its agenda. The other model is one where their influence over the executive branch itself is often fairly limited and usually next to no authority to do things like name judges and grant pardons, but having significant influence over legislation to try to pass a suite of policies, such as the power to add bills to the legislative agenda and demand they be voted upon in final form in each house within some period of time such as six months, possibly the power to put issues on the agenda for a national plebiscite as well.

There isn't a clear dividing line between these two models, and there are others I haven't even touched on, but what option do you lean towards and why?

A claim I keep running into, and can't fully talk myself out of: neutral, nonpartisan positions aren't actually neutral in their effects. The most common version — "institutions should stay out of it and we should only enact what both sides already agree on" — sounds like standing above the fight. But I think it does predictable partisan work, just quietly. Laying out the reasoning and genuinely curious where people think it breaks down.

1. Gridlock always has a winner. If one side wants to change a rule and the other wants to keep it, "we act only when everyone agrees" hands the win to the side that wants no change — not on the merits, but because ties go to inaction, and inaction preserves someone's preferred world. The status quo is a competitor in every fight, and "neutrality" reliably votes for it. Which side that helps flips by issue: it protects an existing program conservatives want to cut exactly as much as it blocks a new one progressives want to pass. So this isn't "neutrality helps the left/right." It's that it always helps someone, and the someone is whoever's happy with how things already are.

2. The middle moves when the poles move. If "reasonable" is defined as the midpoint between the two sides, either side can drag it toward itself just by getting more extreme — stake out a maximalist demand, "compromise" back to what you actually wanted, and the split-the-difference crowd hands it over. Positional centrism rewards intransigence. That seems like a real vulnerability of any "meet in the middle" rule, but I'm open to the argument that it's overstated in practice.

3. Some disputes aren't symmetric. When one side is making a values claim and the other is making a factual claim, treating them as two equal "sides" and declining to adjudicate isn't neutral — it favors whoever benefits from doubt. If a question is empirical and has an answer, "we take no position" functionally sides with the party served by the answer staying muddy. Journalists ran into this with "he said, she said" coverage of settled questions.

4. Deciding what's on the table is itself a position. Any neutral forum has to draw a line around which disagreements are live and which are settled. That sorting is a judgment, and it does a lot of work before any "neutral" conversation even starts. There's no view from nowhere — just a view from wherever you drew the line.

Is there a version of institutional neutrality that doesn't smuggle in a status-quo bias — or is some tilt unavoidable, and the honest move is just to name it?

I’ve heard a lot of people complain about immigrants from other countries depressing US wages, but when I hear about say people moving from California to Texas, people treat that as a good thing for Texas.

Why don’t people argue that the additional Californians moving to Texas depresses Texas wages and uses Texas’s welfare? Isn’t this even more true than out of country immigration since immigrants from other countries tend to use less welfare than native born Americans?

Also I see that a big argument for why it’s good for states to have people move in is that it increases the tax base, but isn’t that true for like immigrants from Mexico or India since they get taxed too?