The Committee is gratified by the response to Federal Constitution v2.0, Draft Revision 2. Public comments received to date have highlighted the need to publish a more extended rationale for Presidential Election Process v2.0 Draft 2.
Normative text is displayed in black. Archaic spellings and capitalization have been modernized. Annotation to distinguish changes from version 1.27 has been dropped, on the grounds that it was visually confusing and tended to steer reviewers away from careful review of the original test of version 1.27.
Rationale is displayed in red. Rationale is non-normative, but is provided to call out differences from release 1.27, better define terms of art, offer the reasoning behind the normative text, and offer other clarifications.
To my mind, the most distinctive feature of the recent presidential election was the way in which it scrambled previously-stable political coalitions. Even Mormon voters, who are perhaps more similar to one another in mindset and political views than any other religious group, found themselves opposed in ways they never thought possible: Mommy-blogger was divided against mommy-blogger, and church-baller against church-baller.
Mormon Trump voters and McMullin voters differed less in political or moral views than in the meaning they impute to the act of voting. McMullin voters (like my in-laws) seemed to think of their vote as an affirmation of their values. By withholding a vote from Trump, they were making a statement about what they consider to be acceptable behavior in a president.
Although I voted for Trump, I have no quarrel with the “endorsement” view of voting. Not one person in the whole country can say, or likely ever will be able to say, that his vote changed the result of the election. Thus, the “meaning” which we attribute to our individual vote is essentially metaphysical, and not really subject to rational argument. (more…)
His Majesty was in a happy mood this morning.
In a country like ours, where politics is organized by party, parties are organized by ideological principles, but those ideological principles tend to align with demographic categories, we see three types of political strategies. (more…)
In a nutshell:
It is difficult to overstate the perversity of what has transpired this year. The loathsomeness of the candidate on one side helped fuel the support of a loathsome candidate on the other side, and box out any serious third-party alternative. The result is two small groups of extreme partisans fighting on behalf of horrible candidates, and a sea of voters in between disheartened by two miserable options. And that dissatisfaction is all but guaranteed to continue for the next four years, whatever the outcome in November.
In the great contest between the House of Trump and the House of Clinton, sensible patriots are rooting for casualties.
— Thus Kevin D. Williamson
Conservatism is in crisis because few still believe in the rational and color-blind rule of law — because there is not enough genuine American liberalism left to conserve.
— thus Ralph Hancock.