Authors Talking About Politics: An Archived Twitter Thread
Posted on June 26, 2022 Posted by John Scalzi 64 Comments
I’ve written about this subject extensively here on Whatever over the years, but it’s worth saying again here in 2022, and also, not everyone who follows me on Twitter comes over here. I posted this tonight over there, and am reposting here for archival purposes and because not everyone here goes over to Twitter.
1. Over on Facebook a post is being passed around in which an author is telling other authors not to take political positions because our job is to entertain, not alienate “half our readers.” So, let me speak on this general concept of authors shutting up and staying in lanes.
2. Basically: Nah. Don’t shut up, if you would prefer to speak. Also, as a human here on Earth in 2022, you’re in a bunch of “lanes” including “a political stakeholder who has opinions on events that affect their life.” You may decide that “lane” is the important one right now.
3. Will you alienate readers expressing political opinions? Sure. But, as someone who once received a flaming kiss-off from a reader for expressing a mild operating software preference, I assure you that you can alienate readers by expressing any opinion on anything whatsoever.
4. You could try to never express an opinion on anything ever again, including in your writing (this is a neat trick if you can manage it, good luck with it), but living a life of never publicly expressing an opinion so as to never lose a sale seems enervating and futile to me.
5. Also, think about the math for a second, for crying out loud. To grossly oversimplify: The US adult readership is about 200 million people. If you alienate “half of them” by talking politics, you have 100 million left. 99+% of books sell 20k copies or less. YOU WILL BE FINE.
6. More realistically, the market pool for any book will be smaller based on genre, etc. But even then, if you lost “half” the potential readership, you’d still have more readers available to you than you are likely to sell to, even if you are a genre or mainstream bestseller.
7. But you want to sell more! Well, good for you! Also, have you noticed that bestselling authors on social media tend to be a politically mouthy bunch? It’s almost as if their having a loud public political opinion did not impede their book sales! Curious, that!
8. Also, look: you could lose readers by expressing opinions. You can also gain them. There are readers who factor a similar worldview into their purchase choices, or when trying out new authors. Other readers don’t care. In my experience, these things even out in the wash.
9. You don’t have to express political or other opinions out loud if that’s not how you roll. Be who you are. But that is how you roll, don’t limit yourself because of worries about sales. I suspect you will also find being your authentic self is important in the long run.
10. On a personal level: With full acknowledgment of who I am and the privileges I get because of it, I have a full and extensive history of being publicly political, long before I was writing books. Lots of people wish I would shut up. But it’s not their call and it’s my choice.
11. I could not and can not in good conscience be silent about politics and the world, especially now, when fellow Americans are having their rights stripped from them by cowards and bigots and fools. I will speak and not give a damn how many sales I lose. This is an easy choice.
12. So, yeah. Speak your mind, authors, if that what you think the moment requires of you. You don’t need to be silent against your will, just for the sake of a sale.
And now, to close the thread, as always, here's a cat.
/end
Originally tweeted by John Scalzi (@scalzi) on June 27, 2022.
— JS
Thank you for all of this
It is so relevant
Including the cat
As opportunities present themselves, I will fight for what is right. When that is done, I will be more like cat.
Be more like cat.
The cat has a most excellent cattitude.
Hear, hear. Well said.
As sci-fi is not a genre I regularly read, I discovered your books after a friend shared a political post from your blog. I liked the blog, began following it, and eventually decided to give one of your books a try. I have since read (and enjoyed) several of them.
So yeah, posting political opinions can definitely bring you new readers as well as (potentially) alienating existing readers.
Thank you for not staying silent.
I’ve always shot my mouth off about politics. I used to do it for a living, within the Canadian context, and I guess the habit sank in.
Being a center-left Canadian, my politics wold probably be strange and exotic to my (mostly American) readers. Fortunately, most Americans know next to nothing about how things are done in other countries, and care not at all.
Lately, I’ve actually upped my posting of comments about US politics to the Washington Post and the New York Times, because I really don’t want to see America sleepwalk into a Northern Ireland-style social war.
Which is what it looks to me is happening. Which means refugees and exiles will be pouring over the border, with hit squads on their heels. Gaddafi on steroids.
It’s some combination of amusing and annoying when a writer announces that their personal policy is therefore an axiom for all writers. The inherent arrogance in the default assumption that we all make art for the same reasons is kind of a hoot, too.
I like to just reply with a simple “No” and watch them burn extra calories getting apoplectic.
I am glad you posted this here as I do not exist on Twitter.
My personal take on it is that an author’s political opinion doesn’t have much if any influence on if I read their work or not. My almost exclusive criterion on if I read a book or not is if I enjoy it, or at least think that I will enjoy it. With the exception that, as you suggested in #4, it does tend to come through in their writing and if their opinion is strong enough and contrary to my own opinion then I probably won’t enjoy their work. Funny how that works.
If an author whose work I enjoyed turned out to be a more literate Majorie Taylor Greene (They would have to be more literate since that woman can’t write a sentence much less a book) I am not sure what I would do. Probably quit reading their work since I don’t think I could stomach supporting a person like that even in the smallest way. But maybe not.
Anyway, just one assholes opinion.
Still excellent advice. Applies to all “_________ should stay in their lane!” comments. Citizenship is our lane, voicing political opinions our right. Our choices for both are ours to make.
Go Scalzi! (I attended a zoom for Access Missouri, a PAC focused on access to healthcare including reproductive type, tonight and am feeling a little less cold and selfish for my Twitter behavior since the people on the zoom were very calm and admitted that Missouri has been a post-Roe state in all but name for a while.)
One of my favorite authors wrote on her FB after 45 won (I paraphrase ’cause she’s no longer on FB): “This is horrible, a complete disaster! He is a lying grifting asshole. If you voted for him I don’t want you to buy my books, read my books, touch my books!”
I loved her even more after.
I’d be happier if a certain best selling TERF would stop trying to make trans people’s lives miserable. But that’s more of an if you’re a bigot you should change your political views to not be one than anything else.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I’m a fan for life. We must speak up. The cat photo was the perfect closer, it made your case. ;-)
Please, always speak up, all of you.
And by the way, is that Sugar or Spice? I can’t keep them straight any more.
I mean, unless an author is absolutely egregious in their political views (i.e. actively, openly and LOUDLY supporting hate – I’m looking at you, Card!) I’ll just note it and move on. Even though it will influenced their work, it’s just not important unless their actively working to do harm. And honestly, i often wouldn’t want to live in the worlds they create, but they’re genuinely interesting, ya know?
Argh, sorry for the homonym autocorrect i didn’t catch until posted! Half asleep… (their instead of they’re “…they’re actively working…”)
For what it’s worth, the most bitter flamewar (remember those) I ever witnessed was in a Usenet group for PC hard disk controllers, as the SCSI and IDE proponents went after each other .
Those were the days
Yes.
More importantly – Kitteh!
Adorable Kitteh.
“Over on Facebook a post is being passed around in which an author is telling other authors not to take political positions because our job is to entertain, not alienate “half our readers.””
Can’t remember who wrote it, or the exact way in which it was written, but the best response I ever saw to the “losing half your readers” bullshit went something along the lines of “I’m not too concerned about alienating people who don’t read”.
I would imagine that sort of thing happens rarely, anyway. Can’t remember a single time I really liked an author’s work, only to discover that they have an awful public persona, or hold repugnant views. Shitty human beings tend to write shittily. Although one has to wonder to what extent it works in the reverse, i.e. authors becoming terrible people in reaction to their work being unsuccessful.
One of my favorite writers is David Simon, and his Twitter is savage.
And, of course, there is the idea “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men (persons) to do nothing”
Thank you for reposting this here. Twitter blocks non-account-holders from reading tweets, and since I am not and never will be an account-holder on that platform, this is the only way I can read your comments.
And thanks also for being political and mouthy – I appreciate both traits a great deal.
Teh Gerg, I believe the photo is of Spice. Sugar has a dilute chimera face (or at least nose), while Spice has a solid buff/orange nose. That’s the only way I can tell them apart.
@ Colonel Snuggledorf:
“Twitter blocks non-account-holders from reading tweets, and since I am not and never will be an account-holder on that platform, this is the only way I can read your comments.”
Are you sure about this? I too am #ForeverNoTwitter, and I can read tweets without issues.
I agree that speaking out politically is anyone’s prerogative. My question is about the argument to speak truthfully and accurately.
I think everyone has this responsibility, though it doesn’t seem particularly valued or followed these days. That being the case I would guess that a public figure with a wider audience has a greater moral responsibility in this regard.
As a fan and a general respecter of your usually careful and nuanced posts, I was disappointed to see you refer to ivermectin as “horse dewormer” or refer to the Republican Party as the party of “white supremacy.”
I think you know why these things are both wrong and not constructive but said them anyway. I think any person of good will knows a pejorative mischaracterization when they come across it.
FYI, I’ve voted Democrat and Republican and split my vote depending, and try to be a servant of truth, yet often make the same failings I’m criticizing you for, so I’m a hypocrite. It’s hard not to raise the rhetoric when preaching.
Do you feel you have this responsibility, or am I pushing a moral imperative you don’t share?
I find that when I try to go to OGH’s Twitter in a regular window, it gets frozen pretty quickly. But if I go in an incognito window, then I can read it.
@ Just Sayin’:
“I think you know why these things are both wrong and not constructive but said them anyway.”
I think you know that calling someone “wrong” because you don’t agree with them (without offering counter-arguments) is itself not constructive, but you’re doing it anyway.
Catering to your personal biases is not a “moral imperative”.
@ David Goldfarb:
“I find that when I try to go to OGH’s Twitter in a regular window, it gets frozen pretty quickly.”
When you get “frozen”, click the Sign In button, then Cancel, then close the pop-up sign-in window. Works for me in Chrome.
Fatman – thank you for the tips! I used to be able to read twitter without having an account, but about six months ago I started getting a popup that said I had to have an account to read posts there. I usually use Firefox for a browser but will try your suggestions in Chrome.
Just sayin’:
“I think you know why these things are both wrong”
I don’t. Both are absolutely correct. Ivermectin is in fact a horse dewormer, and the GOP is in fact a white supremacist party. I said what I said and I stand by both.
I suspect you wish to imply that things are more complicated than these statements. But farm supply stores had a run on horse dewormer by anti-vaxxers, and the GOP is out there talking about replacement theory and gerrymandering to dilute the voting power of black people among many other things, so, no it’s not really.
If you want me not to say obvious, factual things, help make the world a place where they are neither obvious nor factual. I thank you in advance.
@Fatman “I would imagine that sort of thing happens rarely, anyway. Can’t remember a single time I really liked an author’s work, only to discover that they have an awful public persona, or hold repugnant views. Shitty human beings tend to write shittily.”
I’m not so sure about that as a generalization. At least for me, it is sadly way too easy to think of authors who fit that exact description. Just off the top of my head from my library and memory:
Harlan Ellison – ’nuff said
Alice Walker – raging antisemite
Orson Scott Card – again, ’nuff said
Cixin Liu – genocide denialist
Marion Zimmer Bradley – just ugh!
Obviously, your mileage may vary with the authors mentioned but I can certainly say that those are all authors I’ve enjoyed and later discovered just how vile they were as human beings
Here’s a question–given that some states have more draconian abortion laws than others (including my own state of Tennessee, and yours), will that have an impact on where you schedule your future in-person tours?
I realize a book tour isn’t going to have the economic impact to a state that, say, a stadium concert or week-long broadway tour is going to have, and I realize that the most conservative folks aren’t necessarily Scalzi fans to begin with, but every drop of water can eventually makes a river, so to speak.
Impeach any supreme court justice who said UNDER OATH TO THE SENATE that Roe v Wade was settled law, then just voted to overturn it.
John:
Ivermectin is a Nobel prize winning drug that was been given to over a billion people. Like many widespread drugs, it has diverse uses. Your cite points out that there is an animal formulation that is an ingredient in some types of horse dewormers.
It is likely that the pejorative mischaracterization of Ivermectin as horse dewormers is in fact the cause of the run on horse dewormer you mention, illustrating my point about the harmfulness of these sorts of intentional misstatements.
Your calling of ivermectin “horse dewormer” was largely in response to Joe Rogan having taken the drug which was prescribed by a doctor as part of his treatment for Covid. Joe Rogan did not take the animal version of Ivermectin. He is able to afford people medicine.
Because there is a version of Ivermectin which is an ingredient in some forms of horse dewormer, does not make Ivermectin horse dewormer. Calling it such is pejorative mischaracterization. Which contributes nothing to factual content, and serves no purpose other than to cast an aspersion. As you point out, it’s also dangerous, as it may give desperate and not very smart people bad ideas about self-treatment.
Your second cite shows Mary Miller obviously flubbing a line in her speech. By what contortion of logic could that possibly be seen as evidence of an entire political party’s culpabililty in a heinous ideology?
Replacement theory is this bizarre conspiracy theory started by 19th century Frenchmen that there is a Jewish cabal trying to dilute white blood with that of impure races. It’s hardly a Republican thing. And, of course gerrymandering has a grand tradition amongst politicians of all stripes. There is nothing about gerrymandering that makes it white supremacist. Both Democrats and Republicans use demographics as one of the tools when they attempt to redraw the lines and they do so based on the same assumptions.
White supremacy is a specific vile ideology which virtually no one is espousing, and it is political suicide for anyone that does.
Calling Republicans white supremacists based on this weak sauce is just empty name calling. It’s false and counterproductive.
@Just sayin’ I am not sure how much you have been following recent (last decade) news, but white supremacy is the wink-wink-nudge-nudge of most of the current crop of Republican politicians. Just because some of them aren’t saying “I’m a white supremacist!” out loud doesn’t negate the appalling number of them supporting it by actions and other words; I’d be surprised if you could give me more than a couple of Democrats espousing it openly. Sadly, the Republicans seem to be enthusiastically embracing any viewpoint that will keep them in power and make their base happy, no matter how awful.
Themadlibrarian:
I hear lots of Democrats arguing that that’s what Republicans are really doing. I also hear lots of Republicans arguing that Democrats want to kill babies, hate America and actively work to keep minorities on welfare to keep them dependent and voting Democrat.
I don’t put much stock in one sides’ evil secret agenda conspiracy theory towards the other. It’s just name calling without a constructive purpose.
Unless I can prove otherwise I tend to assume that most people are acting in good faith, and espousing what they actually believe.
“White supremacy is a specific vile ideology which virtually no one is espousing, and it is political suicide for anyone that does.”
Oh my god. The main organizers for use of force on January 6 were the Proud Boys, and several other white supremacist groups. Who did they get their orders from other than Trump himself.
And before you stammer, But.. but… Trump told them to stand down!
Yes, and to STAND BY. as in await further orders. The Proud Boys printed tshirts with that quote on it.
Remember when full fledged Nazis drove a car into a crowd protesting statues of confederate traitors, and Trump said there were many fine nazis on both sides of the debate?
Trumps presidency has hinged on appealing to bigots: he had the muslim travel ban, pushed the “mexicans are rapists” nonsense along with his xenophobic wall, insists on calling covid the “china virus”, and was accused by government decades ago of not renting to black people.
Remember when Trump told his people to beat up protesters and he would pay their legal fees?
The man is a natural fascist. And holds a huge sway over the republican party even now.
“Both Democrats and Republicans use demographics”
Meh. I forget the numbers for the latest skew, but Congress has FOR YEARS gotten, say, ~60% of the vote going to Dems but only 50% of the seats being Dem. Because despite your tweedledee tweedledum bullshit argument, gerrymandering is far more committed by Republicans.
Nixon(R) invented the war on drugs to criminalize being Black. Reagan(R) refused to do anything about AIDS because it was only killing gay men.
Trump(R) appealed directly to islamophobes, racists, bigots.
Now various R politicians have passed laws prohibiting the teaching of anything that might make white boys feel guilty or uncomfortable about the white washed republican version of history their racist parents taught them.
Various (R) politicians are in a frenzy to prosecute parents for child abuse for letting their kids use whatever pronoun they want
Scotus(R) said they should review interracial marriage and gay marriage and possibly hand it back to the states.
Number one source of domestic terrorism in the US since 90s has been right wing/white supremacists.
there are entire swaths of the american population totally ready to kill anyone who isnt, white, male, straight, christian zealot, and voting R.
Wake the F up.
“Stay in your lane” is almost always yet another incarnation of abusers not wanting to accept the slightest responsibility for their actions. Of course they don’t want to hear about the consequences of their shitty, delusional policies.
@ Tim:
“Obviously, your mileage may vary with the authors mentioned”
All valid points. I’m lukewarm toward Ellison’s writing, and willing to give Liu the benefit of a doubt. Publicly speaking against Uyghur interment in China carries far harsher consequences than publicly speaking up against, e.g., extrajudicial police executions of African Americans in the US.
I’ve never read the other three, and am unlikely to do so.
@ Just Sayin’:
“Your cite points out that there is an animal formulation that is an ingredient in some types of horse dewormers.”
Right, but the “horse dewormer” bit was in reference to covidiots who, as you pointed out, “give desperate and not very smart people bad ideas about self-treatment”. Quibbling about the other uses of ivermectin is sort of… beside the point?
“Replacement theory is this bizarre conspiracy theory started by 19th century Frenchmen that there is a Jewish cabal trying to dilute white blood with that of impure races.”
Correct. And it is still a bizarre theory.
But no one argued that replacement theory was invented by Republicans, merely that they are the party currently embracing it – some openly, others implicitly. Coupled with unprecedented (Black) voter suppression efforts, coddling of outspoken, self-declared white supremacists, and outright censoring of critical race theory, there is preponderance of evidence of the GOP being a party of white supremacy.
“Your second cite shows Mary Miller obviously flubbing a line in her speech.”
Right after quoting Hitler on “who has the youth has the future”. Wo’s coming up with weak sauce, intellectually cowardly excuses now?
@ Just Sayin’:
“I also hear lots of Republicans arguing that Democrats want to kill babies, hate America and actively work to keep minorities on welfare to keep them dependent and voting Democrat.”
The difference is that one side has objective, factual evidence to support their claims, and the other doesn’t. By engaging in “both-siderism” in a situation like that, you’re not really taking a neutral stance.
“Unless I can prove otherwise I tend to assume that most people are acting in good faith, and espousing what they actually believe.”
Nixon called it a “war on drugs” but it was actually targetting black people. Years later, his lawyer admitted it.
If you assume evil people are going to espouse what they actually believe, do you also build a fort out of couch cushions and make “pew pew” noises as you “shoot” your fingers?
The real problem here is where you said “unless i can prove otherwise”. I will wager this isnt the first time people have posted a laundry list of crimes against humanity committed by evil doers, but youre simply not interested in listening. As long as YOU dont believe it, it isnt true.
Racist attacks tripled after Trump was elected, but hey, unless YOU interview each victim and assailant, how woukd YOU know for sure it was racism?
When someone like you goes out of their way to announce they live in a bubble of convenient ignorance, in a world where history is complex and bigotry has learned to hide, it makes clear that on some level, you understand there are shitty people out there doing shitty things to innocent people, but you just cant be bothered to do anything resembling “work” about it. Like, even listening to soneone with a different experience than you is too exhausting for you…
At least youre clear
Mmmmbop:
Are the proud boys white supremacist, or otherwise icky?
I don’t really know. I haven’t spent a lot of time delving into their ideology, because I don’t think much of ideologues in general, but since you said they were white supremacists as your first piece of evidence, I took a look.
I was surprised to see that the leader of this white supremacist group, Enrique Terrio? Is half black and half-Cuban, and endorses inclusivity in his Vanity Fair interview.
This would seem to indicate their version of white supremacy is…. Non traditional?
And this is the first piece of evidence you cite to refute my argument that people are not being careful in the aspersions they cast for pejorative value?
(Proud boys may be devil’s incarnate or Saints on earth, I have literally no idea, but if they are white supremacists, they seem to managing an interesting twist on it.)
Just sayin:
So… you’re saying that Ivermectin is a horse dewormer, and that you don’t actually want to admit that the GOP is actively pursuing an extremely obvious white supremacist agenda, so you’re going to throw up a whole bunch of chaff to try to pretend otherwise.
Oh, and that you hope I don’t remember that Rep. Miller quoted Hitler approvingly in the not-so-recent past.
Got it, thanks.
Also, let’s go ahead and table this particular discussion, since while it’s fun watching you try to move goalposts, it’s not actually getting anything useful done. Thanks. This applies to everyone responding to Just Sayin’ as well.
Your website. Your thread. Your rules.
No problem
Thank you for having me, and thank you to everybody else who spoke with me.
Be well!
:)
I dunno, there are numerous conservative-leaning artists that I am able to enjoy because I don’t follow them on social media, and there are a handful of artists whose art I can’t enjoy because they can’t stop sharing their political views, e.g. Gina Carano, JK Rowling etc.
I think there can be value in artists being ambiguous about their political beliefs or not sharing them. Even at a time like this, there can be value in creating space for people with differing political viewpoints to coexist without shouting at one another and experience the others humanity. Too much of the internet is performative political posturing and I think it has done more harm than good. I tend not to spend too much time on twitter because it is just a bunch of people echoing the same talking points and it doesn’t feel very helpful to me.
But i am in a progressive place in a progressive field of work, so maybe I get all the rah-rah progressiveness I need through my daily life and don’t need more online.
I am grateful for the artists I know who can speak about political issues intelligently and compassionately and passionately (yourself included), and I do breathe a sigh of relief when an artists I like confirms that their views align somewhat with mine. But I also appreciate the artists who I know disagree with me politically but who make art I connect with, and I am really grateful when I don’t have to watch them posting shitty right wing memes on parler or whatever.
As a rule, I tend not to support folks who’d sooner see me enslaved, deported or dead because I don’t meet their bigoted criteria for human. If I’m not good enough to count as an American with human, constitutional and civil rights, I’m sure as hell not good enough to spend my money on crap penned by those whose beliefs and values compell them to vote for folks who work to codify such sentiments into law.
As for (I paraphrase) an above comment about bad people being bad writers, Paul Gallico, a household name for pop culture readers in the 1960’s, once wrote a short book: An orphan girl, bereft of human kindness, gets fed by becoming part of a traveling one-man puppet show.
The man is always cruel, while the puppets are always nice to her.
In our new century my latest theory is that there is no middle ground: What I do or say is either nourishing or abusive…
It’s easier to think an abuser doesn’t yet understand, and needs more tears and explaining, than to acknowledge that he doesn’t care.
I guess Gallico meant that a person can know both lifestyle modes, and then make a choice.
Southern Poverty Law Center, a group that was fighting the KKK decades ago and has been fighting hate groups since, are the experts on hate groups, and lists the Proud Boys as white nationalist, anti muslim, sexist, anti semite, violent, fascists.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/proud-boys
The anti defamation league, which has been fighting hate for several decades too, describes Proud boys as “misogynistic, Islamophobic, transphobic and anti-immigration. Some members espouse white supremacist and antisemitic ideologies and/or engage with white supremacist groups.”
https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/proud-boys-0
I would consider splc and adl as the experts on hate groups if anyone has a question on a particular group and what they really are.
@Mmmbopp
Agreed on all counts. My community (if the posts on nextdoor can be believed) is littered with proud boys, and you are spot on about who they are.
Also, it amazes me how some folks think nonwhite and white supremacy are mutually exclusive concepts and phenomena.
Marco Rubio, Tim Scott, Ted Cruz, Candace Owens, Larry Elder and justice Thomas are some of the worst white supremacists in the game. The fact that a hate group and terrorist organization is headed by a person of color means fuck all.
Discovering later on that an author whose works you’ve enjoyed is a vile human being is, I think, a different issue than what John is talking about, authors whose political opinions you already know you disagree with. I’ve read a few such authors in that category, who were good writers and didn’t always drip their views all over their fiction, but that was before Twitter.
Example of political conservative SF writer whose work I find often enjoyable: Poul Anderson
Example of political conservative SF writer whose work is infected with his views and attitude to the point where I find it obnoxious: Orson Scott Card
I don’t know, John, this seems like a real stretch. The cat’s, that is. :o)
@SarahMarie
Pretty sure Clarence Thomas is a sleeper religious extremist. And his white wife is a seditionist/traitor. Both are working to subvert democracy to impose their religion on the nation and earn their way into self righteous heaven.
I see some predictions showing Dems keep the senate this midterm. They need enough margin to ignore shitstains like manchin and sinema. Can you impeach scotus with 51 senators?
@mmmbopp
Actually removing a Supreme Court justice from office requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate. There is no plausible scenario where the Democrats have 67 senators after the 2022 elections.
@ DB:
“Example of political conservative SF writer whose work I find often enjoyable: Poul Anderson”
There’s a big difference between someone like Anderson (whose opinions may or may not align with yours or mine, but which fall within the range of political views compatible with a secular, modern, civilized society) and a vile bigot (who puts themselves squarely outside that range). Even when both call themselves “conservative” (not sure if Anderson ever did). I may be naïve or old-fashioned, but I still think it’s a distinction worth maintaining.
The senate is split 50-50 but….
“the Democratic half of the Senate represents 41,549,808 more people than the Republican half.”
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2021/02/u-s-senate-representation-is-deeply-undemocratic-and-cannot-be-changed/
75% of declaration of independence signers owned slaves. The north outnumbers the south in population, but the South was split up into more states, so i guess its not too surprising that these fuckers created a government that gave more power to a few slave owners than the people as a whole.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/28/by-2040-two-thirds-of-americans-will-be-represented-by-30-percent-of-the-senate/
“Get out and vote” rings a little hollow when the system counts only 3/5 of your vote, and when its clear the system does that because a bunch of white supremacist bastards subverted democraxy to continue slavery.
With 5 scotus judges who actively lied to the senate under oath in order to subvert democracy, and a senate designed to protect them, we are going to democracy our way back to internment camps soon enough. And apparently that was also part of the design.
D.C. statehood anyone?
2 senators isnt a lot, but qt this point i will take any help i can get.
@ Mmmbopp:
“The north outnumbers the south in population, but the South was split up into more states”
No.
When the Declaration was signed, there were only 13 states, 10 of which are in what you’re calling “the north”. All 13 of these states were slave-owning, so slavery was not an issue. Nor did the Founding Fathers care much about “the people as a whole” – less than 10% of the population was enfranchised to vote in the first election.
“The South” wasn’t split up into states. States applied to join the Union as they were formed.
““Get out and vote” rings a little hollow when the system counts only 3/5 of your vote”
True, but it’s the only option available.
The key would be reinstating some semblance of the Voting Rights Act, cynically gutted by Roberts in Shelby County v. Holder (which set the stage for the widespread and massive Republican voter suppression efforts today). It’s still possible – Democrats retook the White House and Congress in 2020, in spite of the above, but it does feel like the window is narrowing.
@fatman
In 1776, all colonies/states had slavery. Articles of confederation left such decisions to the states. Under articles. 5 states: pa, ma, nh, ct, ri had become free states by 1783.
https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2012/12/before-there-were-red-and-blue-states-there-were-free-states-and-slave-states/
The articles were abandonded after shays rebellion showed how weak the federal government was. And the constitution was drafted at the constitution convention in 1787. At which point, there were 5 free states and 8 slave states.
The design of the constitution, at every stage, favored states over people, because states had to ratify the constitution, not people. So slave states wanted to pack the house of representatives with extra seats by counting all slaves. Free states didnt want to count any slaves at all. The 3/5 compromise was the result. The election of president was originally proposed to be a simple popular vote, but slave states knew the voting population in the north greatly outnumbered the south. James Madison, father of the constitution, gave a speech during convention which said
“with a popular vote, the Southern states, “could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.””
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/electoral-college-slavery-constitution
The electoral college was proposed instead, which, hey, look at that gave each state ec votes based on house seats which counted 3/5 of slaves. Plus 2 per state, and slave states outnumbered free states… (checks notes) 8 to 5.
So, the constitution let slave states pack the House by countjng 3/5 of slaves, let slave states control the senate because slave states outnumbered free states, and let slave states control the presidency via electoral college.
Not to mention, the constitution gave us the fugitive slave clause which demanded free states had to return escaped slaves to their owners, and a 20 year protection of the international importation of slaves.
From that point forward most states were added to the union in pairs, one free, one slave, so that slave states always maintained near total control over the government.
This continued for decades. The missourri compromise 1820 allowed missouri (slave) and maine (free) to join the union but with the condition that no state above the 36th parallel be admitted as a slave state. The south went ape shit over this, as it meant they would eventually lose their control over the entire federal government.
States were still added in free/slave pairs for some time after this, but around 1850, four states were added that were all free.
The north outnumbered the south 20 million to 6 million. And in 1860, the first anti slavery president was elected in decades, abraham lincoln. After election, slave states declared Lincolns election via a fair vote to be a “hostile act” and 7 states seceeded before he was even inaugurated. Just weeks after Lincolns inauguration, the South committed treason, bombarding Ft Sumpter, and started the civil war.
The first century of american history, from 1776 to Reconstruction was nothing but slave states giving themselves far more power than any truly representative government should, holding onto that power even as their numbers shrank, and then going to war when the government actually started to show a glimpse of representing the will of the people.
The constitution was design by slavers for slavers and its favoritism to slavery is still helping white supremacists today.
@mmmbopp”
He is all of those things and more, and his effort to reduce this relative free (for some, at least) nation to a theocratic hellscape is gaining traction in a way that tells me that what little faith I have in American humanity is misplaced.
Something interesting I heard the other day was that when Virginia brought him home to mom and dad, her father later said something to the tune of “his good qualities negated the fact that he was a n***.”
My guess, he provided reassurance via the “I hate blacks as much as you probably do, my ethnicity notwithstanding” pontificating. He has and continues to walk past a white supremacist standard, and I have every confidence that he will continue to do so, even when integrated schools and interracial marriage are on the chopping block.
He and his sedicious wife are precisely what Attwood warns about in Handmaid’s Tale.
Here’s hoping we get the numbers necessary for neutralizing this major threat.
“So, the constitution let slave states pack the House by counting 3/5 of slaves, let slave states control the senate because slave states outnumbered free states, and let slave states control the presidency via electoral college.”
All correct, but quite different from stating that “the South was split up into more states”. Rather, the disproportionate number of slaver states early on allowed them to exercise outsized influence on how governing bodies were elected.
There was no “north” and “south” at the time, nor was there strong opposition to slavery (which continued in most of the “free states”, in various forms, almost until the Civil War). The bigger question (to me) is why the twin abominations of the Senate and the Electoral College were allowed to stand after the Reconstruction, which seems like the ideal time to have abolished them. I guess we’ll never know.
“relatively” free (for some) nation.
Because, Fatman, it requires a 3/4 majority of the House AND the Senate AND the States AND the signature of the president to amend the constitution. Do you think the Senate is ever going to vote to eliminate itself? Do you think the president will sign a bill eliminating the very thing that put him in office?
Your claims about opposition to slavery and continued slavery in “free states” and the nonexistence of a north/south division reflect a distinct lack of historic knowledge.
The Mason-Dixon line, the traditional boundary between North and South, was surveyed between 1763 and 1767.
By 1789, five northern states had begun the abolition of slavery — Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island. Vermont eliminated slavery in 1777, while it was still an independent state, and was the first non-slave state to enter the union in 1791.
The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territory. That is before the Constitution was ratified. This was viewed as a westward extension of the Mason-Dixon line so it was already considered a boundary between slave and free states. Every state formed from the Northwest Territory – – Ohio (1803), Indiana (1816), Illinois (1818), Michigan (1837), Iowa (1846), Wisconsin (1848), and Minnesota (1858) – entered the union as free states.
By 1804, every northern state had either eliminated slavery or put in place a plan to eliminate it.
So, um, no to pretty much every point you tried to make. This isn’t hard to find out. I knew the general outline and filled in the details with 5 minutes of Google quality time.
@SarahMarie. Thomas gives me the same weird vibe when i read about some religious extremist who attacks gays, and then is caught having gay sex with a man.
Maybe he has a lifetime of sexually harassing women like Anita Hill and others, and his self loathing has him punish others for his sins. Dont know. Dont care really. There is nothing to be done there. There is nothing to be done anywhere that i can see. Thomas and all who overturned Roe have made clear they are unbound by precedent and law and any semblance of integrity. And there is no way to stop them that I see.
We could pass federal law to codify abortion rights, and Thomaa will invent some nonsense and strike it down.
Fatman: “There was no “north” and “south” at the time, nor was there strong opposition to slavery”
Besides the 5 states that outlawed it under the articles, and all Northern states outlawing it by 1804?
“slavery (which continued in most of the “free states”, in various forms, almost until the Civil War”
Ah. There it is. The “Both Sides” argument used by racist apologists to attempt to deflect guilt and blame away from the South. All that is missing from you is to say “black people owned slaves too” or some pointless nonsense. Maybe recast the civil war as an honorable fight by the south to protect “states rights” from the “war of aggression” by the north.
Northern states fought to outlaw slavery and at least contain it to the South. The Missourri Compromise was a cuban missile crisis between abllitionists and slave states 40 years before the civil war started.
In response to the abolitionist push to end slavery, Representative Thomas W. Cobb of Georgia, said:
“If you persist, the Union will be dissolved. You have kindled a fire which all the waters of the ocean cannot put out, which seas of blood can only extinguish.”
Jefferson, the hypocritical piece of shit that he was, insisted the missourri compromise had to be the work of monarchists, then he went back home and raped Sally Hemmings and enslaved his own children from her.
The slave states threatened WAR against the abolitionists as far back as 1820. And the abolitionists passed the bill and risked war to contain slavery anyway. So dont feed me this “both sides” bullshit that no one was fighting hard against slavery until just before the Civil War. Lincoln was only 10 years old when missourri compromised was passed. The people who passed it knew they were facing a war. The slavers who opposed it had directly threatened them with it. And made good on those threats the moment they no longer controlled the government.
@ Mmmbopp:
“Maybe recast the civil war as an honorable fight by the south to protect “states rights” from the “war of aggression” by the north.”
Going from what I wrote to that requires a considerable leap in… something. I wouldn’t call it logic, exactly, because there seems to be nothing logical about it.
“Northern states fought to outlaw slavery and at least contain it to the South.”
I think you’re conflating “abolitionists” with “northerners”. While the majority in the North ended up siding with the abolitionist cause, that didn’t happen until 1830.
The Civil War was about slavery, period. There is no “both sides” argument being used here. The US as a whole was shamefully pro-slavery for most of its history, and is now veering into overt white supremacy (as opposed to the covert white supremacy of the past 150 years). Not sure where the disagreement comes from. But tossing out looneytunes statements in a fiery argument with yourself is maybe not the best way to make that point.
@pjcamp:
“Your claims about opposition to slavery and continued slavery in “free states” and the nonexistence of a north/south division reflect a distinct lack of historic knowledge.”
I mean, I copied them over from the same article Mmmbopp posted. So, uh, take it up with the author? Out of the 5 non-slaver states, only one abolished it immediately, while the rest “sunsetted” it so it continued for another 30 something years.
“The Mason-Dixon line, the traditional boundary between North and South, was surveyed between 1763 and 1767.”
Okay.
“So, um, no to pretty much every point you tried to make.”
I don’t see where I made the points you’re supposedly rebutting, but whatever makes you feel better, I guess.
None of your nonsense statements were “copied over” from links i posted. This is “dog ate my homework” level response.
Now you’re just being obnoxious. Either that, or you’re hyperventilating. Step away from the keyboard, take deep breaths, and read on:
“Gradual emancipation came to New Jersey in 1804 and to New York in 1817, albeit with an operational date of July 4, 1827. In 1828, New York abolished slavery outright, as did Pennsylvania in 1847 (an act that liberated the state’s fewer than 100 remaining slaves). Somewhat unusually, New Hampshire appears to have formally abolished slavery in 1857 (apparently more than a decade after the death or manumission of the last New Hampshire slave).
Between 1840 and 1850, the last slaves in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island either died or were emancipated, and, as a result, the only northern state where slavery continued to exist after 1850 was New Jersey, where it was limited to slaves born before 1805.”
(again, from the article YOU referenced)