[rayiner]

The administrative state wasn’t merely created by the same progressives that gave us eugenics. It has its roots in the same dim view of the common man and how much agency they should be given. Woodrow Wilson and other progressives were deeply skeptical of democracy. He wrote about the how the “unphilosophical bulk of mankind” didn’t know what was good for them. And his solution to that was to have the government run by experts insulated from democratic politics: https://faculty.fiu.edu/~revellk/pad3003/Wilson.pdf.

That’s still the same mentality that underlies the modern administrative state.

> while longing for a return to the era of Jim Crow

Last I checked you guys are the ones who went to the supreme court to defend racial discrimination in college admissions and racially segregated voting districts. Within just a few terms!

[Erem]

> went to the Supreme Court…racially segregated voting districts

How is enforcing the two greatest anti Jim Crow laws (VRA and CRA), somehow, equivalent to returning to Jim Crow itself?

> the administrative state

I’m trying to understand better, but it just seems like you are very opposed to merit based hiring in government and I don’t understand why. I understand your appeal to history, but what could be a better approach than hiring on merit while also making those employees accountable to political appointees? Just replacing the entire ranks of government every 4 years?

[rayiner]

> How is enforcing the two greatest anti Jim Crow laws (VRA and CRA), somehow, equivalent to returning to Jim Crow itself?

In both cases, republicans were the ones that wanted to enforce the civil rights laws. Democrats were the ones who wanted to violate the civil rights laws by treating people differently based on race. In SFFA they wanted universities to be able to discriminate against applicants based on race, and in Louisiana v. Callais, they wanted to draw racially segregated voting districts.

> the administrative state I’m trying to understand better, but it just seems like you are very opposed to merit based hiring in government and I don’t understand why.

Because the criteria we use for “merit” are degrees from elite universities, membership in professional organizations, etc. So while I think merit-based hiring for government is desirable in theory, what I think happens in practice is the emergence of a definable class of credentialed professionals, entry into which gatekept by non-government institutions like Harvard, etc. That turns over tremendous amounts of power to people and institutions that aren’t democratically accountable. And I don’t buy the premise that these credentialed professionals are any less political than anyone else. They, and the institutions they are affiliated with, have cohesive interests and pursue those interests in government.

I think it’s better to do what Trump did in 2024: get on stage with the people he intends to appoint to top jobs, and have them talk about what they want to do. Let voters see the team they’re voting for. Look, I also think RFK is a nutjob. But the response to that should be for the Democratic candidate in 2028 to get on stage with who they intend to appoint to HHS. Let them talk about their credentials and expertise and what they intend to do. Let them explain why RFK is a disaster and has made voters worse off. I think that’s a fantastic way for a democracy to operate.

[Erem]

> in Louisiana v. Callais, they wanted to draw racially segregated voting districts.

30 years of jurisprudence since Thornburg v. Gingles disagrees with this framing. That unanimous decision found racial districts a necessarily race-conscious remedy to race-targeted harm: republican gerrymandering of cohesive black communities in the south. Which was the same harm at play in 2026 Louisiana.

If you think a race-conscious remedy is more racist than race-targeted harm, you must also believe that minority communities have no right for representation. If that’s the case, be plain about your beliefs. Either way please stop publicly mistaking cause for effect regarding this topic of “racially segregated voting districts”

[rayiner]

> If you think a race-conscious remedy is more racist than race-targeted harm

No, everyone agrees you can have a “race-conscious remedy” if there is a “race-targeted harm.” Lousiana v. Callais says that right on pages 17-18 of the slip op: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf

But there was no “race-targeted harm” in Louisiana v. Callais. You’re wrong about the facts of that case. The original Louisiana map, with one black majority district, was a computer-drawn map and there was no evidence lawmakers had used race in creating the map. There was no compact district that would give you a second black-majority district in the state. The second district they had to add was quite gnarly: https://louisianaradionetwork.com/2024/01/16/35175/

Louisiana v. Callais nowhere prohibits using a race conscious remedy to fix a specific, race-conscious harm. It’s totally compatible with that principle.

> you must also believe that minority communities have no right for representation

They are entitled to the same “representation” as everyone else: being able to vote for a representation in a district drawn without regard to race. They’re not entitled to “representation” in the sense of a racial quota system for districts. Minority groups will generally have fewer majority-minority districts in a state than their share of the state population. If they are evenly distributed, there may be no majority-minority districts. That’s just how math works.

[selimthegrim]

> In both cases, republicans were the ones that wanted to enforce the civil rights laws.

Jeff Sessions in 1981 when he was the DA or ADA from Mobile, telling a judge in a lynching case of a black man that lynching wasn’t necessarily murder, doesn’t fill me with confidence about this take of yours.

[TimorousBestie]

> [blah, blah, progressives are the real racists, blah]

I never argued that you don’t believe this. I guess you’re disputing the word “insinuating”? Fine, you’re explicitly saying the administrative state is racist.

> Last I checked you guys are the ones who went to the supreme court to defend racial discrimination in college admissions and racially segregated voting districts.

Nice tu quoque but I’m neither a Democrat nor a liberal. You make this mistake with people a lot! Have you considered not assuming everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal?

The person I actually replied to wondered why you got downvoted. Thanks for the demonstration.

[oa335]

> same progressives that gave us eugenics

ray, why are you now cosplaying as someone who doesn't believe in racial hierarchies?