The ACLU was a wonderful organization during the time we had witch hunts for Communists in our government (the Oppenheimer movie characterizes this well). The essential problem with the current ACLU is that it can't differentiate between the common good and virtue signaling about race.
Thank you for this important reporting. I have sporadically supported the ACLU over my lifetime, when I could afford to do so, and I likely would never have heard about this if I wasn't a Substack reader.
I’m going to guess this has a lot to do with the ACLU being run by lawyers who are only concerned with the specific legal issues related to the case and not concerned nearly enough about the big picture reputational damage this course of action will cause the organization.
I had been considering canceling my support for the ACLU as it has morphed from an organization about civil liberties to one that just supports left-coded causes (whether or not those causes actually reflect left-leaning or liberal values or were really regressive). This was the last straw for me.
Before that it was a pit bull for free speech, whoever was talking. They were a single issue protector of free speech a la the constitution. Now they are a corporatist jobs program for the children of the elite at their management level....
Was it? I'm curious. I always viewed it as a liberal organization (possibly even classically liberal), in that its mission was the protection of and advocacy for the bill of rights. Did it historically move outside of those areas? It's 2nd Amendment bona fides are certainly more progressive / liberal, but the rest it was fairly solidly focused on the Bill of Rights. If anything, I'd describe the organization as classically liberal until recently.
I think you’re right. Perhaps it is “progressive” now since it is full on woke in regard to its emphasis on the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy rather than equality under the law. (Why is that considered progressive?) I just know that we can’t count on it in ways that we used to.
I don't know that traditional labels like "progressive" and "liberal" really fit for our modern political situation. The enormous forces of tribal conformity that our two-party system exerts on all political issues tends to scramble these kinds of distinctions even more than the diversity of normal human existence complicates all categorizations.
Biden's unprecedented firing of the former chief is what is giving them wiggle room they need to defy the current NLRB chief. Despite the former chief apparently being an unflinchingly proud union-buster type, Biden probably should have let his term run out. Now it could become a 'precedent' that any President can use.
As for the ACLU, this seems par for the course these days. 5 years ago it would be very concerning, but now all I could muster was a sigh and an eye-roll.
Oh, no doubt. He's never even pretended to try and uphold any of the governmental unwritten rules though, for better or for worse (usually worse).
I'm just saying that this particular position had somehow avoided the 'new admin axe' up until now, at least that's what the article said. And once that breaks (as there are oodles of examples of this) it rarely gets glued back together. These days our two parties will gladly throw conventional wisdom into the fire if it gets them a 'W', even a short-lived one.
Yes. As good governance norms get broken its very difficult to build them back. The Economist has a good article on Poland which is trying to repair good governance after a brush with authoritarianism.
I don't think the people who want "change" that amounts to revolution have much idea what that really means. I keep thinking Revolutions eat their own children.
Sometimes I suspect people just want to stir things up because they're bored and enjoy the entertainment of conspiracies and outrage. It gets the blood pumping and adrenaline up.
It's unfortunate because this is when we need cooperation and compromise. Between environmental changes and upcoming demographic changes, there are a lot of issues that need to be dealt with. That's not even considering the wild card that AI may be.
Yes, boring political process is more important than ever. Trump shows us just why loopholes that allow abuses of power are so insidious… but with both sides holding fast to winner take all strategies I expect this will only get worse.
I wish I knew how we can get out of here, this winner take all mindset.
Reading FdB's substack is my foray out into a different world. I've been out of the mainstream for decades now, having rejected tv 35 years ago and my life as a student ended long ago. My attention has been more on science and politics, world affairs, not popular culture. I read.
I'm frankly astounded at what I'm finding. It used to be consensus and compromise were the goals. This was what made our country great. Are we now a country of spoiled only children who have to have everything our own way?
Snarky point: At last, something even Freddie DeBoer and Matt Yglesias can agree on! (The same article was cross-posted there)
Non Snarky point: When you look at the inner workings of these groups, at least going back to Nader, you find the same sorts of corner-cutting (at best) and outright antipathy towards organized labor in-house (at worst). It gives me a little more sympathy towards the worker organizing described by Ryan Grim’s Intercept piece on meltdowns in progressive organizations, even though it seemed that the priorities of the workers was potentially more aligned with the ACLU’s position: They wanted to make their work environment better after decades of thoughtless behavior from management, they just didn’t think through the consequences of their own plans.
"and outright antipathy towards organized labor in-house"
The situation reads very normally when you remember that labor is generally middle class and comprises the political enemies of the college graduates who run these institutions. That is an inertial force that the organization must overcome in order to truly advocate for unions.
I see the ACLU as going the same way as the rest of the country: It started as an organization founded on principles; those principles became associated with a particular marketing demographic; in a “finger pointing at the moon” way, it then became an arm of that particular marketing demographic. Now, principles long forgotten, it puts its efforts into signaling that it is indeed part of some coastal elite twitter mob (or whatever the apposite marketing demographic is).
I’m not even trying to pick on the ACLU here. As I understand it the same thing happened to (to pick a group much further removed from my own marketing demographic) the NRA.
At least the people who drove the NRA into the ground appeared to have a very good time doing it, based upon alleged/proved luxury expenses. Can't imagine any joy emanating from the dour ACLU these days.
Besides the woke stuff that everyone has been complaining about with the ACLU for awhile, and the obviously juicy socialism vs identitarianism structure of this particular instance, I feel like a big lesson here is that you don't HAVE to take a maximally extreme and belligerent legal strategy against every problem that arises.
That strategic conventional wisdom is as much of a sickness on our culture as any of the woke stuff.
They are also allegedly going after journalists and activists and filing subpoenas to get them to reveal confidential sources of information. I realize that Chris Rufo and Jesse Singal may not be the most sympathetic figures to this audience, but it's another point in the column of asking "wtf is the ACLU doing with its vast resources and what do those activities have to do with protecting civil liberties?"
The treatment Jesse Singal has received from `allies' and `activists' over his coverage of the issue we don't discuss is absolutely unconscionable and the criticisms without an iota of merit (my trans perspective).
Jesse references Freddie's work approvingly on both his and Katie's podcast and his own substack; hopefully, there's mutual respect between the two.
The sooner the culture war is forgotten, the sooner that posturing hypocrite Rufo will fall back into obscurity.
Thank you for sharing this. Endlessly disappointed with what the ACLU, an organization I used to respect so much, has become post-Trump.
The ACLU was a wonderful organization during the time we had witch hunts for Communists in our government (the Oppenheimer movie characterizes this well). The essential problem with the current ACLU is that it can't differentiate between the common good and virtue signaling about race.
Thank you for this important reporting. I have sporadically supported the ACLU over my lifetime, when I could afford to do so, and I likely would never have heard about this if I wasn't a Substack reader.
Seek knowledge every day!
And Vote Blue.
Thanks Freddie! I would have passed over this news item without this primer. Its important but so convoluted that most people won't understand it.
Same. This will be a super useful explainer to share with people.
I’m going to guess this has a lot to do with the ACLU being run by lawyers who are only concerned with the specific legal issues related to the case and not concerned nearly enough about the big picture reputational damage this course of action will cause the organization.
Wife? Congrats!
Congratulations indeed!
Talk about burying the lede!
Mazel tov!
HR backs the winning side of the class war every time
I had been considering canceling my support for the ACLU as it has morphed from an organization about civil liberties to one that just supports left-coded causes (whether or not those causes actually reflect left-leaning or liberal values or were really regressive). This was the last straw for me.
The ACLU *was* a progressive organization.
Before that it was a pit bull for free speech, whoever was talking. They were a single issue protector of free speech a la the constitution. Now they are a corporatist jobs program for the children of the elite at their management level....
Was it? I'm curious. I always viewed it as a liberal organization (possibly even classically liberal), in that its mission was the protection of and advocacy for the bill of rights. Did it historically move outside of those areas? It's 2nd Amendment bona fides are certainly more progressive / liberal, but the rest it was fairly solidly focused on the Bill of Rights. If anything, I'd describe the organization as classically liberal until recently.
I think you’re right. Perhaps it is “progressive” now since it is full on woke in regard to its emphasis on the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy rather than equality under the law. (Why is that considered progressive?) I just know that we can’t count on it in ways that we used to.
I don't know that traditional labels like "progressive" and "liberal" really fit for our modern political situation. The enormous forces of tribal conformity that our two-party system exerts on all political issues tends to scramble these kinds of distinctions even more than the diversity of normal human existence complicates all categorizations.
Jesus Christ on a stick. So glad I stopped supporting the ACLU.
Biden's unprecedented firing of the former chief is what is giving them wiggle room they need to defy the current NLRB chief. Despite the former chief apparently being an unflinchingly proud union-buster type, Biden probably should have let his term run out. Now it could become a 'precedent' that any President can use.
As for the ACLU, this seems par for the course these days. 5 years ago it would be very concerning, but now all I could muster was a sigh and an eye-roll.
Trump had no qualms about firing Obama chiefs before their terms expired. There were some high profile ones. Was the first Comey?
Oh, no doubt. He's never even pretended to try and uphold any of the governmental unwritten rules though, for better or for worse (usually worse).
I'm just saying that this particular position had somehow avoided the 'new admin axe' up until now, at least that's what the article said. And once that breaks (as there are oodles of examples of this) it rarely gets glued back together. These days our two parties will gladly throw conventional wisdom into the fire if it gets them a 'W', even a short-lived one.
Yes. As good governance norms get broken its very difficult to build them back. The Economist has a good article on Poland which is trying to repair good governance after a brush with authoritarianism.
I don't think the people who want "change" that amounts to revolution have much idea what that really means. I keep thinking Revolutions eat their own children.
Sometimes I suspect people just want to stir things up because they're bored and enjoy the entertainment of conspiracies and outrage. It gets the blood pumping and adrenaline up.
It's unfortunate because this is when we need cooperation and compromise. Between environmental changes and upcoming demographic changes, there are a lot of issues that need to be dealt with. That's not even considering the wild card that AI may be.
Yes, boring political process is more important than ever. Trump shows us just why loopholes that allow abuses of power are so insidious… but with both sides holding fast to winner take all strategies I expect this will only get worse.
I wish I knew how we can get out of here, this winner take all mindset.
Reading FdB's substack is my foray out into a different world. I've been out of the mainstream for decades now, having rejected tv 35 years ago and my life as a student ended long ago. My attention has been more on science and politics, world affairs, not popular culture. I read.
I'm frankly astounded at what I'm finding. It used to be consensus and compromise were the goals. This was what made our country great. Are we now a country of spoiled only children who have to have everything our own way?
A case study in liberals' PMC orientation. This is why we're losing.
Snarky point: At last, something even Freddie DeBoer and Matt Yglesias can agree on! (The same article was cross-posted there)
Non Snarky point: When you look at the inner workings of these groups, at least going back to Nader, you find the same sorts of corner-cutting (at best) and outright antipathy towards organized labor in-house (at worst). It gives me a little more sympathy towards the worker organizing described by Ryan Grim’s Intercept piece on meltdowns in progressive organizations, even though it seemed that the priorities of the workers was potentially more aligned with the ACLU’s position: They wanted to make their work environment better after decades of thoughtless behavior from management, they just didn’t think through the consequences of their own plans.
"and outright antipathy towards organized labor in-house"
The situation reads very normally when you remember that labor is generally middle class and comprises the political enemies of the college graduates who run these institutions. That is an inertial force that the organization must overcome in order to truly advocate for unions.
I see the ACLU as going the same way as the rest of the country: It started as an organization founded on principles; those principles became associated with a particular marketing demographic; in a “finger pointing at the moon” way, it then became an arm of that particular marketing demographic. Now, principles long forgotten, it puts its efforts into signaling that it is indeed part of some coastal elite twitter mob (or whatever the apposite marketing demographic is).
I’m not even trying to pick on the ACLU here. As I understand it the same thing happened to (to pick a group much further removed from my own marketing demographic) the NRA.
At least the people who drove the NRA into the ground appeared to have a very good time doing it, based upon alleged/proved luxury expenses. Can't imagine any joy emanating from the dour ACLU these days.
Right? And it’s hard to feel bad for their donors’ money going to Wayne’s hookers and blow
Besides the woke stuff that everyone has been complaining about with the ACLU for awhile, and the obviously juicy socialism vs identitarianism structure of this particular instance, I feel like a big lesson here is that you don't HAVE to take a maximally extreme and belligerent legal strategy against every problem that arises.
That strategic conventional wisdom is as much of a sickness on our culture as any of the woke stuff.
They are also allegedly going after journalists and activists and filing subpoenas to get them to reveal confidential sources of information. I realize that Chris Rufo and Jesse Singal may not be the most sympathetic figures to this audience, but it's another point in the column of asking "wtf is the ACLU doing with its vast resources and what do those activities have to do with protecting civil liberties?"
https://christopherrufo.com/p/in-the-fight-with-the-aclu
https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1765933563579433173
The ACLU has become a single issue advocacy group, and that single issue is definitely NOT 'civil liberties'.
The treatment Jesse Singal has received from `allies' and `activists' over his coverage of the issue we don't discuss is absolutely unconscionable and the criticisms without an iota of merit (my trans perspective).
Jesse references Freddie's work approvingly on both his and Katie's podcast and his own substack; hopefully, there's mutual respect between the two.
The sooner the culture war is forgotten, the sooner that posturing hypocrite Rufo will fall back into obscurity.
I stopped donating to ACLU in 2020.