Tomorrow belongs to them
CNN’s Abby Phillip ran through Donald Trump’s plans for his next administration. He may be a basket case, but he has a cadre of extremists ready to step up to help him implement his plans and theirs.
Let’s talk about projection. What we see blossoming more boldly than ever among the authoritarianati is entitlement. Unspoken, mostly, but present. When the conservative elite speak derisively of the social safety net, they insist that entitlements must be cut. Just not theirs, naturally.
An ‘us’ problem
What we see displayed by Supreme Court Justices Thomas (with his undeclared gifts) and Alito (with his insurrectionist flags) is the sense that they are untouchable, writes Dahlia Lithwick. And their behaviors are not anything Chief Justice Roberts seems inclined to address by imposing a strict code of ethics. The justices stand imperial:
We have a judicial enterprise that rules over us with absolutely no one ruling over them. Nobody should be all that surprised that Sen. Dick Durbin has announced that the Senate Judiciary Committee will not launch a probe into Alito’s recent conduct. The Senate has also been trying to unearth the financing for Thomas’s quarter million dollar salt-of-the-earth RV amid other ethics violations, and Leonard Leo has declined to comply with subpoenas related to it. Yes, the Senate should be acting to resolve this problem, but that seems to have largely stalled at “asking them to recuse.”
So just to review, this isn’t really a Sam Alito problem, or a Clarence Thomas problem, or a John Roberts problem—but it also isn’t even a Senate-Dems-who-can’t-muster-the-energy-to-close-the-deal problem.
No, I have come to conclude is that this is an us problem. Because rather than hurling ourselves headlong into the “Alito Must Recuse” brick wall of “yeah, no,” we need to dedicate the upcoming election cycle, and the attendant election news cycle to a discussion of the courts. Not just Sam Alito or Clarence Thomas who happen to go to work every day at the court, and not just Dobbs and gun control, which happens to have come out of the very same court, but the connection between those two tales: what it means to have a Supreme Court that is functionally immune from political pressure, from internal norms of behavior, from judicial ethics and disclosure constraints, and from congressional oversight and why that is deeply dangerous.
As I said: imperial.
Margaret Brennan recently confronted Sen. J.D. Vance (R) of Ohio with his suggesting the government emulate Hungarian autocrat Viktor Orban’s crackdown on alleged “left-wing domination” of universities. They must be given a choice, Vance had said, “between survival or taking a much less biased approach to teaching.”
That isn’t a choice. It’s an ultimatum. An ultimatum Vance feels his fringe is entitled to enforce. He answered with word salad about universities being “part of a social contract in this country” and, since taxpayers help finance college educations, taxpayers should exercise more control over how that (loan?) money is spent.
(I look forward to Vance working with Sen. Elizabeth Warren on seeing to it that corporations receiving government contracts and subsidies uphold their end of the social contract.)
What we see among the Supremes, among federal legislators like Vance, and among state Republican legislators angling to impose permanent minority rule is an attitude that they can do what they please with impunity. Where could they have gotten that idea?
That sense of inevitability is spreading. See the story of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman vs. actress Scarlett Johansson. After Johansson declined to allow OpenAI to use her voice for its new digital assistant, Altman released it nonetheless with a voice remarkably like hers. She threatened to sue:
On the day that OpenAI released ChatGPT’s assistant, Altman posted a cheeky, one-word statement on X: “Her”—a reference to the 2013 film of the same name, in which Johansson is the voice of an AI assistant that a man falls in love with. Altman’s post is reasonably damning, implying that Altman was aware, even proud, of the similarities between Sky’s voice and Johansson’s.
The Atlantic‘s Charlie Warzel writes:
On its own, this seems to be yet another example of a tech company blowing past ethical concerns and operating with impunity. But the situation is also a tidy microcosm of the raw deal at the center of generative AI, a technology that is built off data scraped from the internet, generally without the consent of creators or copyright owners. Multiple artists and publishers, including The New York Times, have sued AI companies for this reason, but the tech firms remain unchastened, prevaricating when asked point-blank about the provenance of their training data. At the core of these deflections is an implication: The hypothetical superintelligence they are building is too big, too world-changing, too important for prosaic concerns such as copyright and attribution. The Johansson scandal is merely a reminder of AI’s manifest-destiny philosophy: This is happening, whether you like it or not.
They are the elite. They are in charge. They make decisions for you.
This is the unvarnished logic of OpenAI. It is cold, rationalist, and paternalistic. That such a small group of people should be anointed to build a civilization-changing technology is inherently unfair, they note. And yet they will carry on because they have both a vision for the future and the means to try to bring it to fruition. Wu’s proposition, which he offers with a resigned shrug in the video, is telling: You can try to fight this, but you can’t stop it. Your best bet is to get on board.
[…]
When your technology aims to rewrite the rules of society, it stands that society’s current rules need not apply.
Tomorrow belongs to them. So, whether we’re talking about the Supreme Court’s entitled MAGA faction, or MAGA Republicans, or Silicon Valley’s tech bros, here’s their offer: Accept their future. It’s coming anyway. Resistance is futile.
What they’re entitled to is a whupping. Delivering it, as Lithwick suggests, “is an us problem.”
Update: A SCOTUS ruling just dropped. Guess how it went?
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
For The Win, 5th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us.
