What is the line between "political jiujutsu" and "2 wrongs don't make a right"?
I think Gavin Newsome has stepped over to the wrong side of this line
I am going to ask a question that does not have an easy answer: when it turning the tables on political opponents skilled jiujutsu, and when it is just WRONG, as in two wrongs don’t make a right?
The example that currently making me extremely uncomfortable is California Governor Gavin Newsome using the precedent set by Texas anti-abortion laws, and upheld by the Supreme Court, to apply their “bounty” strategy to get illegal “ghost guns” off the street in California.
Newsome said that the Texas anti-abortion law is “an abomination,” with its bounty-style encouragement to turn fellow citizens in to get $10,000. And he thinks that SCOTUS made a mistake by upholding the law. But given that they did uphold it, Newsome is going to use this unethical tool for what he sees as a social benefit.
That’s where the problem comes in: can an unethical tool ever be used ethically? Where do we draw that line? For a political tool like fundraising Super PACs, I can understand someone who supports public financing of campaigns, but holds their nose and uses Super PACs since the other side has them too. It stinks, to high heaven, but that is the system we have now.
The best political jiujutsu I have seen recently is Hillary Clinton talking about libel laws after Sarah Palin lost her libel case against the New York Times. Palin didn’t meet the standard of proving that the newspaper acted with “actual malice” against her. But Hillary Clinton argued last week that Fox News hosts are acting with actual malice against her, when they made false claims about what the John Durham investigation said. Durham himself had to come out with a statement to clear the air. Brian Stelter of CNN said he does not think Clinton will sue Fox, but being able to say this may get them off her back, as they looked to revive Hillary as the “right-wing boogeywoman” to distract from the genuine scandal and national security breach caused by Trump taking classified documents to Mar A Lago after his presidency ended.
Back to Gavin Newsome, I think his approach is wrong, unless his goal is to get the bounty program discredited altogether, and I am not sure how that would happen. Asking citizens to turn in their neighbors to the government, for money, is a step toward authoritarianism. It is the wrong tool, and there is no right way to use it.
Think about the immoral law that makes it not a crime to drive a car into a person at a protest. The existence of this terrible law does not mean that liberals should start hitting people with cars at conservative protests. It is just a horrible law that we must find a way to repeal, even though that may be very difficult to do.
I am interested in other perspectives, let me know what you think.
I wonder if this is a strategy to create an interesting legal Pathway to a broader win? I just don't know