Certainly blew the mind of the people writing the techdirt article if the opening paragraph is any indication: "Well here’s a surprise for you / This is… flabbergasting." It's almost like they thought they had good reasons to expect something else from TFG's adminstration.
Why were the results different?
DOJ composition running up through 2018 was pretty strongly influenced by a decade of liberal-leaning but cross-partisan staffing, and this was a legal theory that obviously emerged from within staff rather than coming down from the top.
And psychology of liberal or conservative but principled lawyers is likely to be conscientious enough when it comes to their legal theorizing that except where it serves particular organized power plays, you'll see some principled arguments come out, like this one, because obviously the DMCA exists to protect copyright rather than stymie repair.
Also, right-to-repair has an appeal that crosses partisan boundaries very well, especially among voters themselves. Sure, businesses and social influencers who'd sacrifice right-to-repair for pro-capital / power-play positions are probably highly represented and influential in the right-wing party, what with the investment in social philosophies oriented around hierarchies of status. But going against right-to-repair is still unpopular enough and likely to piss off conservative-identifying libertarians that there was bound to be some discomfort, even with the usual Republican enthusiasm for being a pro-capital / pro-business capture party.
And finally, while it's obvious that the 2018 POTUS is only capable seeing the issue in terms of friends/opportunities and enemies/liabilites rather than principled legal or social theories, it's also obvious that right-to-repair is one of the things that benefited from his shall we say limited range/depth of interest when it comes to policy. Inattention can allow any number of things to thrive. At least until someone offers to buy right-to-repair off of him. Elections matter.
I don’t think the surprise was based on the head of the executive, rather it was based on the DOJ taking a stance in favor of exemptions.
I just get tired of the idea that the president/executive completely colors every single government action. Let’s stop pretending that every election will completely rewrite the MO and agendas for every agency.
The comment I replied to was based on exactly those kinds of assumptions (“couldn’t possibly imagine this happening under Trump”) and was wrong. Now you’re just doing a no-true-Scotsman (“oh, it only happened because he wasn’t paying attention”).
I’ve personally seen no evidence that right-to-repair is a partisan issue in the way you’ve suggested, and I’ve seen plenty of evidence that the cronyism charges you’re levying are also not limited to a single party. You can hate the guy for lots of reasons, but the idea that Trump is uniquely capable of being bought on this issue seems very strange to me.
Assuming you know more about what people need than they do is also unwise. For starters, “MyParty(TM) is better for you, you’re just too dumb to realize it” is not a particularly effective campaign strategy. Both major US parties have tried it.
I didn't see the OP campaigning, just stating fact. People vote against their personal interests when convinced to do so. I don't think that's a particularly controversial statement.
It is the height of arrogance to assume that someone is so dumb that they don't even know what their interests are.
I have my interests. Some are satisfied by the Democrats. Some are satisfied by the Republicans. Some are satisfied by both. Some are satisfied by neither. My vote goes to the person who best satisfies my most important interests at the time. Sometimes I have to eat shit in doing so, but that's politics for you.
> It is the height of arrogance to assume that someone is so dumb that they don't even know what their interests are.
It’s also true. Call it arrogant all you want but it remains fact that people vote against their interests when persuaded to do so. If the retort is that it’s somehow rude to say this… so be it.
Tell me more about arrogance, like it's not arrogance and maybe even hubris for someone to assert they just naturally know their interests and how they interact with various policies (much less how parties are going to show up to support them).
It's not that someone is dumb if they sometimes don't know their own interests. It's that it's a hard problem that even smart people can fail at. Maybe especially smart people who don't appreciate that it's a hard problem and perhaps even are prone to confuse failure with stupidity.
Those who appreciate the complexity of the various problem domains for social policy or even of the information environment wouldn't be the least surprised if they personally accidentally voted against their own interest.
And it's far from controversial that many people are much more likely to vote by connecting their values to impressions/symbols invoked by campaigns and parties than to dig in even at the policy white paper level and arrive at a carefully calculated cost/benefit analysis for each candidate.
Maybe you're an exception. Probably not, but maybe. What about most people? Well, if it's true in a 2024 presidential race "about their policies, Harris would win handily... because voters — whether they know it or not — overwhelmingly prefer the vice president’s agenda to the former president’s"[0] but also true that the race is a coin flip, that suggests some significant margin of people who are doing something else other than policy-interest calculations.
Meanwhile, back at the specific topic, almost nobody is campaigning on right to repair, so even among people who happen to be detailed interest calculators (whoever that may be), it'd be little surprise if as an issue it didn't figure strongly into how they considered their interests and cast their vote.
If this issue matters to you, consider that right-to-repair friendly interpretations of the law are where the civil servant / professional administrative / "deep state" has arrived at under the direction and staffing priorities of prevailing liberal order. Which, is, uh, not really the energy/vibe of one of the current candidates (and it's fairer to speak of energy/vibes than policies when it comes to him given how obvious it is that this is a guy who doesn't do homework and knows little policy other than personal advantage).
> Well, if it's true in a 2024 presidential race "about their policies, Harris would win handily... because voters — whether they know it or not — overwhelmingly prefer the vice president’s agenda to the former president’s"[0] but also true that the race is a coin flip, that suggests some significant margin of people who are doing something else other than policy-interest calculations.
I looked at that article. Distinctly missing from the methodology is "and how much do you actually care about this issue?". I might agree with Candidate A on dogs, mom's apple pie, and a thousand other issues, but Candidate B only on Hot Button Issue A and Hot Button Issue B - but if my concern is about Hot Button Issues A and B, then agreeing with a greater number of positions from Candidate A is really beside the point.
I can imagine it, because broken ice cream machines only affect millionaire McDonald's franchise owners negatively.
Also the leader of the Republican Party happens to be a loyal McDonald's customer. I mean, the guy bought the Clemson Tigers McDonald's instead of using the White House's in-house catering.
