Chris Bray on the AB panel debate in 1955

What is happening in California is not politics in any conventional sense. There is no debate and no policy decisions are being worked out. We are in the land beyond. In our Democracy™, statements are made and then they must be received in a spirit of silent submission. Your refusal to submit is not allowed, and the reason is that it is not allowed. If it were allowed, it would not be forbidden, but it is actually forbidden, so it is not allowed, you see? Any “political” discussion is a circle that bites its own tail. I have tried to figure out how to explain this, but the Sacramento Bee just did it for myself. (Version without paywall here.)

The bee explains — or “explains” — what happened on the floor of the State Assembly when a Republican was not allowed to argue against a bill and a Democrat stood up to threaten him for attempting to do so. I encourage you to read the whole self-refuting story. It turns out that the Republican prevented debate by engaging in debate, which meant he had to be silenced and threatened in order for debate to continue, which in turn required that no one express opposing views, which is an act of anti-debate aggression. Debate is agreement, and failing to reach agreement is preventing debate.

The “forced outing” debate was about AB 1955, which would prohibit schools from informing parents about discussions between children and school officials about sexual orientation and sexual behavior. It’s important that parents don’t find out about sexually motivated discussions between children and adults in their school, because not telling mom and dad about sexual discussions is playing it safe and warm. But look at the casual twist of logic in the last paragraph of this screenshot:

1. Evan Low said the bill was important because it was good that parents didn’t find out and the bill would ensure that parents didn’t find out.
2. Sabrina Cervantes said that when she was young, there was no law against telling about it, so someone told it.
3. Democrats said the bill was not about hiding secrets from parents.

You see, AB 1955 is not about keeping secrets from parents – it is about schools not being allowed to tell parents. Not being allowed to tell parents is different from keeping secrets from parents. The story does not further explain the difference between keeping secrets And not saybut according to the rules of Jacobean culture, the difference is that one should keep one’s mouth shut. The difference is conjectural and therefore needs no explanation.

How it works bee characterizes the arguments of MP Bill Essayli during the debate, which he derailed by his lack of agreement:

Essayli has displayed a consistent pattern of publicly disparaging special interest groups and other lawmakers to gain attention for conservative causes. On Thursday, he interrupted testimony from colleagues and expressed frustration that Wood turned off his microphone and cut off his comments when they strayed from AB 1955 and turned to the issue of forced outing in general.

His comments on the outing law were not about the law, but about outing. What a bastard! Mr Speaker, he is not debating the highway funding bill, he is debating highway funding. Again, why does this distinction make sense? Because you’re supposed to shut up. It makes sense declarative: X is true because it said X

And Essayli has a “consistent pattern” of saying derogatory things, which bee knows through mind reading that this is more of a maneuver to “get attention” than an attempt to express his views. He disagreed, which is very cynical and manipulative behavior during a debate. He has a pattern of this!

And furthermore, Essayli is so rude that he interrupted colleagues while they were speaking and then had the nerve to object when his microphone was turned off. It is rude to prevent someone from speaking, and it is rude to object to being prevented from speaking. You should never interrupt other people, and you should always allow others to interrupt you. They are playing partisan Calvinball under the dome, and all moves are losing.

Here is the bee explains why Corey Jackson helped Essayli be less mean by (quite implausibly) threatening to kick his ass:

Jackson said he found Essayli to be “very disrespectful” in a way that “goes beyond a mere objection to the bill.”

“My Republican friends don’t understand that some of these issues are not about politics, they’re about someone’s humanity,” Jackson said. “And questions of humanity are taboo for me.”

Here too, the distinction is a narrative invention devoid of logic: Essayli did not object to the bill, but to what the bill is about, which is taboo and very disrespectful. One must discuss laws without discussing the Theme of legislation, otherwise you’re just weird and mean. So Jackson helped control the debate by explaining what things are “off limits” and therefore cannot be discussed. You can debate the bill, but you can’t debate what the bill is about, because that’s about humanity, and discussing humanity is off limits. If that doesn’t make sense to you, try getting a brain injury, then get an online PhD in social work and read it again.

And concluded: “The two never came close to attacking each other, but the scene demonstrated the extreme tension surrounding this issue as LGBTQ lawmakers push back against Republican arguments they say dehumanize transgender Californians.”

Why is it “dehumanizing for transgender people in California” to not keep sexually motivated secrets about their children from their parents? Or, to turn the question around: Why are secrets human?

Martin Amis wrote that Joseph Stalin achieved “negative perfection,” a kind of flawless construction of ruin and misery—he was the best at being the worst. California’s political culture has achieved a miracle of negative perfection, erecting a monolith of nonsense that prohibits all meaning. And so we casually pass by enormously provocative and extreme claims, or treat them as modest topics of normal debate. Click the link to play the video, but note the extraordinary framing of the discussion of AB 1955 by Republican Rep. Joe Patterson:

Well, my goodness, I’m going to take a position that, well, people might find a little hard to accept, and I know things are going to get emotionally intense when I say that, but I really hope that I can make people realize that maybe, just maybe, there are some reasons for this outlandish Parental involvement in the upbringing of children.

This is the position that initially goes on the defensive: parents should be involved in their children’s lives. In the California legislature, you have to be careful with such things, because they are not very friendly to such extremist rhetoric.

The way out of this level of madness is through some kind of breakdown. There is certainly no way to work our way through it, because Reason suffocated while trying to enter the building.

Editor’s note: AB 1955 was passed by the Assembly following floor debate and is now on Governor Newsom’s desk awaiting his signature (or veto).

Chris Bray is a journalist, historian, former soldier and whiskey lover. This article originally appeared on his Substack, which you can find here.