Piaget in Texas: Why Logic Loses to Memes

The Synopsis:

On June 9th, the New York Times reported that Trump’s political team was encouraging Republican leaders in Texas to look into redistricting so Republicans could hold on to extra seats in the House in 2026. The plan was initially met with hesitation. Many congress members believed the current map already overextended the GOP advantage in the state and that moving republican voters from reliably red districts to blue ones would jeopardize incumbents. Governor Abbot began to move forward with the plan once the Department of Justice sent a letter informing that four majority-minority congressional districts in Houston and Fort Worth areas are unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered. The governor informed that redistricting needs to be pursued in light of these constitutional concerns. Critics state this is a hypocritical stance used to justify redistricting that is really for partisan means since Texas just finished a legal battle defending these districts saying they were organized using a racially blind process.

On July 9th, Governor Gregg Abbott called on lawmakers to convene in a special session to redraw the state’s congressional maps. He also called to improve how the state prepares for natural disasters, updates how the state assesses student progress, and several other issues regarding taxes and hemp-derived products.

The Texas Constitution requires two-thirds of the members of either chamber to be present to conduct official business. The Texas House has 150 members, meaning at least 100 members must be present for quorum. The Texas Senate has 31 members, meaning 21 are needed for quorum. To block legislative action during the special session, 54 Texas Democrats left the state on August 3, preventing a quorum.

Texas’ redistricting efforts have spread to other states. Beginning in California, Governor Gavin Newsom is beginning to organize a special election to determine if his state will suspend the independent commission that normally handles districting to counter Texas’ efforts. States across the country are looking at their options to gerrymander based on their state’s party preference.

Gerrymandering has been a tool of both political parties over the years. The court's approach to it has changed significantly. The shift began in 2013 with Shelby County v. Holder when the Supreme Court ruled that preclearance was no longer a requirement of the Voting Rights Act for states with a history of discrimination. In Abbott v Perez, the courts then ruled that the burden of proof to show racial discrimination rests with the challengers in the case. The courts moved the question of gerrymandering to the purview of state courts and constitutions when it declared these challenges “political questions” in Rucho v. Common Cause. The Fifth Circuit in 2024 stepped in on the Petteway v. Galveston County case, and ruled that coalition courts are not protected by the VRA in a decision that will likely make its way to the Supreme Court.

The Media’s Take

The coverage of this story offers an interesting view of how stories are reported when the actions are a direct contradiction against the principles that are generally espoused.

Most right wing media outlets have reported this as a straightforward process. One outlet stated this was to address population changes in the state. Another outlet attempted to provide a legal framework for the redistricting by saying this is a correction after the Biden administration required the inclusion of undocumented immigrants in the census count. The article did not mention that undocumented migrants have been included in the census count since 1790. Articles that are critical focus mainly on the Democrats that left the state to stop the special session. California’s response to the redistricting is more likely to be portrayed as an effort to gerrymander in a way that will suppress republican votes.

Left wing outlets report that this was initiated by the Trump administration as an effort to maintain a republican majority after the 2026 midterm elections. The Dems that left the state reported leaving as a method to bring attention to the redistricting efforts. Most left wing outlets report that governors in blue states that are working to counter the Texas redistricting are only implementing enough to cancel out any red state advantage. There are reports of conflict among the Dems about how best to proceed with some questioning if further efforts to gerrymander is the appropriate path and others stating that something must be done.

My (very biased) take:

My initial reaction when going through the right wing articles on the Texas redistricting was surprise at how tame it sounded. I expected stronger arguments supporting Texas’s efforts, but they were reporting it like it was business as usual. In fact, based on many of the articles, it was the Democrats that fled the state who were acting like drama queens.

And then I realized the water is boiling and we are the frogs. I hate this timeline. 

When I was in college studying psychology, we learned about Piaget’s theory of Cognitive Development. I won’t bore you with the details, but I was surprised to learn that people reach the final stage, called “formal operations” in their early teens. It's the ability for advanced problem-solving, abstract thinking, and logical reasoning. The kicker is, Piaget said less than a half of us consistently operate at this level.

Life has been a nonstop confirmation of that fact. Like the time a full-grown adult in my life asked me what the three branches of government were. Or the endless memes whining that school should’ve taught us how to do our taxes, as if understanding compound interest or reading a W-2 requires some secret knowledge. Or the way powerful people in charge of millions of lives can’t parse basic data without getting lost.

And it’s easy to get frustrated with these people, but it's also useless. This is who we have. This is where we are. People aren’t dumber. The world is way more complicated. Mix that with the institutional distrust that is rampant, and the heuristics people formerly relied on to navigate the world are broken. They don't know where to go and they have dumbass podcast bros, who are themselves in over their heads, guiding them. A literal case of the blind leading the blind.

So what to do about Texas? Enter Gavin Newsom. His counterpunch is to troll Trump at his own game. He’s flooding the timeline with tweets in Trump’s signature all-caps, rant-heavy style, a carnival-mirror version of MAGA rhetoric. It’s brutal, it’s loud, and it’s effective. He’s not trying to out-reason the unreasonable. He’s showing them how absurd they look, and in the process, blunting Texas’ attempt to game the map.

It’s galling that mockery works better than warnings about creeping authoritarianism. But maybe that’s the point. Piaget was right: most people don’t live in formal operations. They live in vibes, heuristics, gut instincts. And right now, the only way through might be to fight vibes with vibes.