Would a white Swedish male with Trump’s exact views be more of a threat to U.S. cultural cohesion than, say, a nonwhite Ghanaian with the views of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?
@TheAtlantic And as @SWGoldman reminds us (and as @DavidAFrench has written), if white Christians see the decline of Christianity as destroying American culture, then they're better off having *more* nonwhite immigration from Africa & Latin America, since more of them would be Christian
@TheAtlantic This is also one of the topics @dmarusic & I discuss in the first (ever!) episode of our new podcast "The Wisdom of Crowds"
@RossBarkan knows better than most. Mamdani, then an obscure organizer, was his campaign manager in 2018.
What truly animates Mamdani at the end of the day? What makes him tick? 🧵
To answer these questions, we turned to @rossbarkan in out latest @wcrowdslive pod. It was a fascinating conversation and provided one of the most in-depth depictions of Mamdani's core commitments that I've heard anywhere.
Palestine is the "through line" for Mamdani. He's willing to bend on other things, including on cultural issues, but he's stood his ground on Gaza. In this sense, I'd argue that Mamdani is one of the Democratic Party's first successful "post-woke" figures.
Something is shifting. Even Israel’s defenders are finally admitting the truth. Influential MAGA voices have sounded the alarm. Donald Trump appears to have had a visceral reaction to pictures of starving children. What does all of this mean? 🧵
In my new @washingtonpost column, I argue that the pro-Palestine movement must be a big tent and welcome anyone who is willing to question their past positions in the face of undeniable evidence of Israel’s starvation of Palestinians.
Even before the starvation crisis broke through in international media, 50 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning adults between the ages of 18 and 49 said they had an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 35 percent in 2022.
A new consensus is emerging. Israeli is committing a genocide in Gaza. We should say so. Words have meaning, and they should be used when they describe reality. 🧵
In my new @washingtonpost column, I lay out the case for how and why Israel is committing genocide in Gaza — and why using the word matters.
Throughout history, atrocities have usually been committed under cover of darkness. Perpetrators know what they are doing is wrong. They hide it. They speak in euphemisms. But what happens when they no longer feel the need to hide? In Gaza, this is the question we need to ask.
A new consensus is emerging. Israeli is committing a genocide in Gaza. We should say so. Words have meaning, and they should be used when they describe reality. My essay in the @washingtonpost:
Throughout history, atrocities have usually been committed under cover of darkness. The perpetrators know what they are doing is wrong. They hide it. They speak in euphemisms. But what happens when they no longer feel the need to hide? The mask has come off in Gaza.
Ethnic cleansing has become the official policy of Israel. The nation’s leaders are admitting it. There was barely a pretense before. But now there’s not even that. And these admissions, combined with mass killing on the ground, point to something even more horrific: genocide.
Popes aren’t meant to be revolutionaries. Pope Francis, however, was. For a church steeped in tradition, change usually comes slowly, if at all. Francis understood this but never seemed dissuaded by it. Yet his is a mixed legacy. 🧵
In my new @washingtonpost column, I explore how Francis' legacy mapped onto cultural divides on marriage and sexuality. In the United States, Francis became both a protagonist and a victim of America's culture wars.
Francis had a freewheeling charisma and a lack of pretense that made him the most accessible pope of the modern era. But his force of personality also meant that where less impressive popes might try and fail, Francis actually stood a chance of transforming the church.
For those of us who opposed Trump, now that he's won we need to take seriously the arguments of good faith interlocutors who supported him. And, yes, it is possible to have voted for Trump in good faith. There were, in other words, legitimate reasons for supporting him. 🧵
I want to practice what I preach by speaking directly to people with whom I have profound disagreements — not to condemn but to listen.
For my new @washingtonpost column, I spoke to @michaelbd to understand how he went from Trump critic to Trump voter.
I've always found @michaelbd to be a good faith interlocutor. His trajectory is also unusual. He wrote a blistering case against Trump in 2016 and resisted voting for him in 2020. But something changed. I'm always interested in this question of how people reassess their beliefs.