It's tucked into the middle of my Joe Biden wrap, but I want to highlight this interesting research on polarization from @Beyond_Conflict: Yes, we dehumanize, dislike, and disagree with each other. But not as much as we think we do. vox.com/2020/8/21/2138…
The twist of their polarization index is they ask not just how we feel about the other side, but how we think the other side feels about us.
It turns out that there's a huge gulf — we assume our political opponents loathe and dehumanize us much more than they do.
A caveat to this: Sometimes, the cruder, angrier divisions people perceive are a more accurate reflection of our system than mass opinion.
I'd say that's true now, with Trump's presidency. Perceived polarization and division isn't fake, it's just not the whole story.
But perceived division matters: It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more we think someone hates us, the more we hate them. The further we think someone will go to harm us, the further we will go to protect ourselves, and those we love.
This is the core of Joe Biden's approach: In an era when disagreement often feels synonymous with dislike, Biden is modeling a politics where you can disagree without being disagreeable. You don’t let politics, or even conflict, define your relationships.
Will that work as a governing strategy? Not as well as Biden hopes, I fear. But is it potent as a campaigning strategy? I think it is. I think a lot of people yearn for politics to feel different than this. Biden is promising to represent them.
Not a single Democrat I've spoken to who doubts that if Biden endorses Harris, the party will unite behind her.
At this point, given how little time is left before the convention, and how strong she's been since the debate, that probably happens even if he doesn't endorse her.
I've been arguing for an open convention since February. What Democrats deprived themselves of with Biden was information. A mini-primary process would've given them more information. But they've not planned for it, built consensus for it, and in my reporting, they don't now have the stomach for it. nytimes.com/2024/07/07/opi…
But I don't think that if Biden steps aside, the party falls into chaos. This — what's happening right now — is a party in chaos. It has lost confidence in its presumptive nominee, and it has recognized that most voters had lost confidence in him long ago.
Party actors like @AOC could easily rally the party around Harris. *Biden* could easily rally the party around Harris! That's where it already mostly wants to go. Instead his staff has often been quietly talking her down to fortify his position. nytimes.com/2024/07/18/us/…
As part of my dive into how “affordable housing” came to cost almost $600,000 per unit in Los Angeles, I had a conversation with @HeidiEMarston that I’ll be thinking about for some time.
What does it mean to trust an agency? One answer is that you can trust an agency that is transparent, heavily audited, tightly bound by rules and regulations, highly accountable to the public or other overseers.
Let’s call this trust-through-transparency.
We often talk about ideas like that as ways of increasing trust but in practice they're ways of not needing to trust.
It's really transparency as a substitution for trust.
On the podcast, I've talked around this experience, and how it changed the way I see pregnancy and reproductive choice. But I've tried not to say too much, because it was @annielowrey's story to tell.
I'll only add: The idea that any legislator would force her, or anyone else, to undergo this much agony and this much danger, is unthinkable to me. But it's the reality now in much of the United States.
One more thing, while I'm breaking my Twitter silence. Something you learn, being near a truly horrible pregnancy, is how common such pregnancies are, because when people know what you've been through, they begin telling you what they've been through.
This is an important counterargument, so let me encourage you to read it — @Sifill_LDF's full thread, not just this one tweet — and try to answer it, and some others, and explain why I think Twitter is ill-suited for the central role it plays in our politics.
The nature of Twitter is it shrinks everything down to units of a single thought, image, video, and then makes it possible for that unit to go viral, reaching communities it would never reach and building a community behind it.
This can be incredibly powerful when there's an outrage that can be contained in one tweet. That's true for many of the cases @Sifill_LDF describes. Enormous good has come out of that.
Musk's tweeting today is making me more confident of the argument I make here.
I don't think he'll change the platform that much, at least not soon. But I think having the owner of the platform tweet like he does will change the feel of it dramatically. nytimes.com/2022/04/27/opi…
On some level everyone here is providing free labor for Twitter.com. It's weird.
But now we're going to be providing free labor for Elon Musk. And Musk will be making clear his contempt for the views of a lot of the people creating on his platform. Do they stay?
How does a viral tweet or a flourishing following feel if it's to the greater glory and profits and influence of Elon? Maybe great if you love him. Pretty unsettling if you don't.
One response I've heard to this column is that there are ways the Child Tax Credit could be better designed, or targeted.
I agree, and we all have our ideal design ideas here, but we're not seeing negotiations over design bog down. The policy expired, and Congress moved on.
The question of this column is why the CTC didn't generate the political force to secure expansion, or a process in which a deal was seen as a must-pass outcome.
Why have we abandoned tax credits for poor kids while we endlessly extend tax cuts for the rich?