Lots of potential answers, other than the unprovable "Dems are just better".
1) Dem coalition structurally gains more from redistribution 2) Parties reflect their leaders 3) Dems just earlier in process of becoming fixated on symbolic politics to the exclusion of concrete policy
One could argue, for example, that #1 might be shifting towards #3 because of the changing nature of the coalition: with more and more rich people and affluent professionals shifting Demward, Dems have both more to gain and to lose from redistribution, complicating the politics.
At the micro level this manifests as people loudly demand "affordable housing" while coming up with endless reasons that that housing doesn't belong in their neighborhood; supporting racial integration while choosing affluent neighborhoods/schools that perpetuate segregation, etc
At the macro level, it is promises to tax the rich while continually pushing the lower boundary of "rich" northwards toward $500k for a family, and the completely absurd fixation on restoring the highly regressive federal deduction for state and local taxes.
This is not all of the party. But in 2004, Republicans still had some ideas that weren't "Tax cuts and liberal tears". Yet here we are.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I think this is bad, but also think it's a sign of something I thought a lot about after 1/6: it's really important for elites to uphold election norms precisely because normies won't. They'll be happy to indulge in election denial if the political elite goes along.
Democratic norms aren't a bedrock fact of democracy. They're a truce between opposing groups of political elites. Which is why it is in fact extremely important to have elites who are committed to those norms, and will swiftly crush even minor violations.
The biggest example is obviously Donald Trump. But Democratic elites dabbled too, with their little games about election certification, and their humoring of Stacy Abrams, and their looking the other way when Clinton said he wasn't a legitimate president.
If you are making fun of how terrible all the food was in the 1950s, some things to keep in mind 🧵:
1) Many of the worst recipes are from cookbooks created to promote various foodstuffs, and probably no one except the poor domestic scientist who created them ever made them.
2) Most jello salad isn't as bad as you think.
3) People were much, much poorer--1950s housewives also preferred steak to spam, but their budget didn't.
4) Chicken and eggs used to be more expensive than beef, not a cheap weeknight staple.
5) For 6-9 months of the year, in most of the country, fresh produce other than hardy lettuces like iceberg and storeables like carrots, onions, potatoes, and apples, were unavailable at any reasonable price.
I think the way to square this circle is to think of this not as a matter of people rejecting the moral values you care about, but as emphasizing different values that you both care about.
Abortion is a good example of this; people tend to think of others as not caring about [the life of the baby/the autonomy of the mother] but in fact most people care about both. They're just choosing which they care about more.
I consider Trump's character disqualifying. But my friends who are voting for Trump don't like his character. Rather, they care about other stuff--sometimes abortion, but lots of other stuff like abuse of left-wing institutional power.
So I wrote a column on my Dad's last year, and the brutal math of caring for the elderly.
The column is here. I wrote it because many folks assume that we could save $$$$ by using home care to keep folks out of nursing homes, which is not really true. washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/…
That assumption is natural enough, because nursing homes are really, really expensive--my Dad's semi-private room (a curtained alcove with a shared bathroom) cost $16,500 a month.
The problem is that by the time you're disabled enough to need a nursing home, you tend to require 24 hour assistance.
I don't know all the reasons for the Secret Service failures in Butler. But having written a book about failure (she said, demurely pointing to the link: ) I'm pretty sure that one problem was that ... it had been a long time since anything went wrong.amazon.com/Up-Side-Down-F…
Everything the secret service does is a tradeoff: between false positives and false negatives; between safety, and the cost that must be imposed on everyone else to make incremental safety gains; between ensuring nothing bad happens and ensuring that *nothing* happens.
If you shoot everyone who looks suspicious you make protectees safer, but kill more innocent people. If you have a massive security perimeter, it will be massively expensive and massively inconvenient. If you lock down protectees, they will be safer, but less effective
Since the debate, people outside of Washington have been asking me the same question over and over: how did the media miss the Biden story?
So I asked a bunch of savvy political reporters that question, and wrote a column on it
I know, conservatives, you think you know the answer: Democratic journalists were covering for a Democratic president. But that's not quite right, as I wrote in my column:
There was no conspiracy. There were a lot of tiny decisions about what to cover today, who to trust, and how blunt to be that collectively added up to a giant mistake that left our readers in the dark.