Such a tiresome response. Protip: "Crazies took over my party" does not mean "your party was always wrong about everything." Yes, we knew had a crazy fringe. Ours, for a lot of reasons (including monetizing the crazy) took control.
Spoiler: The left has a crazy fringe too. /1
Conservatism isn't crazy. It's a necessary part of a democracy, just as progressivism is. But when we work on what killed the GOP, progs looking over our shoulder and saying "Well, we told you in 1985" only serves to remind us why it's hard to talk to mindless progressives. /2
And trust me, when all this is over, we're all gonna have a talk about how the GOP managed, for a time, to become the dominant party - "the party of everyone else" - with the *help of progressives*. Dems did, and do, holistically stink at politics. It made it easy for us. /3
Today, the American left has plenty of kooks in it who - for now - have been thwarted in the attempt to capture the Democratic Party. Liberals might want to think more about the general question of how a major party falls to its fringe instead of retconning all of 1952-2016. /4
Think, too, about how crying wolf - also a form of paranoid politics - for 40 yrs didn't help progs sway people. You said "fascist" so often people tuned it out. Reagan, Bush 1/2, Dole, McCain, Romney - all demonized.
And then you ran HRC, against all logic and caution. /5
You warned us? Sure. And we warned you: Let the Clinton idea go. You had Bill for two terms. Don't resurrect the battles of the 90s. Yes, the GOP was spineless against Trump and it deserves to be flushed for that. But never think you didn't have a hand in all this. /6
And before you all talk about "30 years ago," it's important to remember how Dems ended up in this jam *forty* years ago. /7
It's easy for younger progressives to forget how much the US felt like a failed state at the end of the 1970s, as liberal ideas were exhausted, the USSR was in the ascent, and we were all told to just accept "decline" and "convergence" with the Soviet model. /8
As Mark Lilla - no conservative - wrote recently: “It is difficult to convey to anyone who wasn’t alive and politically aware at the time what a dreary place America seemed in the late 1970s, how lacking in direction and confidence." It was the peak of liberal dominance. /9
This was a result of the exhaustion of the 1960s and the curdling of noble crusades like civil rights into identity and racial spoils factionalism. Conservatives seized an opportunity. Yes, while dragging our crazies along with us. Perhaps we shouldn't have, but we did. /10
But this is a cautionary tale for Democrats: You're on the verge of saving the country. But you've got a nutball fringe coming right along with you. Don't think you're immune to our mistakes. /11
Apostate conservatives spend a lot of time thinking about how things went wrong. We don't always agree. We're working on it. But spare me the lectures about how we were always crazy. It's silly and tiresome. /12x
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Before I head downstairs for some late-night TV, I am going to do something I’ve never done:
To see if I can get through to some of you, I AM GOING TO USE A SPORTSBALL ANALOGY!
/1
Bottom of the 9th, Team Democracy tied with Team Autocrat. Biden’s been pitching a great game, but he’s getting tired. Facing their top hitter, he goes for his fastball.
He unloads a wild pitch into the stands, hitting a fan in the head. Crowd hushes. Opposing team grins.
/2
The Coach – concerned Dems – comes out to the mound.
"You okay?"
"Fine. Insulted you’d ask. Watch this next pitch."
Biden puts one in the dirt.
The Coach watches the catcher scrambling and then at the guy in the stands rubbing his sore noggin.
I agree that there is a double-standard in covering Trump. I have complained about it a lot. (The way I complain about everything: At length.) But maybe many of you should consider what you were saying about Trump coverage back at the start.
"Stop covering him!"
/1
I was one of the people arguing for saturating the airwaves with him so people could see his emotional instability. "Shut up," many of you yelled. "You're giving him oxygen!" When he was POTUS, I opposed kicking him off Twitter, which made some of you go nuts.
/2
And this isn't because it was good coverage; you wanted him cast into silence, which I opposed. This got so intense that I wrote this piece in USA Today to pushback on the calls to stop tweeting his press conferences:
This is an outdated way of thinking about nuclear bombers.
Yes, they are recallable - a great thing to have in 1960. Today, not as big a deal. Here's why. Short 🧵
/1
During the Cold War, you assumed that a crisis could erupt into hemisphere-wide, all-out nuclear war. So you wanted a way to get at least some of your nukes out of the way early - and show the enemy your readiness. Bombers are A+ for that./2
Once ICBMs enter the picture after 1959-ish, however, we have a new problem: What if the enemy's massive first strike destroys the ICBMs and the sub pens, leaving the last few subs able only to destroy cities and trigger Armageddon?
Bombers wait for the order, is what. /3
I don't usually respond to critics, but this guy hauls me up short on what I get wrong about my insistence on absolute deference to experts.
A thread!
/1
Good point here about scientists who can't speak to the normals:
/2
And yeah, we should have maybe paid more attention to the problem of progressives who wouldn't let go:
/3
Franck is making the case for a solipsistic, self-regarding approach to voting, that is all about you and not about collective action. Sometimes in politics just as in foreign policy, you understand that you end up in alliances you don’t like for the sake of a greater purpose. /1
Franck reminds me of the political scientists years ago who scratched their heads about why people bothered to vote when no single vote can affect very much. But voting even when you don’t like any of the choices is part of civic maturity. /2
It is remarkably self-absorbed to think that your vote is a character-afflicting endorsement rather than a strategic choice. Voting when you like the choices is easy. Making a strategic decision when you don’t like the choices requires thought. /3
My (friendly) disagreement with @NoahCRothman reminds me of something that happened to me when I was doing a speaking engagement at a college. One of the faculty was - no, really - very Trumpy. And he made a comment to me that really encapsulates our political asymmetry. /1
He said: "Your contempt for the voters is palpable," because I was talking about The Death of Expertise and how voters vote based on not knowing stuff.
He felt that was very elitist.
"Your contempt is obvious as well," I said.
He was, uh, taken aback.
/2
He felt that *his* loathing of millions of Americans was rooted in a morally defensible hatred of anyone who votes for progressive positions on abortion, gay rights, etc. But *my* criticisms of people who think the ACA and Obamacare are different was unacceptably hostile. /3