It's important to criticize ideas you generally agree with, and I don't think I do it enough. So I want to thread three brief points about what I see as problems in left-liberal discourse today. Not insuperable or fatal problems, but problems nonetheless.
The first is anti-rationalism on identity issues. Sometimes, debates over unsettled empirical questions — would defunding police increase crime? why does Trump seem to be gaining votes among Latinos? — are themselves declared illegitimate or out-of-bounds.
The second, relatedly, is intellectual insularity. Socialist and conservative critics often raise genuinely sharp critiques of liberal politics — particularly relating to class, credentialism and history — that don't get the serious consideration they deserve.
And the third is demonization. I stand by my claims that the threat from "cancel culture" has been radically overblown, but its critics are correct that there's a worrying tendency to dismiss people as irredeemable for venial sins — and to offer few options for forgiveness.
Again: I do not think these problems are devastating for the entire political project. But no movement is perfect, and self-criticism is an important and healthy part of politics.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I've seen a lot of takes that Orbán's defeat means that he was never an authoritarian in the first place.
This is completely wrong — and, in fact, betrays a complete misunderstanding of both Hungarian politics and modern authoritarianism.
Here's why.
Hungary under Orbán was not a classic fascist or monarchical regime. It was a species of what political scientists call "competitive authoritarianism" — where elections are generally free, meaning not formally rigged, but held under extremely unfair conditions.
Competitive authoritarian regimes do repression differently. Instead of locking up critics or stuffing ballot boxes, they use softer tools to suppress the opposition — like buying up media, rigging campaign finance rules, and gerrymandering,
Spent some time this morning reading US v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case holding birthright citizenship as a 14th Amendment right. It is *crystal clear* that the reasoning applies to children of undocumented migrants.
Short thread to follow.
The text of the 14th Amendment seems straightforward: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Seems straightforward: children born here are citizens.
The Trump argument is that the 14th Amendment contains a clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," which theoretically would allow for exemptions. Indeed, this clause has been applied to children of diplomats.
Anyway, I'm all for people learning from defeat, but I feel like the introspection should focus on the *actual cause* of defeat — inflation and economic policies that contributed to it.
Put more sharply: if the big takeaways of 2024 are about messaging rather than policy failures, then Democrats are deluding themselves
Hadn't gotten around to actually listening to the Tucker WWII episode but this is just a staggeringly insane take on Barbarossa
For guy who runs a history podcast, Darryl Cooper seems staggeringly unaware of the "Holocaust by bullets" that took place during this exact period
There were entire Einsatzgruppen units devoted to following the German army's advance and murdering the locals Jews. This wasn't an ad hoc thing, it was *built in to the design of the invasion*
There's a bizarre theory gaining traction that Donald Trump was a dovish president vox.com/23677654/trump…
In just two countries, Iraq and Syria, his drone war killed three times as many civilians as the Gulf War, Kosovo intervention, and Libya wars *combined.*
Trump personally loosened rules of engagement for US airstrikes, even bragging about it publicly. The result? The number of civilian casualties per year in Afghanistan increased by 95 percent over the Bush-Obama average motherjones.com/politics/2020/…
Other things that Trump did:
-attack Syrian government targets, which Obama refused to do
-Sent a naval "armada" in North Korea's direction after threatening it with "fire and fury like the world has never seen"
About this "military is too woke" meme on the right: there's actually good evidence that more socially egalitarian militaries are better at winning wars
This book from @jaylyall_red5 looks at a large database covering 250 conventional wars, finding that "the higher an army’s inequality...the greater its rates of desertion, side-switching, casualties, and use of coercion to force soldiers to fight" press.princeton.edu/books/hardcove…
This makes a certain amount of intuitive sense. If people in your military feel oppressed by their government, they are less likely to risk their lives for it. If they feel like social equals, the country's cause is their cause too.