These Q's are tricky, given the causal relationship between elections. It's rendered more difficult given we've had 20 years to examine the consequences of 2000, but only 4 to examine those of 2004. I think the case for 2000 is a strong one, but there are a lot of variables here.
For people not alive in 1980/1968, 2000 does seem the clear answer, given the sheer scale of the global disruption caused by the W. Bush presidency. But it could be the case that 2016 precipitated accelerated fascist elements in the GOP, as well as massive political realignment.
Also, we tend to analyze this question from a negative POV, such that we think, "Which election had the worst consequences?" 2008/2012 were *hugely* consequential in many positive senses, such as the greatest expansion of the safety net since '64 AND LGBTQ rights.
*4 to examine 2016! Not 2004!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One thing that irritates me about the school-opening conversation is that many seem to assume that there could possibly be a good outcome for kids & we just need to identify what it is. Once the pandemic hit, there was never going to be a good outcome.
Only less bad ones.
It's not developmentally normal for kids to be living largely in isolation. Nor is it developmentally desirable for them to be learning remotely. It is also not desirable for kids to be vectors of disease in their communities, get sick themselves, or for their relatives to die.
I'm pro-being-aggressive on school closures. That being said, pro-school closure people can also act like this is a simple argument. It's not. Upper-income kids w/out disabilities will prob bounce back eventually. For other kids, we're tragically exacerbating extant gaps.
I keep seeing people make a fundamental error, in which they seem to be arguing that intent is the only factor we use when assessing harm or blameworthiness. This is not true. We take intent into account, but it's not the only variable.
If someone drives recklessly & commits vehicular manslaughter, we do consider intent when assessing blameworthiness *relative* to something like a 1st degree murder. But the harm (death) was still caused & we still attach a moral value to the recklessness that caused the death.
I'm not especially keen to keep discussing "masturbation gate," or whatever it is, but seeing this fundamental error over and over again is rubbing my brain the wrong way.
I think there's a # of things going on here, but it is an interesting phenomenon. In Trump's case, his narcissism & stupidity make it impossible for him not to project. In the case of the GOP, I think they are misapplying their successful model of climate change denial, etc.
The GOP has lied successfully about so many things for years b/c the consequences of their lies were not felt directly. They lied about WMDs. They lied about regressive economic policies. About healthcare. About climate change.
You can't lie so successfully about this virus
Anyway, again, I think there are multiple things going on here, but those are a few. It's almost as if lying is less of a means for them to achieve some other aim, and more of a core, reflexive aspect of their identity.
I keep coming back to this comment and thinking about how so-called "conservatism" is visually signaled in the South through one symbol and one symbol alone: the confederate flag.
I keep thinking of my black friends in places like TN & GA. Of one friend who told me she wouldn't go to areas around plantations b/c she was afraid she would be lynched. Of the time I saw a truck emblazoned w/ confederate flags backing into a black woman on a crosswalk.
It's obscene & frankly fascistic to indicate black people can only be safe & welcome if they signal certain political values. In this same vein, it's important to remember that Graham's brand of "conservatism" is inextricably linked to the oppression of black people.
No, it should not be framed this way, as Democrats have expressed a different rationale, namely: If McConnell proceeds to apply different rules than he did in 2016, he will have effectively stolen at least 1 seat. A reasonable response to this would be to expand the court.
The court expansion question has *only* come under debate due to McConnell's own actions. Democrats are generally not in favor of expanding the court just for the sake of expanding the court. Some, however, are in favor of this action *contingent upon* McConnell's behavior.
Given the GOP applied one set of rules in 2016 and have now reversed those rules, it is basically inarguable that they, not Democrats, are trying to pack the court. These actions are enough of a breach of the democratic contract that they merit a response.
It's amazing how Trump's ship is sinking and instead of diving for a lifeboat, people like Lindsey Graham and Mike Lee are like, "Nah, I'm just gonna be honest and say I love fascism."
Just so we're clear: this is not a misstep from someone who lives in the South. If you need context: I had a black friend who wouldn't drive to certain places around Nashville b/c she was afraid she would be lynched. There's the context.