I've gotten some emails with requests to explain what informs the judgment that I've reached in the 2020 election. The long answer: lots of articles I've written and read over the last five years. This thread is an incomplete list of them.
The Trump character trait that bothers me most, by far, is his penchant for cruelty.
The issue that looms largest for me is COVID-19. I reject the absurd argument that Trump is responsible for all U.S. deaths. But his failures have been significant and catastrophic enough to justify doubting his competence in future emergencies theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
My belief is that Trump brings out the worst in both the D and R Parties, and that both will improve when he is gone. I also think he is likelier than his opponent to bring out the worst in Americans. These questions might test if you agree theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
Some of my friends on the right believe that the left is afflicted by "Trump Derangement Syndrome." If so, arguendo, shouldn't America part with a president that deranges many of its citizens? theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
Among all Trump's broken promises, the unmet pledge to "drain the swamp" is perhaps the most flagrant betrayal. Consider Rudy Giuliani: theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
Consider what the Framers who were concerned about bribery would have thought of Trump's behavior theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
There are so many good articles about Trump's objectionable behavior in the business world, sometimes touching foreign countries. This one by @adamdavidson has stuck with me: newyorker.com/magazine/2017/…
Gotta run now but I'll likely add to this later.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Annoyingly, Nikole Hannah-Jones blocked me on Twitter today before posting more mischaracterizations of our recent disagreements about 1619 vs 1776. I'd hoped and intended to leave things at my last thread. Now I'll post videos corroborating my position.
Lest there be any confusion, I want to be clear that I do not favor banning the project from schools or the president's attacks on NHJ.
Indeed, this week a hs teacher sent me a link to a video presentation by a student who read The 1619 Project and my essay about it. My discourse and debate-loving self found it so heartening.
The USC business school imbroglio is among the most alarming instances I've ever seen of administrators running roughshod over faculty, undermining academic freedom, and chilling speech in a way that harms all students. (thread)
The administration cannot help but know that their actions are causing multiple professors to alter their teaching in ways that harm students because they are terrified of being punished for unintentionally giving offense to students.
Will they do anything to alter that?
My reporting and an anonymous survey conducted by the Faculty Council at the school both yielded powerful quotes from USC professors that ought to be more widely known to fellow academics.
This claim is staggering. Because I wrote an essay arguing that The 1619 Project was great in parts, but was wrong to argue that 1619 was our "true founding," I take exception to it. My essay is here: theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/… Was I duped by "the right" or duping others? A thread:
Here she is calling Ben Shapiro a liar and saying that the wrongheadedness of his claim is easily verified. Am I going crazy? I thought. So I went back to check myself to make sure I didn't error in my essay. What I found is quite damning.
I would certainly love it if billionaire NBA owners somehow secured any or all of, say, the full Campaign Zero slate of reform proposals (or the 8 Can't Wait iteration that came later, and maybe there's a market where this will matter (I wonder what the most likely would be)?
There are two big obstacles that I see to this strategy:
1) If you look at a list of cities and/or agencies with the most police shootings per capita the vast majority have no stake in this.
2) Billionaires can influence policy most easily when
As ever I'm glad The Atlantic publishes smart people making arguments with which I disagree, even on the issues I care about most.
And one passage in this piece is especially useful as this conversation moves forward (see next tweet) theatlantic.com/culture/archiv…
Here's the passage. I agree with two-thirds of it:
I would argue that liberal society can be threatened if participation in civic discourse triggers workplace reviews of speakers, and I suspect most progressives would agree given certain examples.
New Pew data on "defunding" police: A 73% majority say that spending on their local police should stay about the same as it is now (42%) or be increased from its current level (31%). (1/x)
"While Black adults are more likely than whites to favor cuts in police budgets, fewer than half of Black adults (42%) say spending on policing in their areas should be reduced." 2/x
"Among both Black and white adults, those under age 50 are far more likely to support decreased funding for police in their areas than are those 50 and older." 3/x