When people say that EU conservatives are "to the left" on their welfare states, it's tantamount to calling U.S. conservatives "to the left" on Medicare and Social Security.
UK conservatives (& conservatives throughout the EU) want to chip away at the safety nets that have been built since post-WWII. These same safety nets are deeply entrenched (like Medicare!) & so they rarely claim to want to totally destroy the system. They nibble at the edges.
These conservatives want privatization & deregulation just like U.S. conservatives do. Where they differ is not in base ideology, but rather in the *very old* & economically fundamental extant systems they're dealing w/ (as well as how popular such systems are).
In the wake of the financial crisis, conservatives in the UK advocated for austerity, which had long-reaching consequences, including for the NHS. At the exact same time, U.S. liberals were trying to expand our welfare state. These groups are not the same.
The idea that U.S. liberals, who are working to change a regressive system, are somehow the "same" or even more conservative than the people who took a hammer to the NHS is farcical.
Public health officials are not your personal physician. When they issue guidance, they are not just looking out for you as an individual, but are primarily trying to protect the community as a whole in the presence of a deadly virus that can use any human body as a vector.
There are many cultures w/ a strong tendency towards individualism, but the U.S. takes this to extreme level, such that, in the COVID-19 era, almost all criticism of public health advice has centered individual risk, rather than community risk.
And this flaw in reasoning isn't just true of conservatives--though it is most pervasive there--it exists across the spectrum. For example, you see people endlessly complaining about having to wear a mask in public even if they're vaccinated.
This article is unfortunately poorly reasoned. There are ways to weigh the costs of isolation to children against the risks of COVID-19 that don't involve the false assertion that children are basically immune. There is also no mention of differential risk across demographics
-Children of color are at higher risk of disease than white children. As are children w/ pre-ex conditions
-The data are out on longterm effects in children generally. There's no reason to believe, at this time, that children are at high risk, but, still, some caution is merited
Additionally, the article relies on reasoning errors that are all too common when discussing public health, such that the focus is spuriously trained only on individual risk, rather than on individual risk *coupled with* community risk.
"The GOP uses immigration to fuel dehumanization in their march towards authoritarianism & in 2018 a man referred to the border in his rationale for murdering 11 Jews, but the real problem here is that Biden calls an immigration increase a 'difficult situation' & not a 'crisis'"
I dunno, I'm going to lean towards Democrats' reframing of a situation that has been repeatedly exploited to spread hatred & violence might not be the most "Orwellian" aspect of this whole discourse.
It doesn't matter what Meghan Markle knew or didn't know about the monarchy. She could have written a dissertation on the subject and none of that knowledge would have changed the impact of being asked how Black her child would be. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
There's no reason to make the assumption that Markle could not comprehend a world beyond "Jamba Juice" & celebrity. Importantly, her complaints were not, "This is a world of new customs," but, rather, "This is racist." So what kind of "learning" are we asking WOC to do, exactly?
Given Markle's description of her experience, it doesn't sound like the nature of her complaints is tied to ignorance of royal customs or how the Monarch supposedly relates to the realm & to God
It sounds like she's being asked to learn to be a more compliant target of racism
I'm not opposed to people interviewing Trump, but I also think there's probably a lack of public appetite, at least for non-GOPers. I don't know how much people will care about his lies & sociopathy now that he's w/out power.
There were some who were able to turn Trump off b/c they hated him so much & others who were unable to do so for the same reason. I was definitely in the latter group--soaking up every detail in fear & rage--but that's b/c he had the capacity to do great harm.
Some are asking if I actually think Trump is w/o power. I think it's fairly clear from the context that I meant w/o the power of POTUS. Does he still have power over his followers? Sure. But I don't know why I would need to monitor his every word/action like when he was in office
1. It wasn't cynical to describe Trump as fascistic. It was accurate. 2. The US left would benefit from recognizing that much opposition from the center-left is not ideological, but actually practical. More goals would be achieved from persuasion about the realm of the possible.
Are there some Dems out there who are deeply ideologically opposed to student debt relief, free college, & other causes of the left? Maybe there are a few. But ideological resistance to such causes doesn't make up the bulk of the political resistance. Practical considerations do.
There aren't that many Dems out there who are thinking "OMG canceling student loans instils fear in me b/c I believe debt's a crucial aspect of our society." There are plenty who think "this will lose us elections" or "this isn't possible." That's where you apply the persuasion!