Theory: what makes plans like these popular isn’t, say, widespread concern about loansharking, but the appeal to a widespread desire to stick it to the man. “Moderate” Dems use that same affectation (sometimes quite successfully) but pretend “the man” is the Dem party and agenda.
I would like to see moderate Dems train that affect on unscrupulous corporate actors, too. But what resonates is the affect (see: drain the swamp) not the polling of this or that issue position.
When you limit the affect to saying party leadership won’t control you, you never have to extend it to corporate interests.
The flipside though is that if “moderates” were anti-corporate populists instead of just flies in the ointment, the affect would eventually force them into confrontations (with health insurance companies, etc) that would make popularists uncomfortable.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Brian Beutler

Brian Beutler Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @brianbeutler

7 Apr
Give them a D for effort.
Actually, I now agree that not everyone should vote, and ask @NRO them to join me in my new pursuit of limiting the franchise to those who aren’t yet retired, since people of advanced age have less stake in the future of the country, and are deeply dependent on state largesse.
They’re also more prone to be confused about public matters (all matters, really) so erecting barriers before them to the ballot box is just common sense.
Read 4 tweets
5 Apr
McConnell’s position seems to be that corporate free speech is sacrosanct when it manifests in endless streams of dark money to right wing advocacy, but punishable with selective tax and labor enforcement when it’s actual words, such as ‘making it hard for people to vote is bad.’
Of course, when Dems introduce legislation to tax corporations and encourage unionization and step up antitrust enforcement on a neutral basis, Republicans will oppose it unanimously. The message is be good soldiers and we’ll take care of you, step out of line and it’s the lash.
The mainstream press has repeatedly bowed to pressure to call this “populism” but it’s much more like fascism.
Read 4 tweets
30 Mar
😳 ImageImage
Look, the man is nothing if not credible.
Read 4 tweets
22 Mar
What happens is Republicans pretend to be outraged and reporters pretend to believe them. Because if a party is outraged, there must be a controversy. Take that wink and nod routine of the equation and it’s clear big media companies don’t actually see a huge story here.
Having vented my personal frustration with media’s contrived gullibility to Republican nonsense, I want to add that if Democrats are frustrated, too, they should attack the gullible for being complicit with the inhuman treatment Cornyn unwittingly alludes to here.
We abhor and reject the relentless and intentional misreporting of this story in support of a Republican policy of subjecting children to torture.
Read 4 tweets
19 Mar
Republicans engaged in another vast and flagrant Trump coverup. nbcnews.com/politics/congr…
Conventions at legacy outlets basically forbid reporting that kind of thing plainly but it’s 100% what’s happening and everyone knows it. Republicans oppose any commission empowered to look beyond narrow security failures, unless they’re allowed to mire it in ANTIFA whataboutism.
To me, the commission itself is a bit of a red herring, since Dems can:

1) Let Republicans vote it down.
2) Impanel a joint committee, give it subpoena power, hold hearings in prime time.
3) Abolish the filibuster and create the commission anyhow, if they think it’s important.
Read 4 tweets
2 Mar
I think what’s happened is that over time people have grown increasingly aware of the absurdities of the Senate, and the senators’ insistence on hiding behind them, so some bluffs are being called.
If Dems say they support a pathway to citizenship…

…but can only do two filibuster-proof bills a year...

...and those are only for taxes...

...unless @VP says otherwise...

...and we’ll probably lose power in two years...

...what do you think advocates are gonna demand?
One reason I’m thrilled to see filibuster abolition go mainstream, and which I’ve been bleating about for 15 years, is that as constituted it inverts accountability. When a bill fails in “the Senate” it’s usually because of the minority, not the party in charge. LIKEWISE...
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!