Here’s a piece that defends the effort to eliminate and replace the Minnesota education clause, and seems to attempt to rebut my criticisms of that effort.
First off, it's rarely a good sign when the thing you're supposedly defending isn't even mentioned until the 11th paragraph, halfway through the piece.
The author admits that "quality education" is a legally undefined term. This is a key problem with the proposed amendment: you're replacing a guarantee of "adequate education," with the force of precedent behind it, with an undefined generality.
She then rather vaguely says that although "quality education" is undefined, we'd have to come together as a state to define it. But that just leaves us back where we started! The amendment wouldn't have actually accomplished anything.
Also, please note the shot at "people outside of our state, legal scholars or lawyers."
This has become the amendment backers' go-to way dismissal of the actual experts, including a large group of civil rights scholars, who have said their plan would threaten students' rights.
"We can't let fears of the unknown keep us from doing this thing, even though we can't explain how it will help us" - at some point, casting yourself headlong into the unknown is reckless, not brave. This is someone daring Minnesota to jump off a cliff.
The comparison to the 13th and 19th amendments are ridiculous and cynical. The lesson of those amendments wasn't "All constitutional amendments are good." They did specific, good things. No one who supports the Minnesota amendment can really explain WHAT it's supposed to do.
There are so many things wrong with this sentence that's hard to know where it started. First, "amending your constitution" isn't something you can do generically. States have added or changed specific language, and none of those rewritten constitutions looked much like ours.
But perhaps more importantly, HOW are these states "eliminating their achievements gaps in unprecedented ways"? Are there states out there where racial achievements gaps have vanished, and no one told the rest of us? Dramatic claims like this need specificity.
Really, the main argument the piece seems to make is that this would extend rights to "all children" (helpfully italicized throughout the piece). But Minnesota's current educational rights DO extend to all children. The amendment would not change this!
There are lots of reasons to be skeptical of the MN ed amendment. But one big reason is how slippery and shady its supporters are being. They seem incapable of accurately and honestly describing what they're proposing or how it would work. That's the reddest flag of all.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
basically what's happening is that you have a bunch of ideas that have always appealed to comfortable people at the top of society - mostly white dudes - about how you should be allowed to be a little racist and homophobic and political correctness is out of control and whatnot
but over the last few years the people who became most associated with those ideas became intrinsically rather toxic among the educated set. like you can't admit to listening to ben shapiro and jordan peterson and expect to be taken seriously
so what's happening is that a bunch of moderates and liberals - who just so happen to be white dudes themselves - have started advancing suspiciously similar arguments with a liberal gloss. "this is just an argument about politics, it's not like I don't believe in racism"
The primary reason is the process of suburban demographic change, and the eventual resegregation that results. Most American suburbs are currently moving across a spectrum from fully white segregated to fully nonwhite segregated.
At present, many suburbs are in fact racially integrated, but it's not a stable state of affairs - the integration is a side effect of the demographic move towards nonwhite segregation, and will collapse eventually if steps are not taken to preserve it.
Here's the thing: Dems definitely CAN win the culture war! Their positions on race, immigration, etc. are generally the majority view!
The problem is that the party lives under a cloud of fear on culture issues, created by decades of white moderates warning darkly against the overwhelming backlash that will come for anyone so reckless as to advance a progressive position on, especially, race.
It was completely predictable that conservatives would turn against lockdowns and public health measures, because these things require public sacrifice for the greater good. Indeed I predicted it over a year ago
Also the reason Donald Trump always, always lands on the wrong side of every issue is because he cannot abide forming common cause with people who have criticized him, which pushes him towards positions that no one reasonable could actually hold
You know, I'm not a revolutionary by nature, but if people keep spending this much money on NFTs, it may be time to break out the guillotines cnbc.com/2021/03/11/bee…
Someone spent $70,000,000 on what is literally the equivalent of a piece of paper saying they own a png that anyone else is also free to download
can someone explain to me how selling someone a NFT for a piece of digital media is any different than selling someone a piece of paper saying they own the brooklyn bridge
Here's what the GOP gets that Democrats really, truly struggle with: Politics is about way more than policy. Politics is not about voters saying "Which policy platform do I prefer?" It's about making cultural, emotional and, factional appeals.
The problem is that moderate liberals and centrist Dems typically have two responses to this.
The first is to say "Well that just means we have to redouble efforts, and do things that are EVEN MORE POPULAR." But it still doesn't work because that's not what politics is about.
The second is to say "Well, we have to appeal to the cheap seats some! We have to start punching hippies! Talk about cancel culture!" Yglesias has been on this train some lately - frankly, it sounds smart to older white dudes, because they, personally, enjoy punching hippies.