My latest at @liberalcurrents expands my thoughts on the English and Kalla "Racial Equality Frames" study and the way liberal moderates seized on its results to counsel tip-toeing around racial justice. This is a mistake. THREAD liberalcurrents.com/scorched-earth…
.@mattyglesias's penchant for left-punching is irritating, but he's indispensable on issues very important to me: liberal housing/zoning reform & expanding freedom of movement. See @matthewdownhour's deservedly glowing review of One Billion Americans. 3/n liberalcurrents.com/liberalism-and…
We all want positive sum policies that make everyone better off. Any ambitious policy reform that's worth a damn will have to improve Black social outcomes because of already existing racial inequality. This is true even for policies that are on their face race-neutral. 4/n
The "race-neutral" folks think if we're quiet abt the racial egalitarian effects of facially race-neutral policies, then racists won't notice, whites won't get spooked, & we can all reap the rewards. But this has been the Dem strategy all along. Dog whistle tactics persist. 5/n
.@hmcghee's new book, The Sum of Us, describes how positive sum policies are reframed in non-zero-sum racial terms, ultimately to negative sum results. The race-neutral strategy won't work even if we could get pols and activists aligned. 6/n
We can preempt racist framings by calling them out & naming the elites who benefit from them. Racist framings make Black people (immigrants, etc) the villains. We can replace the villains in the story with the actual bad guys & stress how we all benefit by working together. 7/n
@lindsey_brink worries about zero-sum narratives in antiracist activism. But we should distinguish between status goods, that whites must lose if we take liberal equality seriously, and material goods & capabilities that can increase for all in a true harmony of interests. 8/n
Positive-sumness—expanding freedom & capabilities for all—is at the heart of antiracist activism. Multiracial solidarity yields a "solidarity dividend." Whites benefit from this dividend bc an antiracist political economy develops & leverages the creative powers of everyone. 9/n
In the long term this will even benefit even the most privileged class of white men, whom I liken to monarchs who would destroy their nations and the foundation of their own wealth to preserve their place of dominance in the hierarchy. 10/n
Finally, we can even appreciate this in Yglesian national greatness terms. Persisting racial inequality is a debilitating social disease that prevents America from being all that it can be. America is a racist country, but fighting racism is also as American as apple pie. 11/11
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Okay, stream-of-conscious thread on liberalism, neoliberalism, politics, policy, and philosophy commencing here and going through the night. (There'll be long gaps and pauses) 🧵#NeoliberalShillBracket
Liberalism is values, practices, & institutions. Usual stuff: representative government, now w/ high suffrage democracy, tho that wasn't always the case. I think at this point liberalism requires democracy and without it—whatever may've been once true—it's not really liberalism.
Okay so rep. gov't and high suffrage democracy. Also markets; professional state bureaucracy, rule of law and a constitutional legal tradition; stable property rights and a welfare state. #NeoliberalShillBracket
If health and fitness, and professional development are middle-class striving, I guess I tend to see middle-class striving as a good thing, and something that doesn't *by necessity* have to be premised on exclusion and elitism.
The urge to better one's condition seems pretty valuable, alongside likely being a basic fact of human nature. Of course it occurs in a social context, which is riddled with various status hierarchies, many malign or toxic. We should fix the social context, not ditch aspiration.
Dreher is right about this. Gender & sexuality are both more fluid for more people than either conservative doctrine or the "born that way" school have supposed. Gender & sexuality are socially construed. *Of course* normalizing LGBTQ identities leads to more LGBTQ people.
It's remarkable that @roddreher thinks of himself as tolerant though. Characterizing a society with more LGBTQ people as "moral insanity", "Babylonian decadence", or the cause of "our dying civilization" is not tolerant. Maybe tolerance for him just means avoiding overt violence.
But it's neither tolerance nor pluralism to merely marginalize--look the other way *so long as* the queers keep hidden--but to drive a demonizing political backlash when LGBTQ folks have gained some cultural influence.
I think it's fair to be confused by all the definitions and vague boundaries of trans vs nonbinary vs genderfluid etc. The definitional overlap between trans and nonbinary arises precisely because we all want to avoid gender essentialism. 🧵
But to go from the regrettable-but-inevitable ambiguity of "transgender is an umbrella term" to "the medical establishment operates on kids to enforce gender conformity is a non-sequitur. It's also a conspiracy theory and basically a blood libel.
The image evoked here is a tomboy who gets gaslit by school counselors and activist doctors into believing she's really a boy and is then rushed into hormone therapy and surgery. This is just false.
Steady stream of these essays by "politically homeless" libertarians. This one by @ismurray. There is exactly one small-l liberal small-d democratic party and one antidemocratic white nationalist party in the US. I wish this choice weren't so difficult for libertarians. 🧵
The piece frets about regulating Big Tech, antitrust policy, and protectionism. Identity politics too, but I'll get to that. Look, I was a big @ewarren booster, but even I complain about her protectionism. But this is *inconsequential* compared to *preserving democracy*.
.@ismurray describes the basic political realignment and its global nature. This is basically correct, in my view.
Disappointing from @AmericanPurpose. There are no trans extremists. There are trans folks who want to live their lives. There is no "radical gender ideology" any more than there was ever a "homosexual agenda". It's a fabrication of the reactionary right to weaponize polarization.
The piece is full of lies and misrepresentation. For example, "trans women are women" does not mean trans women and cis women must be treated the same in all contexts and that's never been the claim. Not even all cis women are expected to be treated the same in all contexts!
We say trans women are women because absent some context where transness is specifically apposite, trans women are, well, women, and to insist on demarcating trans women as an intrinsically separate class is marginalizing. (Mutatis mutandis trans men.)