I appreciate Liz Cheney's rejection of whataboutism in her call for a Capitol attack commission.
Some will object to her characterization, but the point is these are separate events, and there's no reason anyone has to be concerned with only one, or has to address them together.
Cheney's right, we need a full Capitol attack investigation.
And she's right that "whatabout BLM and antifa?" is just an attempt to avoid one.
Unfortunately, the main obstacle to investigating the insurrection is her party doesn't have a problem with it. washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
Nationally & especially in states, the GOP is working to facilitate future election theft by removing things that thwarted Trump's effort.
Downplaying & trying to move on from Jan. 6 is part of that, as is sidelining truth-telling pro-democracy officials. arcdigital.media/p/set-up-the-s…
As @ThePlumLineGS notes, this isn't a simple question of internal party dynamics. And it's not just about the past either.
It's about purging any Republicans who support Constitutional democracy and will respect the choice of American voters in the future.
Media is much more comfortable doing horserace/reality show-type coverage. Who's up, who's down, etc.
Acknowledging that the US is dealing with an increasingly anti-democracy movement and there's nothing like it on the other side isn't the sort of thing media likes saying.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Much of the IDW ended up in anti-vax, fad dieting, post-fact Trumpism, and “just asking questions” conspiracy theorizing.
There’s a lesson there.
I think the lesson is be wary of confusing iconoclasm or contrarianism with genius.
Sometimes thinkers are out of the mainstream not because they’re serving up brilliant insights the powerful don’t want you to hear, but because they’re bullshitting and/or recycling rejected ideas
I disagree. “Steelmanning” is in large part a trick.
Don’t strawman. Be fair to positions you’re critiquing. Those are important.
But in practice, many calls to steelman are effectively “no fair pointing out flaws in the argument I made; argue against something smarter instead.”
Jan. 6 was an attack on US democracy in a way 9/11 wasn't—incited by a POTUS' lies, aimed to overturn a US election—but at least 9/11 was an attack. The difference is who, what, and why.
The 1965 Immigration Act is a duly passed law that reduced discrimination by national origin.
Was the Jan. 6 insurrection "the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War," as Biden said? Debatable. How do we measure "worst"? Hoes does an attack "on our democracy" differ from an attack on America?
But is an immigration law an attack on our democracy? Absolutely not.
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 removed preferences for northwest Europe, and gave priority to relatives of US citizens & permanent legal residents.
You can criticize it, sure, but thinking it an attack on US democracy is accurately called “white nationalist” or “racist.”
I don't really know why Russia mobilized near Ukraine and then demobilized. I doubt anyone outside of Putin's inner circle knows.
But it wasn't because Russia was "testing" Biden and he passed. As @DanielLarison notes, he didn't follow hawks' suggestions. daniellarison.substack.com/p/the-russians…
Two of the biggest, most common mistakes in US foreign policy: (1) overrating reputation and resolve; (2) thinking other countries' actions are all about America.
If you don't show "strength" everywhere they'll think you "weak" and "test" you elsewhere? Not how the world works.
Obama didn't invade Syria, so Putin thought him weak and attacked Ukraine, right?
Doubt it. Influence over Ukraine is a core Russian foreign policy interest.
And Putin attacked Georgia when Bush was POTUS. Bush, you may recall, ordered invasions. Didn't matter re: Russia-Georgia.
In general, I think old, youthful stuff shouldn’t matter. (For example, I didn’t care that Kavanaugh drank hard, I cared that he lied about it).
But celebrating a man who murdered two people, including a gay icon, seems like an insight into character given where Tucker ended up.
Tucker shouldn't be "canceled" for what he wrote in college. What he's doing today matters much more.
But celebrating the murder of Harvey Milk then does make it less likely that his current support for white nationalist conspiracy theories that motivate terrorism is inadvertent.
Celebrating the murder of Harvey Milk isn't white nationalism. The murder was homophobic, not racist.
But celebrating it does, however, indicate that he doesn't think political violence is bad when directed at people he doesn't like.
That viral thread claiming bias by comparing Trump & Biden Afghanistan stories juxtaposes cherry-picked headlines, ignoring many that don’t fit the preconceived narrative it’s pushing, which means it’s exactly the sort of biased analysis you supposedly savvy media critics oppose.
It’s easy to find straight news about Trump’s Afghanistan policy, including uncritically repeating his positive spin on it.
Does this mean all was positive? Of course not. It means that claims that it was overwhelmingly negative aren’t proven by finding some negative headlines.
Yes, Georgia’s new law does some good things. And yes, some criticism of it is hyperbolic and inaccurate. But if asked to judge it by only those things, setting aside the bad parts and the Big Lie context, those who value American democracy should say no. arcdigital.media/p/set-up-the-s…
Some good pieces I cite: @walterolson makes the important point that emergency voting rules for COVID need to be made permanent, and notes that some criticisms of GA's law are misguided.
He's right, but gives insufficient attention to the law's bad parts. thedispatch.com/p/why-state-el…
Georgia's law isn't Jim Crow, but as @jbouie explains, Jim Crow didn't happen all at once. When you put it in the context of the state's history of voting restrictions, and see new burdens falling disproportionately on Black people, it's kinda Jim Crowish. nytimes.com/2021/04/06/opi…