There's a piece going around about how liberals have moved further left than conservatives have moved right -- which could absolutely be true! But I do think that such data tends to be used to argue "THEY'RE MAKING US BE THIS WAY"
(Especially since it really depends on how you define "left" and "right" and which cultural issues one uses as a marker, if any. Like, conservatives have not, as I've seen, gotten more limited-government-y since 2015.)
(And I think there are a lot of lefties who think "liberals" have moved further right. Anyway, here's a writeup of that piece:theweek.com/politics/10023…)
(This reminds me that there's an argument that same-sex marriage -- which is included here as an example of Ds moving left -- is an inherently conservative concept. Here's a paper on the subject: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111…)
(A friend notes that the Drum/Linker analysis doesn't include how voters think on these issues -- for example, 70% of voters approve of same-sex marriage. news.gallup.com/poll/350486/re…)
(It would perhaps be more helpful to know not just how parties have moved, but how voters have too -- which Republicans are well aware of, given how few challenges there have been to Obergefell.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Sending a letter demanding someone get fired for saying something one doesn’t like and then posting that letter on the internet to score political points
Notably, the Air Force Academy is for adults, but apparently very sensitive adults, seeing as they’re at the …. Air Force Academy.
This person is urging a college professor to be fired for writing an op-ed in the Washington Post he didn’t like, which seems like something @TheFIREorg would be very very very interested in if it were to take place.
A certain well-known conservative author argued in 1986 that everyone with HIV should be tattooed on the forearm (if they used intravenous drugs) or on the buttocks (if they were "homosexuals")
This is a fascinating combination of "nationalization of politics" and "parents getting mad about things" and "schools contracting out educational priorities to outside entities" and "parents getting mad about things, again"
The extremely short answer is that Hitler absolutely believed in an ultimate conflict with so called "Judeo-Bolshevism" (in 1924 he argued this could take place with British support) that would eliminate all Jewish "influence" (and people) and give Germany living space
He was not the first person to come up with this idea -- Ratzel argued in 1901 that nation-states should be able to entirely rely on their own resources and territory (he cited Manifest Destiny) in order to survive
It's pretty clear that state governments are incredibly powerful, as is the federal government, as are state institutions, as are big corporations -- but the state can wield state violence, and can do so legally.