Something @sahilkapur I touched tonight. The last time there was a big show-down between progressives and conservative Dems was on the ACA. And the conservatives won.
One of the main things they "won" on was reducing the amount of subsidies the government gave people for the plans they purchased on the exchanges. This made the bill "cost less" in a fiscal projection sense.
But it also made the experience of the law for many families *much worse*. The NUMBER ONE complaint I heard from people in the exchanges WITHOUT QUESTION was that that plans were too expensive.
In other words the moderate/centrist/conservative dems took a step to make the law not just worse substantively, but actually less popular and more toxic. There's a lesson there.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Bracketing for a moment that the premises of the so-called "replacement theory" or racist garbage, it's also just descriptively wrong about the priorities of the Democratic party.
I've been covering immigration for 15 years, and in that time the Democratic party has had unified control of WH and congress twice and I think odds are this time, like last time, they will not pass reform that legalizes the 11 million,
Not only that! Obama admin, quite famously, pursued an intense "enforcement-first" approach to the issue. And as I speak now, the Biden admin is shipping desperate Haitains back to Haiti.
Since I linked to @mattyglesias's piece arguing that people broadly doing politics should be thinking hard about who the audience is and who they are trying to persuade, I think it's also worth making basically the opposite argument.
This is an argument I'm recapitulating from @CoreyRobin from a post that doesn't seem to be up anymore. And it's about Judith Butler.
When I was an undergrad, Butler was the ultimate example of impenetrable, obscurantist academic prose that almost no one could read or understand. She won some "worst academic sentence" contest and people would use her writing as a kind of punchline example of jarongy nonsense.
A few years out of college, I got a part-time gig in Chicago as an adjunct professor of English composition at a community college whose study body was almost entirely immigrants from Mexico and Latin America.
I was pretty in awe of the students: they all worked full time, most had kids and they were studying to achieve English language proficiency in speaking and writing. They worked exceptionally hard.
Not sure what the purpose of highly regulated professional guilds - lawyers, doctors - are if the guilds don’t sanction their members’ abuse of their professional status and authority.
There are a bunch of doctors right now running around making money off of pushing deadly nonsense and the big debate is about how and if social media platforms should regulate them. What about their guild?
The Simon Biles discourse yesterday was a perfect example of a phenomenon I encounter more and more, which is learning of a piece of news first via the “takes” on it and then having to backfill what the actual information is.
All I knew in the beginning was the Biles has withdrawn from the team competition citing her mental health and not a ton more *and* that there was a very intensely polarized discussion of this decision on social media. But I couldn’t actually understand what had happened!
And then there was a bunch of great context offered by ex-gymnasts and people who cover gymnastics and Biles herself and about 24 hours later I had actually learned a whole bunch of new stuff about the intense and harrowing mental precision the sport requires.