I’m a fan of the 'deliverism' label; I’ve thought for a while now that Dems need to demonstrate facility at delivering policies/projects on time & on—or under—budget.
Messaging debates skirt the party’s core difficulty—which is one of actions, not words. prospect.org/politics/case-…
See also, e.g., the occasional conversation on here about the 20th-century successes of ‘sewer socialism’ …
… and @jbarro on how building infrastructure in America requires astronomical sums in comparison with just about any other wealthy country. nymag.com/intelligencer/…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Mississippi: a state that ritually and ruthlessly impoverished the majority of its people for decades, and then chose to blame outside federal agitators for its impoverishment.
Meanwhile, in Alabama: “As a couple of companies … break ground on … new prisons paid for with [COVID relief] dollars, school districts all over Ala. are sending messages home to parents asking that they find a way to send food to school with their kids.”
When I made an observation to someone about popularism yesterday, I managed to channel this @jbouie column without even realizing it. nytimes.com/2021/10/09/opi…
What I realized yesterday: my skepticism of popularism hinges on how ideology plays out, in practice, as a scan of a screenshot of a picture — downsampled and stripped of most of its nuance.
In other words: ideology is written in poetry, and executed in prose.
Conservatism has always offered high-minded ideals about rugged individualism and the genius of free markets, for instance. In practice, though — in the hands of post-1994 Gingrich acolytes …
If a counterparty in a negotiation refuses to even begin negotiating, there’s little choice left but to move along to the best alternative to a negotiated agreement. That’s not the BIF — which falls short of addressing the climate challenge and other needs. It’s nothing.
If Manchin’s best alternative to a negotiated agreement proves to be nothing as well, we may be stuck. At least we’ll have clarity about that situation, though.
Sargent has this right: when Dems spend their time explaining Republicans’ irresponsibility on the debt limit, they’re missing the point. What Dems _want_ the public to view as hypocrisy is intended, in fact, to demonstrate Republicans’ power to do as they please.
To sputter about hypocrisy makes Dems look feckless. Republicans are being consistent: they’re asserting that they can do as they please, and don’t mind if anyone calls them out.
Dems would do well to refuse to play along — by junking the debt limit entirely.
He’s complaining about Catherine Rampell, who _is_ a columnist for the Washington Post — while Brit Hume is the man who serve up glistening gems of thought like these:
Like … aside from a sprightlier CBO score, there is *no upside * to deferring benefits to a huge voting bloc for *7 years*.
A policy delayed for that long before implementation may as well not exist — in political terms _and_ because a future Congress can bloodlessly undo it.