In which I weigh in on the third party debate. Yes, @JonahDispatch is right. If you believe conservative policies and principles provide the best opportunities for our nation and its people to flourish, it's time to think beyond the binary choice: /1 frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/jonah-is-rig…
It's just wrong to think that conservative critics merely have a problem with Trump, and when he's gone then we can all hold hands. The GOP is in a moral free-fall. It's ideologically incoherent and increasingly authoritarian. How do I distrust the GOP? Let's count it up: /2
I don’t trust the GOP on election integrity. I believe that it is infected almost top to bottom by a combination of conspiracists and cowards who would, in fact, try to steal an American election (again). /3
Is it good on free speech and civil liberties? Nope. /4
Is it solid on foreign policy? Not at all. /5
Debt and deficits? Hilarious. /6
Is the party ready to deal with America's racial divides? I don't think so. /7
What do I believe? It's not hard to describe, and neither party fits this bill: /8
The conclusion? It’s time to stop thinking about binaries. Parties have to earn your support, and if they don’t share the disposition or ideology that you think is best for the nation you love, then it’s time to find (or create) the party that will. /end frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/jonah-is-rig…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'm leaving Twitter, for the indefinite future. The reason is simple: this site is becoming more like Gab every day. It's a font of hatred, lies, and harassment. And while it's never been great, at least it had its uses. No longer. At least not for me. /1
The constant hatred and malice on this site is bad for the soul. The tsunami of lies and misinformation is bad for the mind. There was a time when Twitter still gave me some value. It helped me find some of the smartest and wisest voices in public life. /2
But now it repeatedly boosts the worst and most thoughtless. I just can't stay here in good conscience. I don't begrudge anyone staying. People can certainly draw different lines, and I will miss Grizzlies twitter, but . . . /3
I’m in Kyiv with an outstanding group, organized by my friends at @Renew_Democracy, and the attack last night was a jolting reminder of two realities. First, the Russians fight gloves-off, while we restrict weapons to Ukraine to keep their gloves on /1 nytimes.com/live/2023/05/1…
Think of the international hand-wringing over the mysterious, small, drone attack in Moscow, yet Russians bombard Kyiv with their most potent conventional weapons routinely. But our limits on supplying Ukraine helps Russia preserve its territory as a giant safe haven. /2
The aggressor nation sleeps soundly while citizens of Ukraine spend night after night under air attack, all part of an effort to exhaust the population and destroy civilian infrastructure. /3
This is a question I get quite a lot from folks outside the church--why the extreme emphasis on some biblical commands in the public square and an almost total disregard of others?
I propose that we're much more eager to talk about "they" problems than "we" problems. /1
The problems that are rife in the church--porn, adultery, gluttony, and even abuse are often discussed in terms of "struggle" or "brokenness."
Other sins, including lying and cruelty, are excused or overlooked for the sake of an alleged greater good or higher cause. /2
But if the sin is largely *outside* the church (there aren't a lot of drag queens in the pews on Sunday morning, for example), then the empathy/sympathy "struggle" language largely disappears, and it's replaced by language that revolves around threat. /3
Lots of folks on this site don't understand how individual liberty generally works in American law and how it protects dissenters from majoritarian sentiment, including on matters of speech, faith, parents' rights, etc. /1
The common mistake is they take a general proposition like, "No right is unlimited," and then look at existing narrow, recognized limits to liberty and then try to expand them until the exceptions start to swallow the rule. Let's take free speech, for example. /2
In the university speech code era, it's not like universities generally said, "We oppose free speech." Instead, they argued that their speech codes fit into pre-existing speech limitations. "We just prohibit fighting words," they'd say. "Or we just prohibit harassment." /3
I am 100 percent on-board with much-delayed introduction to the smart phone for teens, but there's also a major collective action problem. As we witnessed with our youngest, there is a social isolation component when you're the last friend without the phone. /2
Also, we spend a lot of time thinking about rising teen depression/anxiety of late and less time thinking about rising adult depression/anxiety. Yet kids take cues from parents. It's hard for kids to be happy when parents are visibly depressed/anxious. It upsets their world. /3
Thread: This excellent piece by @asymmetricinfo raises a vitally important point--basic civil liberties cannot be casualties of our culture war. Free speech and parents' rights are bedrock elements of our civil society. Tossing them aside is wrong and dangerous /1
In the absence of actual evidence of abuse, parents are far better equipped to raise their kids than the state. Let's begin, for example, with this basic fact--parents love their children more than the state (and its agents) ever will. /2
How do we sort through the most profound disagreements in a diverse and pluralistic culture? Through a marketplace of ideas that permits debate and dissent even on the most hot-button ideas. If you believe you're right, you should welcome debate, not seek to suppress it. /3