Completely anecdotal data point on whatever we want to call the thing that Republicans are calling CRT in schools: I have a dear college friend sufficiently far to the left that she refuses to read my columns, lest it impact our friendship.
She's also a suburban mom in a super-liberal suburb.
Nonetheless, the last time I visited, I got an earful about what her kids were hearing in school, because she's not super politically engaged, and had missed the shift that labels the race-blind ideals she learned from her (now deceased) mother as racist.
I was put in the odd position of trying to explain the thinking of the people arguing that "I don't see color" is problematic, to someone far to my left who wasn't having any of it.
This is someone with a PhD in social science and multiple newspaper subscriptions.
It just really drove home how rarified these arguments are, and how strange they sound to people who come upon them suddenly, mid-argument, rather than having been immersed in the debate for a decade and a half.
Even someone who you would demographically assume would be up on her Kendi and her DiAngelo. But she was busy raising three kids instead.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Reupping my column from a few weeks back: liberal media bias may end up hurting Democrats rather than helping them if it keeps Democrats from processing this loss. washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
The lens media prefers--Republicans are bigots, Trump is a fascist, the long dark night of authoritarianism is but a few inches from descending o'er the land, every Dem with a narrow majority is the next FDR--isn't a good way to run a race, or govern if you want to win another.
But of course media figures have their own incentives which are somewhat different from those of people who want to win elections (v. much including me!)
So today I wrote for the first time about something weird that happened to me a while back: I got a chronic mystery ailment that made me dizzy and nauseated.
I'm not even sure exactly how many years I was sick for, because it crept up so slowly. At first I was just a little--off. Tightness in my chest, slightly faint, nauseated. Easily confused with low blood sugar or silent migraines, both of which I'd suffered from time to time.
Over the years, it steadily got worse: I never passed out but I came about as close as you can without losing consciousness, including sometimes falling to the ground.
I gather from the response to this that many on the left are unaware that California reduced all theft below $950 to a misdemeanor, and San Francisco went farther, essentially decriminalizing shoplifting. hoover.org/research/why-s…
This makes them understandably suspicious that Walgreens is lying about the reason for the store closures, but no, really, it's basically impossible to stop thieves from ransacking your stores. CA rolled back a bit by making it a felony for participants in organized rings...
... but that doesn't necessarily help if you're just being ransacked by ordinary drug addicts or petty thieves, and also, proving that thieves are part of an organized shoplifting ring is a lot harder than catching someone shoplifting and turning them over to the cops.
I appreciate the shift clothes retailers have made towards showing a wide variety of body types, but why can't you input your BMI and have the system choose the photo closest to you?
I recently went to browse for jeans and found maybe 70% of the images shown were on plus sized models, leaving me completely unable to choose from the dozens of options, since what the jeans look like hugging ample curves bears no resemblance to what they'll look like on me.
Obviously, it wasn't better when people with curves were equally puzzled about what jeans shown a size four would look like translated to their figure. But it seems like we now have the technological tools to solve this!
Independent of any current political issues, this qualified defense of ethnic retail politics--or as we've now branded them, "identity politics"--is one of my favorite pieces I ever wrote, so I'm resurfacing it.
tl;dr: Liberal proceduralism often ends up as IDpol for educated elites, and tends towards sclerosis. IDpol endures b/c it delivers respect, revenge for past discrimination, and even some kinds of public goods that LP struggles with--at the cost of corruption and slower growth.
Unmentioned in the piece, but implied: Roosevelt remains such a hero to Democrats because he and LBJ were the only Democratic presidents who successfully married these two warring strains within the party--and unlike LBJ, FDR chose a good war to join.
Sinema has to win re-election in Arizona. Sinema apparently does not think that she will win re-election in Arizona if she supports massive new social spending. Unclear why progressives think that they can resolve this fundamental structural problem by refusing to pass anything.
Perhaps Sinema's Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement is passing the massive social spending bill rather than passing nothing at all ... but as far as I can tell, *she* thinks her BATNA "passing nothing at all", and progressives don't seem to be doing much to change her mind.
Whereas it is obvious that the progressive BATNA on the BBB bill is "pass the infrastructure bill". As far as I can tell, they want to kill it purely as a matter of coalitional positioning: show people you're serious so they'll worry harder about you in the next negotiation.