Last time a big CBO score was in the news the current governor of Montana assaulted a reporter who asked him about it and then his flack Shane Scalon and him lied to the police about it and no one ever faced any real consequences.
Luckily the very good reporter he assaulted for doing his job, @Bencjacobs was ok. But I've come to realize that if he'd, say, bludgeoned him badly enough to send him to the hospital for a week, it's likely nothing would have been *that* different. I hope I'm wrong.
@Bencjacobs Also, Trump would later approvingly joke about the assualt (of course) just as he will -- mark my words -- one day joke about the "Hang Mike Pence!" chant.
@Bencjacobs All of which to say: there is line. There's no thing "out there" in the world that once crossed makes things changed. There's much much much worse that can happen and still be excused and apologized for.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Because I'm a liberal, who can't take my own side in an argument, I thought I'd offer a little bit of a counter to the thrust of this essay. It's not a rebuttal, but an extension.
There are lots of things that are *great* about the internet and social media and the connections they can create. What I've come to think is that there is Good Internet and Bad Internet. (From an experiential point of view; I'm not talking about disinformation and the like.)
Good Internet is produced by mutual relationships of reciprocity, either people you know irl, or actual relationships you form in online spaces. This is why group texts are so great! Bad Internet is basically everything else.
I think it's hard, at this point, to say something new about social media and the effect it's having on us, socially, psychologically and spiritually. But I tried!
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.
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.