This isn’t quite right, I’d say. It’s more that domestic leg agenda is incredibly important in real life terms and even sometimes for re-election, but not particularly for short-term approval or midterms.
There is no universe where Obama “focused” on the More Jobs Act in 2010 and D’s didn’t lose 50+ seats with 10% unemployment. Similarly inflation/gas prices and Delta/omicron massively outweigh whatever action Biden could take around them in terms of dictating approval.
You know what’s a good way to show you’re “focused” on the economy and COVID? Passing $1.9T that just gives people money and every institution unprecedented funds to deal with COVID. That bought like 4 months of goodwill and then it became overwhelmed by the problems themselves.
I think a lot of Biden’s presidency and legacy will be determined by whether BBB passes in some form, but I also don’t think it’s likely to change the midterm calculus beyond the margins.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
People hear "The Enlightenment" and the branding does the rest, but there's lots of interesting strains of right wing criticism of it along with left. Major evangelical theologians see it as a wrong turn. There are neo-classical thinkers who think we should go back to Aristotle.
One of the most influential evangelical works is "How Should We Then Live?" by Francis Schaeffer, who explicitly makes the case the Renaissance onward was a mistake that took us from religion and led to all sorts of secular and totalitarian evils. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Shoul….
Then there's thinkers like Leo Strauss and Alasdair MacIntyre who championed classical virtues and argued the Enlightenment successfully tore down traditional pillars of thought, but failed to provide a viable alternative. "After Virtue" is a great read whatever your politics.
I've read about a million takes on "critical race theory" over the last few months and my one consistent takeaway that obsessing over a definition of "CRT" is largely useless and everyone should just argue over specific examples as much as possible nymag.com/intelligencer/…
This cuts in different directions on left and right. The main activist on the right is openly trying to make CRT a catch-call and political slogan for various things conservatives hate, not some actual rigorous definition. It's easy to dismiss it as bad faith demagoguery as such.
But because it's so easy to dismiss as propaganda, people on the left keep thinking any complaint that falls under its rubric can be safely ignored. But there really is lots of change happening now and they need to address specifics without getting bogged down in label fights.
Manchinometer a little greener today, per @GarrettHaake and @frankthorp: "My goodness, we're agreeing on childcare, we're agreeing on pre-K, we're agreeing on homecare...And we're working on climate very progressive, I think in a good way and we'll get something done I believe."
Manchin said he pointedly did not sign off on BBB framework because he had outstanding issues, but also emphasizing points of agreement. It's a little confusing, because if his concern about temporary programs is real then childcare/pre-k is a huge disagreement. But not clear yet
More on this: "Basically things that would run out in 10 years makes that a much more expensive piece of legislation than what we’re seeing it is right now. Maybe they’re thinking that it’ll just expire and nothing will be done or extended. I don’t know. We’re working through..."
. @MattBruenig digs into the D's current child care plan, which boosts wages for workers, but doesn't add benefits for higher income families for the first 3 years. The danger is a huge short-term spike in child care prices for people who don't get aid. peoplespolicyproject.org/2021/10/20/dem…
A spox for HELP cmte responds to Bruenig: "The requirement to ensure workers are paid a living wage has a three-year phase in, similar to the benefit phase-in for parents. The spike in wages will mirror the increase in subsidies for families...."
"...during the transition years, there are quality and supply grants to support providers directly. Moreover, Brueing’s ‘solution’ is flawed, and will actually have the opposite of effect of what we are trying to accomplish..."
The one thing I'd mention is that there are huge broad political trends Shor is great at identifying, but the reason so many "this is what the next 10 years look like" predictions fail is that they're constantly overtaken by events.
Changes in party demographics have had a huge influence on what those parties want and do in office, for example. But electorally, they're small potatoes versus 9/11, Iraq, the Great Recession, COVID, even Afghanistan now, etc etc etc. And those events also remake the parties.