The GOP has tried to do this for years. It never works.
Conservatives are supposed to be tough on crime. We should be hitting Kamala from the right—not the left.
We'll show you why. 🧵 (1/12)
A lot of conservative influencers are parroting the line that Kamala "locked up" too many criminals—originally a far-left attack on her in the 2020 Democratic primaries.
This is bad politics and bad policy. And it betrays our own base on one of our strongest issues. (2/12)
First of all, you can't mock left-wing "identity politics" and then complain about Kamala locking up "black men." As D.A., she prosecuted criminals of every race. Exclusively making it about black people plays into all kinds of bogus left-wing narratives about racism. (3/12)
But more to the point, being tough on crime—and specifically, being to the right of Democrats on crime—has long been one of the GOP's strong political issues.
Other than the economy, crime is where the GOP has the largest advantage. (Tied with immigration). (4/12)
What's more, voters are more pro-law and order than they've been in years. Why would Republicans want to sacrifice this issue?
Earlier this month, a @ManhattanInst report found that 57% of voters said the justice system isn't tough enough. Only 11% said it's "too tough." (5/12)
And the American majority is right.
The correct response to left-wing narratives about "mass incarceration" isn't to say the exact same thing with a Republican coat of paint.
It's to tell the truth. @TomCottonAR was right: We aren't locking up enough criminals. (6/12)
The good news is, with Kamala Harris, there's a lot of material for tough-on-crime Republicans to work with.
For example: During the 2020 George Floyd riots, she urged people to donate to the "Minnesota Freedom Fund"—which raises money to bust criminals out of jail. (7/12)
As @FreeBeacon reported this week, Kamala is still raising money for the fund.
"The vice president’s fundraising page for the group...is active and accepted a contribution from this reporter on Monday morning."
Trump says he wants the "largest mass deportation in American history."
The Left says that's impossible—too costly, too complicated, too cruel.
They're wrong. We've done it before—and we can do it again.
Here's what it looks like. 🧵
There have been various points in American history—under both Republican and Democrat presidents—where we've mobilized resources to repel a border invasion.
Clinton launched Operation Gatekeeper. Bush and Obama both deployed the National Guard to help apprehend illegals.
Deportations, too, are a "longstanding and normal process," as @amrenewctr points out in an excellent new report.
"Deportations have occurred in significant numbers in every recent administration," they write. Even Obama deported over 3 million illegals.
In 2015-16, Kellogg, Mars, and General Mills—three of the largest US makers of children's food—pledged to remove artificial coloring dyes over the next few years.
All three quickly abandoned that pledge. The deadlines they set for themselves came and went—and nothing changed.
"Destigmatization" is one of the most destructive terms to enter the popular lexicon over the past few decades.
Stigma has become a dirty word. But it shouldn't be. It's a fundamental building block of civilization.
We've "destigmatized" and "normalized" our way into chaos. 🧵
The term "stigma" has ancient Greek roots. It originated with the Greek term στγμα—literally, the mark the Greeks burned on someone's body to denote social inferiority. Over time, it evolved to signify a broader social norm against a particular attribute, condition, or behavior.
The concept of "stigma" as a social norm—and the concept of "destigmatization" as an attack on that norm—really only began in earnest in the 1960s.
As one academic paper put it last year, "over the last six decades the stigma term has enjoyed an enormous growth in popularity."