As someone who spent quite a few years in the state legislatures wrestling with this, a huge part of the answer as to why red states have squishy, awful Rs is corporate capture. Not the obvious kind of corporate kickbacks one could rail against (although that definitely happens 💯) but the deeper and more difficult to excise kind, because most red states are heavily dependent on these corporations to keep the economics of their states sound and growing. They fundamentally cannot afford to flip corporate America the bird, and it’s a problem. One important and overlooked reason DeSantis is able to do more in Florida is that Florida is a big, economically diverse state that can afford to play brinksmanship games with these people.
In the specific case of Texas it’s somewhat self-imposed. Politicians there, for many valid reasons, are addicted to the explosive growth of welcoming fleeing corps with sweetheart deals. And these deals have been good for Texas, economically. Culturally, they’ve cut off the legislature’s balls. It’s clear to me there needs to be some kind of red state cooperative to hold the line on immigration and cultural issues that prevents corporations from playing one low-tax environment against another and pushing their leftist cultural conditions on every red state in turn.
You want a perfect encapsulation of what’s happening (and another demonstration of how Nikki Haley is not just useless but will actively undermine the right on any fight worth having), see how she gleefully jumped in during the FL vs woke Disney battle: “SC would love to have all those Disney jobs, come on up!” This is happening behind the scenes every day. foxnews.com/media/nikki-ha…
And yes, @JesseKellyDC has been consistent on this problem for years. And he’s also right that underlying the problem above is a voter problem - R voters have to be more demanding in primaries from those who claim to represent them. 💯
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Maybe instead of worrying constantly about convincing the demo of unmarried, childless women who lean heavily left to see the light we should be pointing out to the other 3/4 of the electorate that already leans our way that the Democratic Party hates men.
Democrats support policies that have led to record numbers of men dropping out of the workforce, stripped them of due process rights, skew education system towards feminine skills, support discrimination against them in hiring etc etc and then to cap it off demonize men from the bully pulpit every chance they get. But sure, the right should be very worried about accidentally insulting single women.
To be clear, I’m not saying we need to be nasty about anyone. It’s the emphasis that frustrates me. The GOP is always seeking “new audiences” for their message but if the receptive audiences end up being, eg, white working class men, well that’s just not the sort of new audience we were looking for!
I know Harrison Butker’s not-actually-controversial comments have been making the rounds but as it’s graduation season I want to recommend the best of the commencement genre I’ve ever encountered, @charlesmurray’s Advice for a Happy Life:
On the special advantages marrying young, without discrediting those of marrying later:
Problem with conspiratorial thinking isn’t the sense that those in power are screwing you over, but the diagnosis that it’s being done in a personal way. People love to imagine a cabal of horrors at the top when the reality is that’s an easier issue to solve than what we’ve got.
It’s the more banal evils of the bureaucracy, the creeping “norms” of a self-referential circle of thousands of orgs, schools, networks, all made up of former students who mostly said yes to teacher as teacher taught them more and more insane and radical things - that is our problem. It’s a web, a class with interests, all of the above. Not a cabal. A cabal would be what, a few dozen at most? No, this is 10% of the population or more. It’s organic “collaboration” that springs from unacknowledged but common premises in worldview.
The problem with conspiratorial thinking isn’t that it makes the right people clutch their pearls in horror, it’s that it lends itself to “just get my guy in and the problem will be solved” mentality. “One weird trick” mentality. Any real victory requires battling a hydra on multiple fronts in an intelligent way, and conspiratorial thinking is often a detriment to the ability to do this effectively.
Today, the Biden admin is releasing regulations more powerful than most real legislation. His Title IX changes:
- Redefine sex in civil rights law to include gender identity, exposing girls and women across the country to men in their bathrooms, sports teams, and locker rooms
- Reinstate Obama-era kangaroo court rules for men accused of sexual assault on college campuses that completely flout due process and make mere accusation the standard that can ruin young men’s lives
- Encourage universities to unconstitutionally curtail protected speech in the name of subjective offense and “harassment”; empower schools to enforce rules like punishing children for using biologically incorrect pronouns
- Curtail parents’ rights to know what schools are doing with their own children with regard to “gender transition”
Each one of these changes itself would be a five-alarm fire, and in many cases represent unconstitutional curtailment of established rights, rights federal courts have consistently upheld. These changes will be challenged in court. But it’s a good reminder of the enormous power of bureaucracy to massively change American law and curtail all of our rights overnight.
Not being one myself, I’m honestly offended on behalf of the Christian moral majority of the 90s because the people who styled themselves “rational” and “data-driven” have reacted to the MM basically being right about the direction of everything by doubling down on contempt.
The “rational, data-driven” reaction to being completely wrong is to reconsider why people you thought were drooling morons got it right. But instead the reaction is still a status game of separating yourself from the icky mouthbreathers (who were right while you were wrong).
Having watched this long interview, I think Tucker did a decent job. He let Putin talk & talk but this is his interview style (not a great one imho for this reason). Tucker’s Qs were challenging, not obsequious. More thoughts on the substance of Putin’s answers when I have time.
There’s value in Americans listening to this version of history, but unfortunately not in their current state of knowing none of their own. Like zoomers reading the Bin Laden letter and nodding along. Fortunately, the average American fell asleep 15 mins in. Still, an act of journalism.
For those who know at least a bit about WWII, I ask that you apply your incredulous response to Putin on that subject (Poles started WWII?) to the rest of his historical fantasies.