What Do We Need to do to be Worthy of Ukraine? asks George Packer in today's Atlantic.
I have believed from the beginning that Zelensky's Ukraine is fighting a proxy war for liberal democracy in Europe and the USA. But Packer challenges Americans not only to stick with the war for the long term, BUT most importantly, exorcise our own Russia-filia.
--The U.S. will never be a worthy friend to Ukraine unless the Republican Party purges itself of the poisonous influence of its Tucker Carlsons and Marjorie Taylor Greenes, and above all of Trump. (George Packer)
In a healthy nation, Trump and his band of crooks would never ever be considered for positions in government or of public trust again. They would be canceled by citizens and officials of all political persuasions, if they were lucky, and imprisoned if they weren't so lucky. It seems we are a very sick nation.
Why are they all so threatened by the LGBTQ community?? It's ridiculous. I keep reading about traditional values but what are those exactly? Divorce, abuse, philandering, incest, violence can take place in heterosexual families. I know gay families more stable than some heterosexual families. The people stroking anger and fear toward the gay community are the same people who didn't want interracial marriage. They don't want the government to tell them how to live but they want the government to punish anyone they are threatened by.
Enjoyed your letter, but I look at the mission of The Bulwark entirely differently. The Bulwark focuses almost entirely on the politics of issues rather than on issues themselves. And I believe they are right to do so. Why? Look no further than the beginning of Charlie's newsletter today where he details the threat one party is to constitutional and democratic governance. The Republican Party as it is now constituted needs to be soundly defeated for the American experiment to even continue.
I'll illustrate what I mean with an example. We've had this phrase "defund the police" floating around our politics for a few years now. There is a policy debate to be had here about the proper amount of funding for police and the funding of other institutions that impinge on police work like public mental health work and drug addiction treatment. I don't come to The Bulwark for that debate. I come for insights into how our problems around policing can be leveraged into a winning political strategy. It pisses off Progressives when people are dismissive of the "defund the police" idea because Progressives are acutely alive to all the issues that come in under that phrase. But if The Bulwark can help Progressives learn how to speak to more centrist voters in a manner that does not drive them away, that is all to the good in my opinion.
I absolutely second Mary McKim's entreaty to have a discussion about bail reform. I've been particularly dismayed to see this being portrayed as another example of progressive cluelessness. Cash bail indeed disadvantages the poor, and is a lot like predatory lending in that it often compounds problems and can turn small offenses in to life-altering ordeals. Even if we don't eliminate it entirely, reform is something that should be taken seriously.
After noticing the term "Honorable" as a prefix to many of the names included in the documented attempt to rig the election, now we're going to have to go to the Oxford English Dictionary committee and request an addendum to the definition of the term based purely on usage by the unwashed. I'm not at all sure how they should do it, by ACRONYM, by intent, white aging maleness? I'm lost.
Let’s compare Reagan’s endorsement on the No on 6 to Obama’s endorsement on No on 8 (California 2008 proposition banning gay marriage). Obama’s endorsement went something like this: I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman but vote no on Prop 8. On the same ballot parental consent for teenage abortion was defeated, chickens were given larger coops and Prop 8 passed. I was one of the lone voices that blamed Obama’s inauthentic endorsement. He should have either simply said vote no on 8 (Iike Reagan) or kept quiet.
The fringe hasn’t been absorbed BY the establishment. The fringe has absorbed the establishment, and has become the establishment.
Indeed that is true.
Also, Mary McKim is right, up there in Newfoundland. If your opinions on what Democrats should do are in fact correct, they'll only become more obvious if they're discussed outside the Never Trump echo chamber. And it's obvious The Bulwark has access to knowledgeable folks who can effectively represent other opinions on the subjects. In would in fact be a demonstration of what you are always calling on Democrats to do. Just sayin'....
Lastly, there would be a lot of people who might not have died terrible deaths if Ronnie the Ray Gun had acted with as much courage in 1984 over AIDS as he did over Prop 6 in 1978. Again, just sayin...
The sad thing is that our country has changed for the worse since Reagan's time in office. I'm not sure anyone could change minds today in the era of Dump. There are and have been so many lies that have been repeated and repeated until the Dumpsters believe. It's sad but it's what's happening.
I'm glad former President Reagan saw fit to do the right thing in an appalling way, but saying his record on homosexuality was "mixed" strains credulity to the breaking point. We're taking about an administration that fight tooth and nail to avoid even acknowledging AIDS, even as some of his wife's best friends were dying of it. And even in your story, Reagan was not defending gay people. He was defending a number of principles, some of them worthy, but the right of gay people to live as they saw fit was explicitly not one of them.
One can argue that Reagan was a man of his time, or any number of other mitigating factors. But to say his record on LGBT issues was "mixed" is fundamentally unsupported by events. His record was bad.
I agree. They have spent too much attention focusing on what they (progressives) didn't get done vs the incredible things they have. Yet they still don't seem to have a strategic comms plan about the infrastructure package (e.g. are they on conservative media outlets selling it, how many places is Pete going to and cutting ribbons particularly in red states?) relative to the attention focused on the next attempt at a skinnied down BBB. And even when they put out BBB 4.0 recently (or whatever version they're now on) their policy or comms team didn't even think to get Manchin's reaction (unaware the press is going to go right to Joe and ask him). It seems finally today (based on something I saw) they are FINALLY going to say nothing publicly. SLOW LEARNERS.
They can let the media or their opposition control the narrative or they can. But they have to make it a priority. And the Reps (particularly trump) are the extreme of narrative control even when lying. The Dems have accomplished a decent amount with the constraints they have, but need more selling/celebrating. (Reps on the other hand sell disinformation to a incredibly pliable audience). Maybe the WH should hire some disaffected Republican/Never Trumper comms people on their staff?? Maybe Tim would like a new job? :).
Do you think the progressives fell in and went overwhelmingly for Biden because they believed in AND WOULD FOLLOW his vision or because they wanted trump out AND believed they could still have significant influence on the party? Personally, I'd love to see Joe find the right place for his Sistah Souljah moment with the progressive wing.
I still want to believe a place like TX (and the trifecta of Abbott, Patrick and Paxton) should be ripe for Dems given the over reach of the TX Republicans (or as the old Molly Ivins used to call the TX Republicans "Shiite Republicans")--abortion, citizen vigilantes, deny parents of transgenders to do what they think is best for their kids, book banning, etc. Republicans punish Dems for real or perceived over-reaching (e.g. ACA, BBB, defund the police, etc). Dems are not as good at reciprocity in this area IMO. Again a comms issue.
As an aside won't PA be an interesting Dem Senate primary to see how the progressive vs centrist wings of the party prevail in a swing state.
Interesting about the Russian "anti grooming" laws. Did NOT know that. If the Dems were smart/knew how to fight in today's political climate, you'd think they would have run ads "DeSantis wants to be like Putin". But there goes my wish casting...that they were smart. Seems they only know how to win on the intellectual arguments/policy, but no clue how to win by appealing to the emotions (positive and negative) of the electorate.
What Do We Need to do to be Worthy of Ukraine? asks George Packer in today's Atlantic.
I have believed from the beginning that Zelensky's Ukraine is fighting a proxy war for liberal democracy in Europe and the USA. But Packer challenges Americans not only to stick with the war for the long term, BUT most importantly, exorcise our own Russia-filia.
--The U.S. will never be a worthy friend to Ukraine unless the Republican Party purges itself of the poisonous influence of its Tucker Carlsons and Marjorie Taylor Greenes, and above all of Trump. (George Packer)
In a healthy nation, Trump and his band of crooks would never ever be considered for positions in government or of public trust again. They would be canceled by citizens and officials of all political persuasions, if they were lucky, and imprisoned if they weren't so lucky. It seems we are a very sick nation.
Don’t forget that the Russia Gay Propaganda law was advocated for by American evangelicals.
Why are they all so threatened by the LGBTQ community?? It's ridiculous. I keep reading about traditional values but what are those exactly? Divorce, abuse, philandering, incest, violence can take place in heterosexual families. I know gay families more stable than some heterosexual families. The people stroking anger and fear toward the gay community are the same people who didn't want interracial marriage. They don't want the government to tell them how to live but they want the government to punish anyone they are threatened by.
To Mary McKim-
Enjoyed your letter, but I look at the mission of The Bulwark entirely differently. The Bulwark focuses almost entirely on the politics of issues rather than on issues themselves. And I believe they are right to do so. Why? Look no further than the beginning of Charlie's newsletter today where he details the threat one party is to constitutional and democratic governance. The Republican Party as it is now constituted needs to be soundly defeated for the American experiment to even continue.
I'll illustrate what I mean with an example. We've had this phrase "defund the police" floating around our politics for a few years now. There is a policy debate to be had here about the proper amount of funding for police and the funding of other institutions that impinge on police work like public mental health work and drug addiction treatment. I don't come to The Bulwark for that debate. I come for insights into how our problems around policing can be leveraged into a winning political strategy. It pisses off Progressives when people are dismissive of the "defund the police" idea because Progressives are acutely alive to all the issues that come in under that phrase. But if The Bulwark can help Progressives learn how to speak to more centrist voters in a manner that does not drive them away, that is all to the good in my opinion.
I absolutely second Mary McKim's entreaty to have a discussion about bail reform. I've been particularly dismayed to see this being portrayed as another example of progressive cluelessness. Cash bail indeed disadvantages the poor, and is a lot like predatory lending in that it often compounds problems and can turn small offenses in to life-altering ordeals. Even if we don't eliminate it entirely, reform is something that should be taken seriously.
Thanks for giving the list of signatories to the election subversion letter. Helps me keep my mental list of douchebags up to date.
After noticing the term "Honorable" as a prefix to many of the names included in the documented attempt to rig the election, now we're going to have to go to the Oxford English Dictionary committee and request an addendum to the definition of the term based purely on usage by the unwashed. I'm not at all sure how they should do it, by ACRONYM, by intent, white aging maleness? I'm lost.
Let’s compare Reagan’s endorsement on the No on 6 to Obama’s endorsement on No on 8 (California 2008 proposition banning gay marriage). Obama’s endorsement went something like this: I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman but vote no on Prop 8. On the same ballot parental consent for teenage abortion was defeated, chickens were given larger coops and Prop 8 passed. I was one of the lone voices that blamed Obama’s inauthentic endorsement. He should have either simply said vote no on 8 (Iike Reagan) or kept quiet.
The fringe hasn’t been absorbed BY the establishment. The fringe has absorbed the establishment, and has become the establishment.
Indeed that is true.
Also, Mary McKim is right, up there in Newfoundland. If your opinions on what Democrats should do are in fact correct, they'll only become more obvious if they're discussed outside the Never Trump echo chamber. And it's obvious The Bulwark has access to knowledgeable folks who can effectively represent other opinions on the subjects. In would in fact be a demonstration of what you are always calling on Democrats to do. Just sayin'....
Lastly, there would be a lot of people who might not have died terrible deaths if Ronnie the Ray Gun had acted with as much courage in 1984 over AIDS as he did over Prop 6 in 1978. Again, just sayin...
The sad thing is that our country has changed for the worse since Reagan's time in office. I'm not sure anyone could change minds today in the era of Dump. There are and have been so many lies that have been repeated and repeated until the Dumpsters believe. It's sad but it's what's happening.
I'm glad former President Reagan saw fit to do the right thing in an appalling way, but saying his record on homosexuality was "mixed" strains credulity to the breaking point. We're taking about an administration that fight tooth and nail to avoid even acknowledging AIDS, even as some of his wife's best friends were dying of it. And even in your story, Reagan was not defending gay people. He was defending a number of principles, some of them worthy, but the right of gay people to live as they saw fit was explicitly not one of them.
One can argue that Reagan was a man of his time, or any number of other mitigating factors. But to say his record on LGBT issues was "mixed" is fundamentally unsupported by events. His record was bad.
Trump and Oz...why not?
What's not to like about a little nip and tuck for the permanent smile and creating a media empire based on being a shameless "Lying Sack of Shit"?
It also might bring in more paid subscribers.
I agree. They have spent too much attention focusing on what they (progressives) didn't get done vs the incredible things they have. Yet they still don't seem to have a strategic comms plan about the infrastructure package (e.g. are they on conservative media outlets selling it, how many places is Pete going to and cutting ribbons particularly in red states?) relative to the attention focused on the next attempt at a skinnied down BBB. And even when they put out BBB 4.0 recently (or whatever version they're now on) their policy or comms team didn't even think to get Manchin's reaction (unaware the press is going to go right to Joe and ask him). It seems finally today (based on something I saw) they are FINALLY going to say nothing publicly. SLOW LEARNERS.
They can let the media or their opposition control the narrative or they can. But they have to make it a priority. And the Reps (particularly trump) are the extreme of narrative control even when lying. The Dems have accomplished a decent amount with the constraints they have, but need more selling/celebrating. (Reps on the other hand sell disinformation to a incredibly pliable audience). Maybe the WH should hire some disaffected Republican/Never Trumper comms people on their staff?? Maybe Tim would like a new job? :).
Do you think the progressives fell in and went overwhelmingly for Biden because they believed in AND WOULD FOLLOW his vision or because they wanted trump out AND believed they could still have significant influence on the party? Personally, I'd love to see Joe find the right place for his Sistah Souljah moment with the progressive wing.
I still want to believe a place like TX (and the trifecta of Abbott, Patrick and Paxton) should be ripe for Dems given the over reach of the TX Republicans (or as the old Molly Ivins used to call the TX Republicans "Shiite Republicans")--abortion, citizen vigilantes, deny parents of transgenders to do what they think is best for their kids, book banning, etc. Republicans punish Dems for real or perceived over-reaching (e.g. ACA, BBB, defund the police, etc). Dems are not as good at reciprocity in this area IMO. Again a comms issue.
As an aside won't PA be an interesting Dem Senate primary to see how the progressive vs centrist wings of the party prevail in a swing state.
Take care
Interesting about the Russian "anti grooming" laws. Did NOT know that. If the Dems were smart/knew how to fight in today's political climate, you'd think they would have run ads "DeSantis wants to be like Putin". But there goes my wish casting...that they were smart. Seems they only know how to win on the intellectual arguments/policy, but no clue how to win by appealing to the emotions (positive and negative) of the electorate.