The left certainly has loons - no denying it. We try not to give them much power. Maybe the right should try out that strategy of not empowering the loons?
“But seeing how readily marriage equality gains bipartisan support while the country escalates attacks on trans people, is disheartening.
If you are celebrating the likely passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, please don’t let lawmakers pinkwash all their continued failures and claim progressive victory. We need so much more than this. And the political capital that went into passing this means capital lost somewhere else - for voting, abortion, trans people, student loans.”
> By its very nature, originalism threatens women and other minority groups who were disempowered at the time of the Constitution’s adoption.
> A three-judge panel unanimously ruled that the Second Amendment was violated by a federal statute that made possessing a gun unlawful for a person who is subject to a restraining order in protection of an intimate partner or child. Its explanation for this dangerous ruling was a straightforward application of originalism. The Founders mentioned a right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution. They did not, however, mention women, who are disproportionately victimized by domestic violence. And although today’s lawmakers may care about women’s rights, they cannot deviate from the Founders’ wishes without a formal constitutional amendment. This will almost assuredly have very real, potentially fatal consequences for women in America: The presence of a gun in a domestic-violence situation increases the risk of femicide by more than 1,000 percent. Originalism is going to get women killed.
To be accurate, the ban on new buildings getting gas cooking is a law; the ban on being able to replace gas stoves is a recommendation of the State Climate Action Council, proposed to begin in 2035.
Huh. I thought Charlie was making sure we understood what the MAGAs would say, not expressing his views. I'm fine with acknowledging the far left oddballs I am grouped with, be they 1 one or 1000, infamous or obscure.. I have used Alex Jones in debates knowing full well how many conservatives DON'T follow him. A true shot but a cheap one.
"Both sides" doesn't trigger me and sure as hell won't scare me off a killer podcast OR The Bulwark.
I reread the article. The point—as I interpret it—is not that both sides gaslight, and certainly not that Democrats are just as crazy as Republicans. Rather, for credibility, Democrats should not gaslight at all, nor deny that we do. (Perhaps an overly charitable take.)
Charlie, please stop doing this! How do you mention predominantly elected Republicans in your gaslighting segment and then, as your proof of the same on the left, you list predominantly NOT elected Democratic politicians. How are these two groups (elected politicians and non-elected persons) the same to you???? Please compare apples to apples!
I think Charlie’s point is that there are people with a platform and some degree of power on the left who sometimes say extreme things that play into the narrative of the extreme right and the Democrats are reluctant to call out those people and say they are wrong and prefer to say no we don’t think that and it’s a made up issue. I think it’s a valid point although there is no question that what Republicans are doing is on a whole different plane as I think Charlie would agree. It’s not necessarily bothsideism to say Stacy Ábrams probably should have conceded in 2018. Although it is crazy to equate what she did with Trump’s actions or the sedition caucus, as Fox News tries to do.
I would say there is a difference between activist academics yammering on weirdly about "harms" and the "violence of marriage" or whatever, and large numbers of elected national GOP politicians working toward the end of the welfare state.
One is a bunch of weirdos with no electoral power in their weird bubble, the other is a bunch of politicians with real power making votes and threatening us all with economic armageddon.
That's not to say we should deny the existence of weirdness and bad ideas on "both sides", but let's be clear on who has the numbers and the power to carry them out.
(As for "defund the police", my impression is that the message largely got pushed from activists in Minneapolis itself. That I can give a mulligan on; the MPD in particular has a uniquely brutal reputation--still!--as basically a gang with a badge. George Floyd's murder happened at their hands for a reason.)
(And gas stoves are one of those things, like Nintendo legacy games, that nobody cares about until they're about to go away. Human nature being what it is.)
What about Wyoming banning electric cars now? I wonder how Elon feels about this. Of course there are fewer than half a million people in Wyoming. I live in Orange County CA with 3.1 million people.
Great, concise summary Charlie, and there are indeed actors on the left that are pursuing crazy policies. But as Tim Miller pointed out on a recent podcast, you can look at the House Dem caucus and find a dozen fringe members, with the rest of them being pretty moderate, whereas if you look at the House GOP caucus you can find a dozen moderate members who are not fringe, with the rest being election deniers (at least publicly) and offering support for fringe policies. The Dems have kept their fringe members on the sidelines, while the GOP has allowed theirs to drive the train.
The left certainly has loons - no denying it. We try not to give them much power. Maybe the right should try out that strategy of not empowering the loons?
Strangio continues:
“But seeing how readily marriage equality gains bipartisan support while the country escalates attacks on trans people, is disheartening.
If you are celebrating the likely passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, please don’t let lawmakers pinkwash all their continued failures and claim progressive victory. We need so much more than this. And the political capital that went into passing this means capital lost somewhere else - for voting, abortion, trans people, student loans.”
Bothsiders this, please!
(Madiba Dennie, in The Atlantic):
> By its very nature, originalism threatens women and other minority groups who were disempowered at the time of the Constitution’s adoption.
> A three-judge panel unanimously ruled that the Second Amendment was violated by a federal statute that made possessing a gun unlawful for a person who is subject to a restraining order in protection of an intimate partner or child. Its explanation for this dangerous ruling was a straightforward application of originalism. The Founders mentioned a right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution. They did not, however, mention women, who are disproportionately victimized by domestic violence. And although today’s lawmakers may care about women’s rights, they cannot deviate from the Founders’ wishes without a formal constitutional amendment. This will almost assuredly have very real, potentially fatal consequences for women in America: The presence of a gun in a domestic-violence situation increases the risk of femicide by more than 1,000 percent. Originalism is going to get women killed.
To be accurate, the ban on new buildings getting gas cooking is a law; the ban on being able to replace gas stoves is a recommendation of the State Climate Action Council, proposed to begin in 2035.
It was titled “Gaslighting Our Politics” but it also could have been the “Hypocrisy in Our Politics”.
Great piece.
Well, if ANYONE is "programming brown people to hate white people", I'd have to say top of MY list would be ALEX JONES hisself!
Huh. I thought Charlie was making sure we understood what the MAGAs would say, not expressing his views. I'm fine with acknowledging the far left oddballs I am grouped with, be they 1 one or 1000, infamous or obscure.. I have used Alex Jones in debates knowing full well how many conservatives DON'T follow him. A true shot but a cheap one.
"Both sides" doesn't trigger me and sure as hell won't scare me off a killer podcast OR The Bulwark.
I reread the article. The point—as I interpret it—is not that both sides gaslight, and certainly not that Democrats are just as crazy as Republicans. Rather, for credibility, Democrats should not gaslight at all, nor deny that we do. (Perhaps an overly charitable take.)
OK, this column annoyed me today, but then I listened to Wednesday's Next Level and it was, well, next level! Feeling much less annoyed.
If we ban gas stoves and lights, we will no longer have gaslighting!
Charlie, please stop doing this! How do you mention predominantly elected Republicans in your gaslighting segment and then, as your proof of the same on the left, you list predominantly NOT elected Democratic politicians. How are these two groups (elected politicians and non-elected persons) the same to you???? Please compare apples to apples!
I think Charlie’s point is that there are people with a platform and some degree of power on the left who sometimes say extreme things that play into the narrative of the extreme right and the Democrats are reluctant to call out those people and say they are wrong and prefer to say no we don’t think that and it’s a made up issue. I think it’s a valid point although there is no question that what Republicans are doing is on a whole different plane as I think Charlie would agree. It’s not necessarily bothsideism to say Stacy Ábrams probably should have conceded in 2018. Although it is crazy to equate what she did with Trump’s actions or the sedition caucus, as Fox News tries to do.
Joining the comment section battle! :D
I would say there is a difference between activist academics yammering on weirdly about "harms" and the "violence of marriage" or whatever, and large numbers of elected national GOP politicians working toward the end of the welfare state.
One is a bunch of weirdos with no electoral power in their weird bubble, the other is a bunch of politicians with real power making votes and threatening us all with economic armageddon.
That's not to say we should deny the existence of weirdness and bad ideas on "both sides", but let's be clear on who has the numbers and the power to carry them out.
(As for "defund the police", my impression is that the message largely got pushed from activists in Minneapolis itself. That I can give a mulligan on; the MPD in particular has a uniquely brutal reputation--still!--as basically a gang with a badge. George Floyd's murder happened at their hands for a reason.)
(And gas stoves are one of those things, like Nintendo legacy games, that nobody cares about until they're about to go away. Human nature being what it is.)
Great article, Charlie. That said, I try my best to avoid Jonah Goldberg and The Dispatch, so you ain’t helping my cause. 😎
What about Wyoming banning electric cars now? I wonder how Elon feels about this. Of course there are fewer than half a million people in Wyoming. I live in Orange County CA with 3.1 million people.
Great, concise summary Charlie, and there are indeed actors on the left that are pursuing crazy policies. But as Tim Miller pointed out on a recent podcast, you can look at the House Dem caucus and find a dozen fringe members, with the rest of them being pretty moderate, whereas if you look at the House GOP caucus you can find a dozen moderate members who are not fringe, with the rest being election deniers (at least publicly) and offering support for fringe policies. The Dems have kept their fringe members on the sidelines, while the GOP has allowed theirs to drive the train.