says James Carville. This was interesting to watch and I certainly agree with him.
The "woke progressives" are somewhat nuts and going to cost the DEMs their majority.
I mean if the GOP doesn't shoot themselves in the foot by running crazy Trump clones, the GOP is going to stomp them in 2022.
65 comments:
"Wokeness"?
--Hiram
Define "Wokeness".
Moose
One definition might be those who believe "orange man bad" for no reason whatsoever.
Nobody believes that for "no reason whatsoever". There are thousands of legitimate reasons.
Moose
VOX History of Wokeness
Wiki Woke
NBC GOP Crusade Against Woke
Wokeness Comics
Imagine thinking that respect for others and an understanding of the trials and tribulations of others not like yourself is something to mock.
Sad
Moose
As long as "wokeness" involves painting white men, police officers, judges, white women, professional / wealthy people, Christians, businesses, etc as villains.
And everyone else as helpless victims.
It is going to be a hard sell in our Christian Capitalist Education Law/Order Work focused country.
Show me that it does that.
Moose
Show me that it does not...
The reality is that it can not be "proved" either way.
All that matters in a democracy is what people believe... And...
- Defund the Police / Protect the criminals
- Protesting and/or rioting against the US Law / Order system
- Teaching people that the USA is a racist country
- Wanting to bring in every "asylum seeker"
- Vilifying white men for being men
- Wanting to hand out money to people who had more kids than they can afford.
Definitely is leaving a bunch of voters feeling attacked and angry...
Manchin Understands
For a "center-right country", Republicans are sure dependent on undemocratic means to take and hold power.
Sean,
Good point. But Biden would not have won if Trump had not sucked SO BAD.
And you are correct that there are many center left communities with high population density, but overall I agree with Manchin. The burbs and rural areas will lean center to center right.
critical race theory seems to fit into this topic of wokeness.
Here is an opinion piece on republicans using education as an issue that seems somewhat related to your topic. I found it an interesting read:
https://wapo.st/3BLnGhE
btw, I agree that too much wokeness is a problem for the dems
Like Popeye chugging down a can of spinach or Steve Rogers being injected with super-soldier serum, the Republican Party has found the magical elixir that will give it the power to vanquish its foes: the “issue” of education.
Headlines
The Post: “Parental say in schools, resonant in Va. governor’s race, bound for GOP national playbook.”
The New York Times: “Republicans Hit on Schools as a Wedge Issue to Unite the Party.”
Reuters: “Republicans aim to repeat Youngkin’s schools tactic in 2022 elections.”
But what exactly do we mean when we call this an “issue”? Are we saying that Republicans will be drawing attention to their proposals for how to improve the U.S. education system, to have a debate on differing approaches to this enormously complex policy challenge so voters can assess each one and decide on a path forward?
Don’t make me laugh.
In fact, calling this an “issue” at all is an insult to our intelligence. “Issues” generally involve a debate between policy alternatives, and sometimes it actually works that way. Republicans want to cut taxes for the wealthy, Democrats want to raise taxes on the wealthy; they make their case for which approach is better, and the winning party tries to pass legislation fulfilling their vision.
But what exactly is the policy agenda Republicans are advocating as they raise education to the center of their identity?
It might include more charter schools, something they’ve advocated in the past. And in states around the country they’re practically banning discussions of race in classrooms, at least discussions that imply that racism is anything more than a problem we solved decades ago (in some cases they’ve even produced a list of words that would be illegal for teachers to utter).
Republican Glenn Youngkin was elected Virginia’s governor on Nov. 2, defeating his Democratic opponent, former governor Terry McAuliffe. (The Washington Post)
But beyond that, on what is supposedly now their most important “issue,” the GOP has a campaign agenda — some slogans meant to capitalize on people’s anger and fear — but almost no governing agenda.
In this way, Youngkin is the prototypical Republican: A private equity CEO whose true passion lies in tax cuts, he discovered that schools were a good vehicle to exploit the anger of the Republican base, made a ludicrously empty promise the centerpiece of his campaign (“On day one, I’m going to ban” critical race theory!), and once he takes office he’ll promptly forget about it, since he has virtually nothing resembling a substantive agenda on education anyway.
If you asked the average Virginia voter what Youngkin wants to actually do with the state’s schools, they couldn’t tell you a thing beyond some vague catchphrases about “letting parents have a say.”
If you go to Youngkin’s website, you’ll search in vain for anything beyond a few bromides on any issue. The education section comes in at a grand total of 85 words: He promises “Keeping Schools Open Safely Five Days a Week,” “Restoring High Expectations & Getting Every Student College or Career Ready,” and of course, “Ridding Political Agendas from the Classroom by Banning Critical Race Theory.” There are no details on any of it.
His opponent Terry McAuliffe, in contrast, had a six-page education plan with some genuine proposals. But like any good Republican, Youngkin didn’t bother. He and his voters made a bargain: This is something you’re riled up about, so I’ll tell you that you’re right to be angry, you’ll vote for me, and then we’ll all declare victory over the dastardly liberals and forget about it until the next election.
Now that Youngkin has demonstrated the effectiveness of this template, hundreds of Republican congressional candidates will center their campaigns on the “issue” of education in next year’s midterms, despite the fact that Congress has almost no say over education in America. Wherever you are, you’ll be seeing Senate and House candidates decrying critical race theory and promising to give parents more control over their schools.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced that in response to the election, he’ll be creating a “Parent’s Bill of Rights.” This issue, said the head of the conservative Heritage Action for America, will “be at the forefront of every narrative, of every grassroots campaign, of every political expenditure going forward.”
To hear this from a member of Congress is the equivalent of candidates for your local city council arguing over who has the better approach to containing North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. It’s just not something they have authority over. But it will be inescapable.
There’s no question that schools will be an important political issue, or that Democrats need to find a way to talk about it that resonates with voters. But please, let’s not pretend that the way we’ll be talking about it makes it a real policy issue in any sense. This is an old playbook, and the fact that it might be politically effective for the GOP doesn’t make it any more legitimate.
Laurie,
I think "critical race theory" is just a boogey man that the GOP will milk for all it is worth.
I think the far left's obsession over trying to crucify police officers when bad things happen to criminals is a bigger problem.
And their obsession with trying to blame metro gang activity on anybody outside of the community.
I don't think it works to say critical race theory is not taught in schools as a counter argument. There doesn't seem to be a good counterargument. Most people do not want to talk about racism, past or present and many prefer their children not to be taught abut racism. (past and present) The focus the left has on equity doesn't help with some voters either, like when it leads to things like eliminating gifted programs.
Republican criticism of CRT is nonsense of course. Basically, they want our schools to teach the bright side of slavery. Nothing short of that is CRT.
--Hiram
I do find it frustrating that conservatives only want to acknowledge the positive aspects of our country's history.
On the other hand, I am frustrated that liberals want to use ancient history as excuses for broken families, high gang membership, academic failure, poor work ethics, etc.
To me it seems that both sides are complicit in this polarization.
Okay, John...so you don't understand generational poverty.
You do know that most Americans don't move out of the socioeconomic class they're born into, right?
Moose
As I noted in my other comment I understand generational wealth better than most.
Generational poverty on the other hand is some what of a mystery.
We the tax payers give the poor and disadvantaged:
- free education
- free food
- free healthcare
- reduce cost housing
- etc
They are lucky enough to be living in America, and somehow a large portion of the recipients squander all those gifts and stay dumb / poor.
Now I have quite a few friends who barely made it through high school and were given nothing from their parents.
The ones who worked and got married will never be rich, but they live pretty good. And their children seem to be on a good path.
"You do know that most Americans don't move out of the socioeconomic class they're born into, right?" A recent study showed that those in the bottom quintile were as likely, 40 years later, to be in the top quintile as to remain at the bottom. That economic mobility is what makes this a great country, and all the nay-saying, telling some demographics they are victims that cannot succeed, is doing a lot of harm with no compensating benefit. Don't call it critical race theory, but call it treating kids differently because of their race. It's racist and it's wrong.
We used to teach American history "warts and all." Now it seems we must teach it as "all warts." Stupid, on both ends of the pedagogy.
Jerry,
Source please.
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
All your sources simply confirm what I said, that we handicap kids with our education system-- especially the "soft bigotry of low expectations," exacerbated by dividing them into victims that cannot succeed and oppressors that should feel guilty if they succeed. It's racism in the name of anti-racism. Typical liberal nonsense. And they DENY it, while doing it openly.
Actually you said...
"A recent study showed that those in the bottom quintile were as likely, 40 years later, to be in the top quintile as to remain at the bottom."
Which is obviously so inaccurate...
Not if you look at quintiles instead of dollars. It's the same fundamental math mistake made by those who complain about "income inequality." That is, the lowest income you can have is zero, and will always be zero, while the highest income you can make is unbounded, and will increase over time. The bottom quintile remains rooted at zero, but all the quintiles expand above that point. Don't go doubting the Federal Reserve on this.
Perhaps we should ask how massive government spending and regulation affects "income inequality"? It is proven that Obama drove it UP.
It isn't just "woke" that's a problem, it's hubris and stupidity.
As usual, so many opinions and no data.
So many assumptions that anything disagreeing with you is false or does not exist. Perhaps polls showing Trump with a higher approval rating than Biden are also just lies? Talk about confirmation bias...
Biden's is about the same as Trump's was.
And Biden has the harder challenge. The Conservatives do not like him because he is a DEM.
And the Progressives do not like him because he is too moderate, especially with Manchin and Sinema holding him back.
I assume his approval will increase if some of the progressive agenda gets passed.
Now who is assuming that broken eggs always make an omelette? People don't LIKE the progressive agenda, especially when they find out what's in it, and especially if it's rammed down their throats through "reconciliation." Notice Dems are actually calling it "the reconciliation bill," as if its only purpose is to be rammed through on a strict party-line vote? "Moderate" Biden is a myth and always was. He seeds more doubt and disapproval with every public appearance.
So you are saying that people do not like:
- bigger child tax credits
- more medicare benefits
- subsidized preschools
Poll Results
Again. The GOP uses reconciliation also.
So you are saying people like
- massive climate change spending
- ending US energy independence
- high inflation
- supply chain issues
- massive deficit spending
Remember the old Star Trek question, asked why the Federation and the Klingons used the same methods to achieve their ends? The difference was in what those ends WERE. Seems like, for Democrats, the whole purpose is a political win and to crush the opposition.
I am pretty sure none of that is in the bill...
Actually, it is, perhaps not explicitly. Readily foreseeable, if not. But you will deny any reality conflicting with your own.
I am fine if the "reconciliation bill" never gets passed.
I have no minor children, am not on Medicare and my Parent's have plenty of wealth to care for themselves. That bill is aimed at helping the low income folks.
Wow. Greedy, self-interested AND naive to boot. The reconciliation bill has absolutely nothing to do with helping ANYBODY except those socialists who want government running every aspect of our lives (for our own good, of course) and ruining the political opposition (and the country) in the process. Why else do they call it a "reconciliation bill"?
Even the "infrastructure bill" has numerous flaws that should have been eliminated before passage. New rule: NOTHING passes Congress without a 2/3 vote in both chambers.
"NOTHING passes Congress without a 2/3 vote in both chambers."
Sounds good. Will be easier to gut the bloated defense spending.
Moose
Sure, you want to cut the ONE specific responsibility of the federal government, to "provide for the common defense." Basically, you want to "defund the police." Do you think all our worldwide adversaries/competitors will do the same? Is their bloat in the defense budget? Maybe/probably; I've seen some of it personally. But that's only a small piece of the budget. If you want to cut budgets, start with the biggest share(s) of it.
The idea here is that good ideas do not belong to only one side of the aisle. If it is a good idea, it ought to be a consensus among our highly intelligent and thoughtful (ahem) representatives. I might suggest even 70 or 75%, for bills exceeding, say $400B.
Jerry,
Now who is being naïve...
You can not even support the bi-partisan infrastructure bill?
And remember in our polarized partisan world, "bi-partisan" is a four letter world. Mitch McConnell's goal is to ensure Biden and the country fails... That way GOPers have a better chance in the future.
The ONE responsibility?
Lovely how traitors like you just throw the Constitution under the bus when it doesn't support your narrative.
Or maybe you forgot that the Constitution was established also to "promote the general welfare" and "insure domestic tranquility", two things you fascists have no interest in.
Moose
Moose,
You do realize that that fluff is in the preamble... Right?
"PREAMBLE
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
It is a summary / intro statement, not a rule...
Right, John. The words "provide" and "promote" are entirely different.
"Mitch McConnell's goal is to ensure Biden and the country fails." Kinda depends on where you sit in the theatre, I suppose, and from where I sit you are in the balcony behind a post. My interpretation of affairs is that Mitch is trying to "limit the damage" to the country from the Biden admin.
I assume that is what the DEMs thought when they were "working against" Trump.
It is hard to negotiate and pass good bi-partisan bills when the far right and far left are happy sacrificing the country for a sense of control and potential future votes.
We citizens are definitely getting what we deserve.
"It is a summary / intro statement, not a rule..."
So what? I was playing off of jerry's use of text from the preamble. What's your point?
Moose
My point is that the National Defense is part of the Constitution.
Not just a general descriptor of the goal of the document.
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
I don't much in there saying that a key goal of the government is to rob Peter to pay Paul to promote wealth equity.
So...the Air Force and Space Force are not Constitutional...a strict constructionist should not support such things.
It also clearly states what the Militia are for, and that in order for them to be available and effective, we have the 2nd Amendment, belying the idea that it's an individual right.
Moose
They were smart people, but they apparently did not envision airplanes and space ships... :-)
Neither did they envision greedy, grasping, power-mad politicians. They wanted to avoid that. Some are now arguing there should be a "Constitutional Convention of the States" to rewrite the Constitution. I claim that would be a terrible idea, because it does not need to be rewritten, it needs to be READ and followed.
Now you are being silly.
"envision greedy, grasping, power-mad politicians"
People have not changed that much in thousands of years...
"...it needs to be READ and followed."
Let's start with the 2nd Amendment.
Moose
"Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Definitely pretty vague...
Except that the Constitution also explains what Militia are...and the grammar is clear that the Arms are for the use in the Militia.
Moose
Maybe clear to you...
Apparently not so clear to legal scholars...
If the amendment were not about the Militia, the first part wouldn't be necessary.
They could simply have written it as "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
See how easy it is to understand?
Moose
Too easy for the lawyers :-)
Your argument is that SCOTUS got the Heller decision correct?
They created a "right" out of whole cloth.
LOL
Moose
Corpus Linguistics and Gun Control: Why Heller Is Wrong
Moose
The conclusion...
"The results of this corpus analysis, coupled with its repeatable
and falsifiable nature, should raise a major red flag for political
conservatives, “conservative” judges and justices, and legal
scholars who adopt Justice Scalia’s originalist theory of
constitutional interpretation concerning the Second Amendment.
If the goal is to maintain Heller as legal precedent in future cases,
the most intellectually honest thing for the United States Supreme
Court to do is to conclude that Heller was correct in its ultimate
judgment but incorrect in its reasoning. In addition, the Court
should seriously reconsider its use of originalism in interpreting the
Second Amendment generally. This reconsideration would raise
many questions, such as whether the people of the founding era
had a monopoly on wisdom concerning the Second Amendment’s
meaning and whether that “wisdom” from the 1700s is still relevant
in today’s America.106 In sum, doing away with the Court’s use of
originalism to interpret the Second Amendment may be necessary
to keep Heller viable."
Just like supporters of the "individual right", you leave out the limiting clause of the sentence you highlighted.
"***If the goal is to maintain Heller as legal precedent in future cases,***
the most intellectually honest thing for the United States Supreme
Court to do is to conclude that Heller was correct in its ultimate
judgment but incorrect in its reasoning."
A conservative SCOTUS will never conclude that Heller was reasoned incorrectly.
Moose
If Kennedy and Roberts went with Scalia, the rationale must have been pretty solid.
I mean only the Far Left Justices dissented.
Majority Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
Dissent Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Post a Comment