David A. Graham: "Elizabeth Warren's Big Night"
link
I certainly would like to be able to vote for a candidate I believe in and maximize the likelihood of beating Trump. But, contra Warren, that doesn't mean one who embraces a (her words) "far-left agenda." Just the opposite.
There's almost no proposal on the Democratic table that I'm not willing to discuss. The Green New Deal is insane...so I don't see that discussion going anywhere...but the others I think I'm willing to consider. Even de facto open borders is on the table in the long run, given due consideration. I'm inclined to think it'd be a disaster...but that's what discussion is for. Let's do the research. In 20 years we might have grounds for accepting the idea. But not next year.
But the sheer weight of kookiness, and the sheer number of nearly-blind leaps in the dark they're advocating makes the Dems dangerous.
I think Trump is terrible. The Dems think he's about twice as terrible as I think he is--or so they keep saying, with apparently sincerity. But if they believe it, why aren't they on red alert? Why aren't they willing to just do whatever it takes to win? Why aren't they willing to throttle back on the extremism in order to achieve this end that they claim to think is absolutely crucial?
It reminds me of their attitude to the GND: they say we face an "existential threat"...everything is an "existential threat" now, incidentally. But the GND looks almost nothing like a plan produced in response to such a threat--it's actually a stalking horse. It aims to frighten and trick us into completely re-engineering society in accordance with progressive principles, about half of which have nothing whatsoever to do with climate change. And many of the climate-change-relevant provisions are as they are because they're long-standing progressive preferences--not because they're efficient ways to slow climate change. In short: the GND cynically uses the alleged threat of climate change to try to shift the country radically to the left in almost every way. And it gives the lie to the cover story.
In neither case can they truly believe that the threat is actually "existential."
As for Warren's argument: she's probably right--no matter what the Dems do, the Pubs will say they're "crazy socialists." But in one case, the Pubs will be right, and in the other they'll be wrong. So make them wrong and appeal to the reason and perception of the voters--trust at least many of them to recognize the truth. Don't make the Democratic agenda depend in that way on the Republicans.
I certainly would like to be able to vote for a candidate I believe in and maximize the likelihood of beating Trump. But, contra Warren, that doesn't mean one who embraces a (her words) "far-left agenda." Just the opposite.
There's almost no proposal on the Democratic table that I'm not willing to discuss. The Green New Deal is insane...so I don't see that discussion going anywhere...but the others I think I'm willing to consider. Even de facto open borders is on the table in the long run, given due consideration. I'm inclined to think it'd be a disaster...but that's what discussion is for. Let's do the research. In 20 years we might have grounds for accepting the idea. But not next year.
But the sheer weight of kookiness, and the sheer number of nearly-blind leaps in the dark they're advocating makes the Dems dangerous.
I think Trump is terrible. The Dems think he's about twice as terrible as I think he is--or so they keep saying, with apparently sincerity. But if they believe it, why aren't they on red alert? Why aren't they willing to just do whatever it takes to win? Why aren't they willing to throttle back on the extremism in order to achieve this end that they claim to think is absolutely crucial?
It reminds me of their attitude to the GND: they say we face an "existential threat"...everything is an "existential threat" now, incidentally. But the GND looks almost nothing like a plan produced in response to such a threat--it's actually a stalking horse. It aims to frighten and trick us into completely re-engineering society in accordance with progressive principles, about half of which have nothing whatsoever to do with climate change. And many of the climate-change-relevant provisions are as they are because they're long-standing progressive preferences--not because they're efficient ways to slow climate change. In short: the GND cynically uses the alleged threat of climate change to try to shift the country radically to the left in almost every way. And it gives the lie to the cover story.
In neither case can they truly believe that the threat is actually "existential."
As for Warren's argument: she's probably right--no matter what the Dems do, the Pubs will say they're "crazy socialists." But in one case, the Pubs will be right, and in the other they'll be wrong. So make them wrong and appeal to the reason and perception of the voters--trust at least many of them to recognize the truth. Don't make the Democratic agenda depend in that way on the Republicans.
posted by Winston Smith at
8:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home