There Are No Solutions; There are Trade-Offs
Actually, my off-the-top-of-my-head hunch is: when a tradeoff is good enough, it counts as a solution. But mostly tradeoffs are not that good.
Imagine a hand palming a human face forever
The specific criticisms of the 1619 Project that my colleagues and I raised in our letter, and the dispute that has ensued, are not about historical trajectories or the intractability of racism or anything other than the facts—the errors contained in the 1619 Project as well as, now, the errors in Silverstein’s response to our letter. We wholeheartedly support the stated goal to educate widely on slavery and its long-term consequences. Our letter attempted to advance that goal, one that, no matter how the history is interpreted and related, cannot be forwarded through falsehoods, distortions, and significant omissions. Allowing these shortcomings to stand uncorrected would only make it easier for critics hostile to the overarching mission to malign it for their own ideological and partisan purposes, as some had already begun to do well before we wrote our letter.
Taking care of the facts is, I believe, all the more important in light of current political realities. The New York Times has taken a lead in combatting the degradation of truth and assault on a free press propagated by Donald Trump’s White House, aided and abetted by Vladimir Putin’s Russia, and spun by the far right on social media. American democracy is in a perilous condition, and the Times can report on that danger only by upholding its standards “without fear or favor.” That is why it is so important that lapses such as those pointed out in our letter receive attention and timely correction. When describing history, more is at stake than the past.
John Bolton freakout has everything that defines Russiagate & its Ukrainegate sequel to date:— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) January 27, 2020
-2nd-hand leaks (let's see an actual Bolton quote)
-maximalist & erroneous interpretations of those leaks (https://t.co/Sck7aHMNS5)
-liberals placing their hopes in a right-wing hawk
Bolton news is fuzzy. Bolton isn't saying Trump tied Ukraine weapons $ to opening a Burisma/2016 probe. Bolton says Trump wanted Ukraine to "[turn] over all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related Mr. Biden & and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine." Huh? pic.twitter.com/RNiBM6ANwT— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) January 26, 2020
Our case against lyin’, cheatin’, liddle’ Adam “Shifty” Schiff, Cryin’ Chuck Schumer, Nervous Nancy Pelosi, their leader, dumb as a rock AOC, & the entire Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrat Party, starts today at 10:00 A.M. on @FoxNews, @OANN or Fake News @CNN or Fake News MSDNC!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 25, 2020
Care must be taken when evaluating boogaloo-as-civil-war references, as some people—even those in extremist movements—still use the phrase jokingly, or to mock some of the more fanatical or gung-ho adherents of their own movement."Some" people "still" use the phrase jokingly. Similar to: Care must be taken...some people still use the OK sign to mean OK!
Joined #Rising w/ @krystalball & @esaagar this morn to discuss Democratic centrists' two-pronged failure: pushing a weak, all-consuming, Russiagate-addled impeachment case and attacking Bernie Sanders https://t.co/83YMaB20hv via @HillTVLive— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) January 21, 2020
Dems must disavow every normal position they’ve ever held. https://t.co/5jL85U6Uwu— Dan Gainor (@dangainor) January 21, 2020
#NEW MONTAGE from me showing how @CNN and @MSNBC spent their mornings hyping fears that "white nationalists" and "extremists" would cause "violence" at #VirginiaRally for the #2A like in 2017 at Charlottesville #LobbyDay2020 pic.twitter.com/wR91mMPfmR— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) January 20, 2020
An African-American man waving a Trump flag jokingly tells the crowd: I am Gov. Ralph Northam and I am in blackface today.#VirginaRally pic.twitter.com/z32mnR5Tzp— Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) January 20, 2020
One of the best signs I've seen all day #VirginiaRally pic.twitter.com/5VzJLuMIzN— Alec Sears (@alec_sears) January 20, 2020
What a great day expressing our First Amendment rights in Richmond today at the #Richmond2ARally. We will not be quiet as our Constitutional rights are trampled on. #VA10 #LobbyDay2020 pic.twitter.com/rENZ9gE3np— Jeffery A Dove Jr. (@JefferyADoveJr) January 20, 2020
A view of the crowd in Capitol Square. Still coming in. pic.twitter.com/be9DwO3XaD— Virginia Shooting Sports Association (@VSSA) January 20, 2020
Capitalism on display outside the capitol grounds. #LobbyDay2020 pic.twitter.com/5mJrEXU6KH— Cam Edwards (@CamEdwards) January 20, 2020
The crowd is filling the capitol square now. Chants of “USA, USA” from various sections of the crowd. #LobbyDay2020 pic.twitter.com/RwU59FkxJE— Cam Edwards (@CamEdwards) January 20, 2020
For weeks, discussions about the rally have lit up Facebook pages and chat rooms frequented by militia members and white supremacists. Various extremist organizations or their adherents are calling Monday’s rally the “boogaloo.” In the lexicon of white supremacists, that is an event that will accelerate the race war they have anticipated for decades.To be clear, this is bullshit.
Indeed, in their 2018 book, The Great Revolt, Salena Zito and Brad Todd posit that Trump got an extra boost from working class Americans put off by the attacks on him from prominent politicians of both parties who called his immigration concerns “unhinged,” “reprehensible,” “xenophobic,” “racist,” and “fascist.” Zito and Todd write that many Trump voters “saw one candidate, who shared their anxiety about immigration’s potential connections to domestic terrorism, being attacked by an entire political and media establishment that blew off that concern as bigotry.”
In this great political divide, the Democratic candidates at the debate represent the elite preference for policies that embrace or nearly embrace open borders. An NPR study of candidate positions indicated that, on the question of whether illegal crossings should be decriminalized, four of those on the debate stage say yes, while the positions of the other two remain “unclear.” On whether immigration numbers should be increased, four say yes, while two are unclear. On whether federal funding for border enforcement should be increased or decreased, five have no clear position, while one says it should be decreased. A separate Washington Post study on the candidates’ views as to whether illegal immigrants should be covered under a government-run health plan found that five say yes while one has no clear position.
The Democratic Party has become the party of the country’s elites—globalist, internationalist, anti-nationalist, free-trade, and open borders. Those views are so thoroughly at variance with those of Trump voters that it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that we have here a powerful issue of our time, perhaps the most powerful issue. Yet the journalistic moderators at Tuesday’s event didn’t see fit to ask about it. And the candidates weren’t inclined to bring it up in any serious way.
Even in her set up, Phillips seemed to reject Sanders’ earlier denials of the story: “Senator Sanders, CNN reported yesterday, and Senator Warren confirmed in a statement, that in 2018, you told her that you did not believe that a woman could win the election. Why did you say that?”Holy crap. That's blatant.
While Sanders made these points and repeatedly denied the allegation, Phillips left many of us confused when, literally just after he again denied the story, she asked him again if he denied the story. Some in the audience laughed at the weird follow up but that was followed by gasps when Phillips then turned to Warren and said “Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?”
Phillips then turned to Klobuchar and asked her how she felt about people making such comments to female candidates. [My emphasis]