So what do you want the Democrats to do differently besides not having people peddle politically toxic ideas like abolishing the police? Whereas the Republican Party is more homogenous, and that lends itself to a tighter, more controlled message. The Republicans would never shut the hell up about it. So you can go ahead and shut the fuck up.
Look at Florida. You now have Democrats saying Florida is a lost cause. In in Florida, giving felons the right to vote got 64 percent. If you gave me an environment in which the majority of voters wanted to expand the franchise to felons and raise the minimum wage, I should be able to win that. And if you look all across the Rio Grande Valley , we lost all kinds of solidly blue voters. And the faculty lounge bullshit is a big part of it. We won the White House. We won Congress. We have power.
We won the White House against a world-historical buffoon. And we came within 42, votes of losing. We lost congressional seats. We are. Not to beat a dead horse, but Democrats and Republicans are dealing with very different constituencies. Democrats have a big tent, they have to win different kinds of voters and that means making different kinds of appeals.
Republicans can get away with shit that Democrats cannot. We can only do what we can do. We have to take these small opportunities to define ourselves and the other side every damn time. Let me give you my favorite example of metropolitan, overeducated arrogance. Take the climate problem. Do you realize that climate is the only major social or political movement that I can think of that refuses to use emotion? All you need are those timetables and temperature charts, and from that, everyone will just get it.
And Republicans are way more disciplined about taking a thing and branding it. Wade and even on the climate. About Us. B2B Publishing. Business Visionaries. Hot Property. Times Events. Times Store. Facebook Twitter Show more sharing options Share Close extra sharing options. Kamala Harris D-Calif. By Evan Halper Staff Writer. Evan Halper. Follow Us twitter instagram email facebook. More From the Los Angeles Times. W hy was Youngkin so successful in turning education into the signature issue of his campaign and winning plenty of swing voters over to his side?
If you listen to Democratic politicians or read the mainstream news, the answer to that question seems to be that most voters were duped. Zachary D. Carter: The Democratic unraveling began with schools.
It is generally not introduced until college and is not part of classroom teaching in Virginia. That has also been a widely held view within the Democratic echo chamber over the past 24 hours. In this analysis, the opposition to critical race theory is nothing more than a racist dog whistle. The idea that critical race theory is an academic concept that is taught only at colleges or law schools might be technically accurate, but the reality on the ground is a good deal more complicated.
In some elementary and middle schools, students are now being asked to place themselves on a scale of privilege based on such attributes as their skin color. History lessons in some high schools teach that racism is not just a persistent reality but the defining feature of America. Effective opponents of these developments, such as Youngkin, explicitly acknowledge the importance of teaching students about the history of slavery and even the injustices that many minority groups continue to face today.
They do not pretend that grade schoolers are reading academic articles. Instead, they focus the ire of many parents on curricular content that can fairly be described as popularized, less sophisticated cousins of critical race theory.
That leaves Democrats with two principal options. They could defend the need to teach students ideas that are rooted in critical race theory, arguing that an unrelentingly bleak view of American history or a depiction of contemporary America as still defined by omnipresent forms of structural racism are accurate reflections of reality.
Personally, I have substantive disagreements with this view as well as deep concerns about how popular such a message is likely to prove.
But an open defense of the need to make radical changes to the way students are taught about the history and the nature of their country would at least stand a chance of persuading some voters and have the virtue of treating them like adults.
0コメント