Wait-are police systemically racist (as I heard MANY people tell me in 2020), requiring defunding, or aren’t they? If they are you should have advocated for that in this ELECTION.
I’m writing a (different) essay about about mistakes. We all make them and it’s poor form to pile on to someone who happened to be wrong… but we should also admit when we’ve been wrong, and we should be able to account for our new position. Simply ignoring things which you fervently advocated for 3 years ago (especially when, at the time, everyone who differed from you was ostensibly evil) and pretending that you always believed the new popular thing simply will not do. It’s intellectually dishonest and it allows thinkers and journalists and activists to move from error to error, staying in the middle of the notional crowd while never examining why or how they were wrong. It also allows radicals to work for extreme and unpopular proposals, while shielding themselves behind sensible policies or compassionate language.
I write this now because much of the 2024 Kamala Harris campaign had this character. Of course she wants strict immigration controls! Who wouldn’t?! The idea that she would attack a border wall or effectively eliminate border controls is too silly to contemplate. Where do people get this stuff?
There’s an entire structure of political confabulation: that’s not happening, and even if it is it’s exaggerated, and even if it’s not it’s warranted, and if it’s not warranted it’s actually good and should have been done long ago! No matter what, the other side is so much worse! As soon as you mention many political issues a complicated and many-layered machine of political justification kicks into gear.
For example, there has been a great deal of controversy about adult (sexually and topically explicit) materials available in elementary and middle school libraries. Folks on the Left scoff at the idea that this is a serious problem. “It’s exaggerated” they say. “It’s a pretext to crack down on ‘LGTBQ’ materials!” Perhaps it is exaggerated (but is it a problem at all? Let’s begin there). Last year I wrote about…
the debate over pornographic books in schools and school libraries… and the hundreds of non-pornographic books which have certainly been caught up in the furor.
Forget who’s anti-LGTBQ and who’s tolerant and who’s trying to protect or groom children. The selections below are from GenderQueer, the most commonly removedbook by school districts (and therefore surely not a minimal or unrepresentative example).
The reality is that debates about how often something is happening are often red herrings. The same people trying to tell us that these kinds of books are rarities are often the very ones who advocate for early and explicit education and classroom materials about sex, gender, gender identity (a confusing and psychologically risky topic for grade schoolers if there ever was one) in the classroom, as well as pornography and masturbation. These people often write about children as ‘sexual beings’ who should be taught to explore their bodies and those of others with the help of teachers and activists. The claim that Genderqueer is an anomaly is obviously disingenuous because these people don’t want it to be.
This is part of the classic ‘motte and bailey’ strategy: use language and concepts which, are broadly acceptable and noncontroversial (black history, gender affirmation, content moderation) to represent far more contentious and extreme practices (anti-racist education & segregated activities, surgery and lifetime medication regimens and secret arrangements with teachers, deplatforming and systematic elimination of all ideas which are found to be disagreeable). We can cut through a great deal of this nonsense by just asking these folks (specifically) what do you want?Do you think Genderqueer should be available to middle schoolers? Okay, good! Then you won’t call its removal from 7th grade libraries a ‘book ban’. Do you think high-schoolers should be separated and educated differently about history and civics based on race? No? Okay then. You won’t object if we pass a law against that practice (even if is ‘rare’ or ‘exaggerated’). You agree it shouldn’t happen, right?
These are probably marginal issues. I can’t be sure how often these kinds of things are litigated. I only know that the ideas of Queer Theory and Anti-racism are deeply unpopular-but they are more popular among schoolteachers than probably any other population. During this last election we saw the same evasion when it came to basic policies of law and order and border security and tax law though.
This is part of a process which has been playing out for the better part of a decade. The old strategies don’t seem to be as effective for the Left and progressives haven’t been effective at convincing anything like a majority of normal workers or citizens. Arguably convincing was never their game plan-indoctrination and mob pressure were. The real ideas and favored policies of the Left took some time to filter into public consciousness (the delay thanks in no small part to a highly cynical and distorted media apparatus). Chris Rufo and alternative media and Substack and Joe Rogan have all been a part of the process. By now, if you’re politically engaged you probably know the deal on most of these issues. ‘Inclusion’ lost its fuzzy glow years ago. ‘Transphobe’ just means someone who disagrees with an activist. The Left can no longer really hide-the only question is whether you agree with their proposals and ideas or not. A disturbingly large number of people do, but many of them remain under the misapprehension that opposition to these ideas are fueled by simple ignorance or bigotry. This narrative represents the dying gasps of legacy media’s power but it fades a little more with every day.
Which brings us to the election. It’s not an exaggeration to state that Kamala Harris supported more, and more extreme, Leftist positions in 2019 than any major candidate in US history- a removal of border controls, defunding the CBP, radically reforming police, expanding gender ideology, ‘studying’ reparations for slavery… plus radical new progressive tax and spending schemes. That surely partly accounted for her abject failure to build popular support in that race (although the media seemed to love her!).
These former policy proposals were (awkwardly) all part of the public record-as was her professional performance as Vice President. The media tried mightily to hide and obfuscate her 2019 campaign statements and her intervening official actions-but they are simply (collectively) too feeble now. It was a quixotic effort from the beginning. It certainly fooled and confused tens of millions of people-but not many independents and not enough voters.
‘Experts’… LOL. The same media outlets who labelled her ‘border czar’ (CNN) rushed to decry the label, and some even back-edited their content, without editorial notes. These are our sentinels of democracy folks. Real fearless critics of power.
So that is the first takeaway of this election: legacy media no longer has its old power. It has been eroded by vigorous and interesting competitors, and its own obvious and flagrant lies and omissions.
…the same people say there’s no such thing as political correctness, and they also say identity politics is a bigoted term. So I’m kind of at a loss. Also, they propose sweeping changes to K-12 curricula, but you can’t call it CRT, even though the curricular documents specifically reference CRT, and if you do you’re an idiot and also you’re a racist cryptofascist. Also nobody (nobody!) ever advocated for defunding the police, and if they did it didn’t actually mean defunding the police. Seems to be a real resistance to simple, comprehensible terms around here. [This is] part of a broader communal rejection of basic self-definition and comprehensible terms for this political tendency….
If you ask these people, are you part of a social revolution?, they’ll loudly tell you yes! Yes they are! They’re going to shake society at its very foundations. Well, OK then -what do I call your movement? You reject every name that organically develops! I’ll use the name you pick, but you have to actually pick one. You can’t just bitch on Twitter every time someone tries to describe your political cohort, which again you yourself say intends to change the world.
When people advocate for the radical levelling of hierarchies or the erosion of heteronormativity or the complete dismantling of ‘white supremacy’ (which includes police and borders and tests and promotions) they shouldn’t be allowed to turn around and pretend to be sensible moderates, just advocating for decency.
Sometimes radical solutions are warranted but they should always be openly described as such! If radical options are on the table then there will be a general sense of crisis and appetite for extreme solutions. Instead, radicals have injected themselves into normal public policy debates and tried to use emotional manipulation and linguistic/administrative trickery to jam their favored changes through as fast as possible. They’re so convinced that they’re correct and morally righteous that the whole ‘convincing others’ or ‘democracy’ thing seems like a troublesome extra step.
When you see a radical who has advocated for decolonizing (anything, but especially education) or criticized the ‘carceral state’ or used the language of Queer Theory or Franz Fanon just ask them, very directly: what do you want to happen here? What changes are you pushing for, exactly? It’s easy to sit back and be critical but that pose allows certain bad faith actors to be dishonest about their aims and their ideas.
Sometimes they’re even presidential candidates!
Thanks for reading! Please like, comment, subscribe, and SHARE.
The Democrats’ insistence that women have penises and men give birth is perhaps the most insane position any major political party has ever taken in US history. And how exactly do you remain a pro-woman candidate when you favor boys competing against girls in sports and women prisoners being forced to share intimate space with biological men convicted of rape? At some point, as Harris found out, you can’t. But can she and her party extricate themselves from this hole they keep digging ever deeper? I doubt it.
Good luck trying to get a trans activist to admit that they want to allow men in women’s prisons. It’s much easier to sit back and label opponents and complain about mental health outcomes, I suppose… but the problem is that THEY WANT TO ALLOW MEN INTO WOMEN’S PRISONS. Not only has this happened but it’s happened thousands of times in dozens of states and countries. When did we have the public debate about this? I can’t recall that period. Instead, activists put pressure on pliant bureaucracies (who were more concerned about image and paperwork than the safety of their marginalized women) and the changes were made. EVERY time this has been publicly debated and advertised (Scotland, the United Kingdom, etc.) that I’m aware of it has caused an uproar. Maybe that’s a indication that these policies shouldn’t be implemented in these democracies?
After the election the Democratic Party (my party) must rethink many of its policies as it ponders its future.
To have a chance at victory Democrats should try listening to the concerns of the working class for a change. As a lifelong moderate Democrat I share their distain for many of the insane positions advocated by my party.
Democrat politicians defy biology by believing that men can actually become women and belong in women’s sports, rest rooms, locker rooms and prisons and that children should be mutilated in pursuit of the impossible.
They believe borders should be open to millions of illegals which undermines workers’ wages and the affordability of housing when we can’t house our own citizens.
They discriminate against whites, Asians and men in a vain effort to counter past discrimination against others and undermine our economy by abandoning merit selection of students and employees.
Democratic mayors allow homelessness to destroy our beautiful cities because they won't say no to destructive behavior. No you can’t camp in this city. No you can’t shit in our streets No you can’t shoot up and leave your used needles everywhere. Many of our prosecutors will not take action against shoplifting unless a $1000 of goods are stolen leading to gangs destroying retail stores. They release criminals without bond to rob and murder again.
The average voter knows this is happening and outright reject our party. Enough.
Excellent extrapolation. Reality, common sense, and the so-called natural laws regarding the human condition will always be the foundations of reason.
You've explained why and examined and reposted others who have done so too; extremely well.
After the election the Democratic Party (my party) must rethink many of its policies as it ponders its future.
To have a chance at victory Democrats should try listening to the concerns of the working class for a change. As a lifelong moderate Democrat I share their distain for many of the insane positions advocated by my party.
Democrat politicians defy biology by believing that men can actually become women and belong in women’s sports, rest rooms, locker rooms and prisons and that children should be mutilated in pursuit of the impossible.
They believe borders should be open to millions of illegals which undermines workers’ wages and the affordability of housing when we can’t house our own citizens.
They discriminate against whites, Asians and men in a vain effort to counter past discrimination against others and undermine our economy by abandoning merit selection of students and employees.
Democratic mayors allow homelessness to destroy our beautiful cities because they won't say no to destructive behavior. No you can’t camp in this city. No you can’t shit in our streets No you can’t shoot up and leave your used needles everywhere. Many of our prosecutors will not take action against shoplifting unless a $1000 of goods are stolen leading to gangs destroying retail stores. They release criminals without bond to rob and murder again.
The average voter knows this is happening and outright reject our party. Enough.