Anand Giridharas, author of “Winners Take All,” was interviewed on the “Morning Joe Show” and delivered a stunning rebuke to the Republicans and oligarchs who are destroying our democracy.
Polls show that an overwhelming majority of Americans want background checks for gun buyers, a modest hurdle. Yet Republicans will not permit any limits on gun buyers, and some Republican-controlled states have eliminated any restrictions on gun purchases and affirm the “right” to carry a gun in public, open or concealed, without a permit.
Anand says this about children: in the view of Republicans, children enjoy the right to life only as long as they are in the womb. Once they are born, all protections are removed. Their “right to life” is less important than the right of others to carry guns. Nor do they have the right to healthcare or nutrition or anything else,
A brilliant peroration.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Right to “life”?
Right to death
Aft just-born breath
Is what they mean
By “life”, it seems
LikeLike
“Polls show that an overwhelming majority of Americans want background checks for gun buyers, a modest hurdle.”
I think it’s a little more complicated than that. When modest things like background checks have shown up on state referenda in purple states in recent history, they have not fared well. The Times did a story on this recently.
LikeLike
This is a lot more complicated than saying “When modest things like background checks have shown up on state referenda in purple states in recent history, they have not fared well.”
Look at how off those election results are.
Anyone really believe that in the most heavily Republican areas, there is nearly twice as much support for keeping tax increases and legalizing marijuana than having simple background checks to buy guns??
Anyone believe that in the most Trump-loving Maine countries, almost twice as many very conservative Trump supporting voters want to tax the rich to pay for public schools than want background checks for buying weapons?
This is about propaganda. And how successful the right wing has waged their propaganda campaigns.
By the way, the Republicans always pass legislation that is extremely unpopular and block legislation that is extremely popular because of their disproportionate power in the Senate
Progressives need to move en masse to Wyoming, Alaska, and the Dakotas — there are hundreds of thousands more NYC public school students than the ENTIRE POPULATION of those states. Those 4 states entire population — added together — is only about 1/3 of the population of NYC. (Not NY State, New York City). Three times as many NYC residents share 2 senators with the rest of the state.
While a group of folks that is 1/3 the size of the folks in NYC get 8 Senators to help them block good legislation.
LikeLike
I don’t understand your comment. My point was that support for background check laws polls extremely high, but referenda on such laws have done much worse than the polls would suggest. Nevada and Maine are two good examples.
Your point about the Senate is accurate but it doesn’t apply to state referenda.
LikeLike
I repeat:
Anyone really believe that in the most heavily Republican areas, there is nearly twice as much support for keeping tax increases and legalizing marijuana than having simple background checks to buy guns??
Anyone believe that in the most Trump-loving Maine countries, almost twice as many very conservative Trump supporting voters want to tax the rich to pay for public schools than want background checks for buying weapons?
This is about propaganda. And how successful the right wing has waged their propaganda campaigns.
If there was as much money spent in propaganda campaigns against legalizing marijuana or keeping tax increases, the voters would have rejected it as well.
And those propaganda campaigns aren’t just about paid advertising. They are that targeted social media/right wing news influencers that get people to believe what isn’t true. As the hearings about the insurrection have demonstrated.
If Trump told folks they should support background checks, and he had the right wing propaganda machine behind him, those voters would vote for background checks.
If Trump told folks he should be allowed to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue if he wanted, and he had the right wing propaganda machine behind him, those voters would vote that Trump should be allowed to shoot someone dead on Fifth Avenue.
“My point was that support for background check laws polls extremely high, but referenda on such laws have done much worse than the polls would suggest. ”
So you don’t want to discuss your point as to WHY that would be the case? And what we can do about it?
Should we just accept that voters will never accept background checks and give up?
What the media never does is discuss why. If so many Republican voters vote against background checks, as the NYT says they do, wouldn’t it be important to hear their reasons?
Because if they are spewing the same kind of nonsense justifying their reasons for opposing background checks as they spew when they explain that the election was stolen from Trump, and their concern with voter fraud, then maybe that is an important part of this discussion.
Or we can just give up? Is the fact that a majority of Germans believed that Jews needed to be rounded up to protect Germany the end of discussion? As long as you can point to their preferences, there is no reason to discuss why they have these preferences and how to combat the propaganda that taught them to believe a lie is the truth?
LikeLike
Why are you getting confrontational? You seem to assume that whenever Flerp comments he has a hidden agenda. Maybe I am naive, but the information he provided is interesting as well as essential. People vote their pocketbooks; that is a fact. Whenever someone’s wishlist gets turns into dollars and sense, support goes down. It is not defeatist to recognize this. It is important to understand. TE would start talking about cost/benefit ratios. We have to demonstrate very clearly that the benefits out weigh the costs.
Of course, we also know the role propaganda can play in how people think. It has throughout history. It is important that we recognize this fact as well, if we want to even attempt to change the narrative and how we propose to do that.
LikeLike
NYCPSP, I simply meant that I literally could not understand what you were trying to say. No need to get upset.
What’s the evidence that propaganda explains the gap between how background checks polled and how they fared in referenda? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but it’s not clear to me that you’re right.
LikeLike
nycpsp– I liked this article because it examined 4 specific state referenda on the same general proposed law [expansion of gun or ammo background checks], whose results were more or less identical to the Dem/Rep presidential vote in 2016, right down to the counties in each state– except “yes” on the referendum somewhat underperformed the Hillary vote. [The referenda were voted on mostly at the same time as Pres vote]. So the “yes” results were far lower than anticipated by issue polling. And the reporter eliminates one possible reason off the top: in the more conservative of the states (ME & NV), gun control groups far outspent the opposition, pre-election. Then they speculate all different reasons for why things turned out that way, examining features of issue polls and referenda on proposed laws– also noting referenda might turn out differently today.
It isn’t about giving up. It’s a different take that could add insight to a problem that has seemed intractable.
LikeLike
“nycpsp– I liked this article because it examined 4 specific state referenda on the same general proposed law”
This is as wrong as it gets. The word “specific” is the one I can’t get over. Let’s get specific. Were these referenda votes scheduled with other issues, or were they issue-specific elections that ALWAYS draw less and more committed voters. Why did you think most local tax levy elections are on off-years and held at strange times, and they are rarely scheduled in conjunction with general elections. Therefore they emphasize the interests of the most engaged constituency of an issues.
I find the posting of this article selecting four events without much context as convincing as I do the 2% of climate denying “scientists” who demand 50% of the time at professional conferences and public debate.
LikeLike
Here’s the graphic showing the gap between what polls suggest and votes on actual background-check referenda.
LikeLike
Thanks for linking to that article again, Flerp, I wanted to tuck it away. In some weird way it makes me feel less helpless – it at least makes some kind of sense out of this phenomenon.
LikeLike
About right to life- what would an honest survey of Catholic men show? What percentage, age 20-49, would give up their lives for a fetus’ chance at birth? What percent would willingly choose death knowing that it would leave the family fatherless?
LikeLike
Would have to be a heck of a fetus.
LikeLike
Flerp, I don’t have access to the NYTimes, but I am always suspicious of polls. So much depends on how things are worded. It is really easy to produce a survey that supports the authors views. Then, too, I would not be at all surprised to find out that actual support for anything that would require tax dollars would be far less popular when that caveat was added to the poll no matter what your political persuasion. I am no different than anyone else. I feel like I have been nickel and dimed for years. At the same time it annoys me that states who tout their low taxes also seem to be the ones who get more from the federal government while those of us in high tax states subsidize them.
LikeLike
This tirade didn’t have much to do with background checks for gun ownership although fees can be an issue. When did responsibility get written out of the equation. My rights should be predicated on my ability to handle them responsibly, and as we have seen, sometimes those rights have to be defined by laws to protect the rights of everyone else.
LikeLike
Thanks for bringing Giradharadas’ inspiring and incisive eloquence to our attention, Diane. I also got a lot out of what Scarborough had to say about filibuster and Senate – more nuance on that than I’m used to hearing. I stopped watching Morning Joe years ago cuz, agita/ hbp not helpful 1st thing in a.m. (or ever, anymore). Looks like it’s sometimes worth watching.
LikeLike
We don’t live in a democracy… indeed, such a “people’s governance” is nowhere to be found on H̲earth!…
.
plutocratsandplutocracy.blogspot.com/2011/01/american-plutocratic-revolution.html
LikeLike
Steve Bannon’s old lawyer is allegedly Trump’s new lawyer- M. Evan Corcoran- grad of Georgetown Law and Princeton.
LikeLike
I watched this a couple of times and still can’t figure out what’s so profound about it. He doesn’t say anything numerous commentators on this blog have been writing for years. I’m not sure why this person is considered relevant. Just another talking head in DC recycling ideas of others.
And he misses the point completely. It has been conventional wisdom since Richard Hofstadter populated in the 60s: roughly 40% of the voting population will vote one way, 40% the other, and the 20% in the middle decide the election. It is out of this that the fallacy that centrism is something of a virtue. Instead, an accurate reading of American history will demonstrate that nothing of lasting value has ever come from “the center” of American political spectrum. Part of the reason is because people assume some prescience goes with being called a political “centrist.”
But just what exactly is a centrist? How is defined? Who makes the definition? What is the centrist position between a women’s right to control her own body and one in which any decision-making is taken away from her. What is the centrist position between democratic-republicanism and fascism? Pick an issue. How does “centrism” make it more palatable to more people?
Political centrism, as it is poorly defined in American politics, is meaningless. Like single issue voting, it is just another form of political narcissism that further puts governing at peril.
LikeLike
“What is the centrist position between a women’s right to control her own body and one in which any decision-making is taken away from her.”
I don’t think this is that difficult unless one overthinks it. A “centrist” or “moderate” position would be one that sits between and rejects polar extremes. The polar extremes on abortion are, on the one hand, that abortion should be outlawed in all circumstances, and, on the other hand, that any restrictions on abortion are unacceptable. The centrist or moderate position would be that abortion should be legal but with some restrictions, perhaps earlier than 24 weeks.
On school choice, the polar extremes are, on the one hand, that public schools should be defunded and all money should follow students in the form of vouchers, and, on the other hand, that charter schools should be eliminated and all education funding should go to traditional public schools. The centrist or moderate position would be that it’s good to have some charter schools, but that model should not replace traditional public schools.
It’s not hard to find examples. I prefer the term “moderate” to “centrist” because “centrist” implies some kind of perfect middle position, whereas “moderate” is more elastic and defines itself by its rejection of extremes. I am a Democrat in NYC, and I find most local Dem politicians to be much further to the left than I am on many issues. But I am much further to the left than Curtis Sliwa. I am a moderate.
As a general matter, the Democratic Party is the only national party for moderates, because the national Republican party has become so extremist. But there can and should be a lot of debate within the Democratic Party about issues.
LikeLike
“As a general matter, the Democratic Party is the only national party for moderates, because the national Republican party has become so extremist. But there can and should be a lot of debate within the Democratic Party about issues.”
Yup.
LikeLike
Just one these two points: In terms of a woman’s right to choose, it is absolute, and preferably–and usually done–in consultation with medical professionals. You are either for that or against it if your center is that each individual human being, who in this case happen to be female, has the final say about what happens to his or her health. When you start putting caveats in, you necessarily deny women rights by inserting an arbitrary time that is determined by political means. Again, there is no centrist role here. The centrist argument being made is that any random male has the right to determine how certain females behave and those females do not. It is very easy to expand this logic into all other civil liberties as we see every day.
On the second point,”[t]he centrist or moderate position would be that it’s good to have some charter schools, but that model should not replace traditional public schools”, once again has be questioning if you’ve ever read a word of Diane’s books (to my knowledge, you’ve never answered that question, one I consider appropriate to ask on this blog, this is not “personal”). She clearly outlines why this type of thinking is a fallacy; theoretical not actual. Again, by picking out the less than 5-10% of schools that might do what you say they do, you ignore the 90-95% that pervert Al Shanker’s original idea of what charter schools should be. The centrist position on this in the real world is to get support for the 5-10% at the expense of expanding other schemes, putting more costly requirements on public schools without the corresponding funding or policy to get them done, and accepting more funding for failing schemes. You may not like that, but history is replete with these examples and none, that I can find, of yours.
As to the final point the speduktr answers with “Yup”, what you describe is what we already have and have had throughout our history. We are not a parliamentary system where governing factions do much of their negotiating in public debate. We are a single-member district representative government that has to work with an undemocratic Senate and two other branches of government (the military could easily be considered a de facto fourth branch). Under our system, parties sort out debate. In that process, the most extreme reactionaries have won the Republican Party outright. Much of the complaining about the ineffectiveness of the Democratic Party in this blog can be traced to a fundamental misunderstanding about the American system of governing. They complain about policy and how their party sold them out, but under our system, they bulk of their work must be to form factions within parties that then represent their opinions. Again, see today’s Republican Party for proof. If a “centrist” truly believes the Democratic Party is the “the only national party for moderates”, then that’s where they should work. Change the mechanisms of the party so that it better represents your views, don’t complain about what comes out of the back end as you sit in the bleachers. This very much supports Robert Rendo’s comments on another post. Engagement is needed. But if one understands the process dispassionately, it is as important to organize and focus that advocacy on a particular part of the process, not just with some random, a pox on all your houses attitude.
But as I made clear earlier, centrists and/or moderates, whatever ou want to call them, never, ever lead. They only complain, follow, and then act as they have some secret formula that will solve everyone’s problem, one that never seems to be articulated. What this country needs is some serious civic education about how the political and governmental processes work. But it’s easier to sit in the peanut gallery, preferably somewhere around the 50 yard line.
LikeLike
“They only complain, follow, and then act as they have some secret formula that will solve everyone’s problem,”
Thanks for your cogent analysis of my beliefs. Although I can’t imagine voting for a Republican ever again, I will also look askance at rigid thinkers on the other end of the political spectrum. Go ahead and fight for your positions, many of which I probably agree with. Where we differ probably has more with how to get there.
LikeLike
Greg, I’d say your framing of the question of abortion as an “absolute” choice between either being for or against a woman’s right to choose is an extremist framing. When you read polls showing that a large majority of Americans support abortion “in most or all cases,” those polls are not using your framing. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not support permitting abortions up to the moment of birth in cases where the health of the mother is not at stake. Do the overwhelming majority of Americans (indeed, people all over the world) therefore fall on the side of being “against a woman’s right to choose” because they support an “arbitrary time that is determined by political means”? Yes, if your framing is the one we’re using. (Note that under your framing, every news story that states that “most Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases” would be rephrased as “The overwhelming majority of Americans oppose a woman’s right to choose.”) But I don’t think your framing makes sense. I’ll stick with the common sense framing. Total support for abortions with no restrictions of any kind is an extreme position on abortion. A total ban on abortion is an extreme position on abortion. A moderate, mainstream position is that abortion should be permitted up to some period of time, and that certain exceptions to that rule should be permissible.
Of course you’re absolutely correct that centrists or moderates don’t “lead.” Moderates are a moderating force, a brake against extremism. I’m fine with that on most (not all) issues.
As to your question, I have answered that question before, but I’ll answer it again for you. I’ve read The Great School Wars, The Language Police, The Death and Life of the Great American School System, and National Standards in American Education (of which I have a hardcover copy in my office). I’ve read portions of several others.
LikeLike