This, imo. Even with no reparation scheme, even with no affirmative action even-- teaching that one half of poor people have long-standing legitimate grievances is bound to piss off the other half.
(Especially when the latest coalition is the white and uneducated.)
So much this. White privilege might be valid as a concept, but instead of talking about the problem, people now feel like they’re being attacked. Even proponents are now in defense mode.
I see so much of this in Canada right now. Rational Canadians are horrified about how the country has and is treating first Nations. Everyone knows that we need to both repair the past and fix the future. And they know that the problems are real and any change will be painful, but are prepared for that. But then the conversation tend to words like colonists and angry white settlers and now even the moderates feel attacked. The conversation just moved from what do we do, to why are you calling me a colonist, I was born here. Oh, you object to that, now you’re racist.
And now instead of activists being backed by the majority of Canadians, to activists and a huge number of moderates being labelled as fringe racists who don’t care. They very much care, it’s just that the conversation got redirected.
No, but race neutral policies that will help non-white citizens disproportionately are probably the kinds of policies that are most easily pursued. That’s how you get things done while staying under the white grievance radar.
Strongly disagree.
You do not grant credence to the large blocks of populist voters on both the left and the right. If someone is able to cobble those together, they will steamroll both fragments of the other party.
Thinking that can never happen is…well fantasy.
I think it would require an update to the state constitution, which I believe requires voter approval.
Raise your hand if, in 2015, you thought the idea of President Trump was ludicrous.
I lost $250 on this. I thought the sane faction of the GOP would crush the insane 35%. I was wrong. The whole party is the insane part.
The issue is that the GOP has a strong, “my leader, right or wrong” philosophy, as evidenced by the four years of crossing the lines of decency we endured. The Dems, not so much.
Yes, that is my understanding as well.
I do, however, grant credence to the idea that voter-approved tax increases are an uphill battle in the best of circumstances. Just getting local levies approved is tough and the benefits are felt very close to the pain point.
Convincing middle class & higher suburbanites that they should pay more for inner city & rural schools, and finding politicians, who rely on campaign contributions from rich donors to get elected, to propose them in the first place is a bigger battle than you appear to appreciate.
As Whiskey pointed out, in Washington (and probably a number of other states) the state constitution would need to be amended, which is no small feat.
I think the challenge is even harder than even this, because the proposal is to group funding to a state, or even federal level. It’s not incredibly hard (in fact we already do) tax wealthier residents to help fund poorer districts, but to remove the tax base of the wealthier towns’ schools and just group it with everything else would be fought tooth and nail.
I agree.
I’ve said this before but I’ll repeat: Between Nov 2016 and Jan 2017 I was mildly hopeful that the sane faction of the GOP in Congress would take actions to reassert the Legislative as a co-equal branch & limit Executive power to keep the crazy faction in check (limits that would carry forward beyond crazy orange man). Instead, whatever sane GOP faction that might have existed in 2016 bent the proverbial knee to the crazy side.
I completely agree. But these are not the best of circumstances. There is a lot of anger out there. More than I have ever scene in my lifetime. From the Jan. 6 assault to the Capitol Hill autonomous Zone, the atmosphere is red hot. At this point, the anger is splintered with groups on both left and right. They are violent, do not respect the current legal structure, and are large enough to overwhelm the authorities. Others are peaceful, but no less fed up with the status quo.
The “middle class” you reference is shrinking, financially vulnerable, and losing ground to the “elites”. Will they stay compliant? It’s not a sure bet. I say change is in the air.
Eh, when I said “the best circumstances” I meant “most favorable to getting voters to approve a tax increase”.
We are so polarized right now that any argument of “A should pay higher taxes to benefit B” seems destined to fail.
“A should pay higher taxes to benefit A” is already pretty tough.
Yet, “A should pay higher taxes to benefit ME” is a lot easier to promote. That is the traditional populist position. And if the two wings join, even partially, that will be more than enough votes to pass that agenda.
The big difference between the right and left wing populists is mostly cultural, it seems to me. That can be overcome if a common enemy is targeted. It’s a recurrent theme.
Bye, I appreciate the civil discourse. Thx
Just read an article about the various bills in state legislatures “banning CRT”. It got me thinking…
I get that the concern of those opposed to CRT is that they don’t want their kids feeling personally responsible for the ills of the past. I wonder, though: let’s say the kids do start feeling like that? Then what? Are there further bad results that come from those feelings?
What would be the worst case scenario here?
Reparations. Follow the money.
A couple things for parents to be concerned about.
One is that a lot of parents do not like to have their kids asking difficult questions about their family’s political beliefs. Especially is those questions don’t have good answers.
I have also read some of these approaches that basically ask kids who in their own lives might be prejudiced, and who might be teaching them prejudice. No parents like to imagine their kids are being asked at school: are your parents racists? While i support teaching kids about white privilege in an age appropriate way, I’m don’t think this is that way.
I think, too, sometimes these initiatives can give the impression classroom rigor will be reduced. As i recall, one draft of a california document on reducing white supremacy in mathematics education characterized demanding the right answer as supporting white supremacy. I can think of more generous ways to read this statement, and a later draft reads something closer to “emphasizing the right answer over understanding concepts”, but my initial reaction was that it was ridiculous.
Don’t get me wrong. I think these laws are ridiculous censorship, and i don’t even know how they will be enforced. And I think a some of it is that some racist parents don’t want their kids questioning their racism. But there is a reason why this is gaining traction.