The CRT propaganda blitz provides an interesting test of the theory that Dems harm themselves if/when individual members validate fabricated GOP attacks (e.g. ‘socialism’ or defund). Here the GOP plucked their bogeyman out of like an Andrew Sullivan blog post. https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1405171902629531650 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
Replying to @brianbeutler
??? They plucked it out of the 1619 Project. That's the inspiration for all these bills.
4 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @JamesSurowiecki
They cite it as a supposed example of CRT, but they picked the term itself out of anti-woke opinion writing and started intentionally applying it to everything they don’t like/think they can polarize the public around.
1 reply 3 retweets 52 likes -
Replying to @brianbeutler
Sure, that's how CRT became the catchphrase. But in the absence of the 1619 Project and, to a lesser extent, the popularity of people like Kendi and DiAngelo, none of this stuff would have taken off.
7 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @JamesSurowiecki
Ah, right, I forgot about Rep. Ibram X Kendi (D-MA) and Sen. Nikole Hannah-Jones (D-NY).
2 replies 1 retweet 18 likes -
Replying to @brianbeutler
I don't get the response. No one thinks Democrats are held responsible only for things actual Democratic politicians say.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @JamesSurowiecki
There is a line of argument that attacks like defund and socialism land harder because actual elected Democrats and Dem organs embraced them. I don’t think it’s a crazy argument, but there also isn’t much evidence for it. The CRT nonsense may (just may) undercut the theory.
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @brianbeutler
Maybe, although given that many Democratic politicians have in fact embraced the 1619 Project, and Republicans have seized on that to attack them, I'm not sure it really contradicts the theory. Just one example:https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/30/us/politics/mitch-mcconnell-1619-project.html …
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JamesSurowiecki @brianbeutler
Why did Republicans choose 1619 as something to attack, rather than embrace?
4 replies 0 retweets 27 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet @brianbeutler
Because they know race is a wedge issue for their base (and for many white swing voters), and because they know most white American voters like to think of the United States as a basically good country. And quite a few of the GOP politicians supporting these bills are racist.
2 replies 1 retweet 7 likes
1619 is a nationalist redemption narrative. There's nothing incompatible with it and seeing USA as (now) a basically good country. The big difference between it & earlier nationalist redemption narratives is that it places agency of redemption on black freedom struggle.
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet @brianbeutler
I don't think these people think of American history in terms of a redemption from some fallen state. They see it as a progressive realization of the ideals of the Declaration of Independence.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
I don't think these people have a meaningful conception of American history at all.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.