I’ve been thinking a lot about this issue, stemming from this, @ezraklein’s NYT op-ed on the subject, and Bobby Jindal’s piece today in The Federalist.
I’m workshopping the thought, but there seems to be a sense of expected responsiveness placed upon Democrats (but not the GOP.)https://twitter.com/DavidMDrucker/status/1222489936974229509 …
-
Show this thread
-
The entire origin of the debate is the premise that Republicans have a moral obligation to vote Democratic; the contrary premise would never even be admitted to a debate. So the question is whether the obligation lies 100% on Republicans, or even a little on Democrats.
6 replies 3 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank @ezraklein
I link to an argument to the contrary in the following tweet.
1 reply 0 retweets 15 likes -
Where? So far as I can see, neither Jindal nor Ezra argues that Democratic voters has a moral obligation to vote Republican.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @baseballcrank @ezraklein
Jindal argues that Democrats should “normalize” towards his viewpoints to adequately fight Trump. That’s placing responsibility of being “normal” or “sane” on Democrats. The “all they had to do was be sane” meme is all dependent on a specific reading of that idea.
4 replies 0 retweets 21 likes -
So you concede my point: the debate is entirely about Democratic politicians appealing to Republican voters, and not at all about Republican politicians appealing to Democratic voters, which is presumed to be neither desirable nor possible.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank @ezraklein
Your point was that the origin of the debate was the premise Republicans have a “moral obligation” to vote Democratic, which is not the point I was trying to make. And why isn’t it desirable for Republican politicians to appeal to Democrats? That’s more akin to my thought.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Oh, Republican politicians have been concern-trolled about that for years, but the entire reason why we're having debates about "Never Trump" is the underlying premise that the Trump presidency constitutes a moral emergency requiring the suspension of normal partisanship.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank @ezraklein
As we’ve been discussing, the NT debate was partly about two things at the time: 1.) he wouldn’t win or 2.) if he won, bad things — unconservative things — would happen.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Those were 2 of the arguments. There were also arguments that he'd (1) do long-term political damage to the movement & party, (2) do long-term moral & structural damage to America, & (3) create national security risks due to his lack of seriousness/qualifications.
-
-
Replying to @baseballcrank @ezraklein
I’d argue those three arguments are part of argument #2.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.