The changes I recommend here are not aimed at winning over the Religious Right. The vast majority of Roy Moore voters and Robert Jeffress acolytes will vote Republican. But...
-
Show this thread
-
The ideas I lay out in the article could result in both a revitalized, empowered and respected base of POC (who are overwhelmingly religious) and progressive people of faith, and a 5-10% swing among Catholics/evangelicals. That, my friends, is a national, governing coalition.
1 reply 2 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
My article in
@politico on Roy Moore is something of an application of my article in The Atlantic to the particular case of Alabama. The strategy would obviously be applied differently in different contexts. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/21/doug-jones-can-beat-roy-moore-but-theres-one-big-problem-215856 …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
That's the thread. I hope you'll read the article. I hope you'll buy my book both to better understand how we got to this point as a nation/party, as well as a healthier way of thinking about politics. Most of all, I hope you have a Happy Thanksgiving.http://bit.ly/ReclaimingHope
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @MichaelRWear @politico
I realize this is not necessarily your area of concern, but I always wonder: how do you communicate about this to the strong pro-choice voters and the queer voters + allies?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @csilverandgold @politico
I try to touch on that in the article. Three basic responses: 1) On abortion/religious freedom, if Doug Jones took up my recommendations he'd still be much more in alignment with progressive stances on those issues than Moore
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
2) He would still support the rest of the prog agenda (insomuch as he does now) 3) There's an argument to be made that taking a more "reasonable" (and I know that is contested) approach is more effective for advancing those interests
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MichaelRWear @politico
I'm sure that's not terribly satisfying, though. "I'm better than the other guy" type rhetoric is hard to swallow. Might work for Alabama/Jones, where ppl are used to compromising re: abortion, but what about NY progressives and Tom Perez?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
"We have to move away from your values to win"? Is that the bottom line we have to tell people?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @csilverandgold @politico
Isn't that the basic demand of pluralism/democracy? I mean, I've made this argument to evangelicals elsewhere, but I can add a fourth argument here 4) this is what it means to live together with people who disagree rather than simply wish them away
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
Hm. Maybe that's true. Doesn't exactly get the people fired up, but perhaps true. I think... people need assurances you won't move *backwards* on their issues, a la 1994 Crime Bill, "superpredators," et al.
-
-
"We won't move as fast as you want but we'll keep moving"---even when people are suffering and dying while you move slow---is still a better pitch than "Idk we might just do what your ideological opponents want bc we want their votes, and like forget y'all."
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
And I think... there's as much trust gap to make up between, say, male Dem pols and feminists, straight Dem pols and queer folks, as there is trust gap to make up between Dem pols and evangelicals. How do you say "we're doing this to win, but trust me, I'm still with you?"
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.