Let me say at the outset that yes, Chuck Schumer is a terrible Senate Majority Leader. He sucks. He’s bad at 21st century politics. I would support his removal as Majority Leader. Charlie is 100% right that Chuck is not the person for the job.
After reading the bill I am convinced that all the complaints about it going further than Roe ar…
Let me say at the outset that yes, Chuck Schumer is a terrible Senate Majority Leader. He sucks. He’s bad at 21st century politics. I would support his removal as Majority Leader. Charlie is 100% right that Chuck is not the person for the job.
After reading the bill I am convinced that all the complaints about it going further than Roe are lies at worst and willful ignorance at best. The text of the bill has been posted in the Morning Shots comments and other places at The Bulwark so there should be no excuse for it. But it’s a way to hit the Democrats for being dummies and I guess that’s just too tempting to pass up.
But here’s the deal. Today is the twelfth of May in the Year of Our Lord two thousand and twenty-two. We are about 180 days out from the midterm elections. Primaries are underway. The Democrats in power and running their races right now are the Democrats we must work with to stave off the next GOP attack on our Democracy.
Will you agree with all of them? No.
Will you agree with some of them? Maybe not.
Will you think some of them are too “woke”? Probably.
Will you wish they were more like the Republicans you used to support? Sure.
None of that matters. Piss and moan about the Democrats all you want. But if you are serious about protecting Democracy right now is the time you must step up and put aside what you wish had happened and deal with what must happen. And what must happen is that the GOP has to lose and lose badly. This means Democrats must win more seats.
If that means voting for Mandela Barnes if he wins his primary, do it.
If that means voting for someone who supports social programs you don’t, do it.
If you don’t, well, the fall of American Democracy will be on you. The Democrats aren’t forcing you to support the fascist GOP or throwing your vote away on some third party. You are doing that. You are choosing that. You are deciding to let American Democracy die on your watch rather than supporting, if only for a short time, politicians that might say and do dumb stuff but can still be relied on to protect the system we’ve enjoyed for the last couple of hundred years.
Vent if you have to, but when you’re done venting vote against every GOP candidate you can.
I’m about 1/3 of the way through “This Will Not Pass.” It is an incredible and motivating reminder of what it was like, day in and day out, waking up in Trump’s America. I fear the acute dread has lessened for many Americans in the intervening months. We must not forget how truly terrible and terrifying it was.
For sure, the Biden administration has stumbled. Schumer has stumbled. The progressive caucus is troublesome. Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema are troublesome. But let’s not kid ourselves about what truly matters. Voters need to cast their minds back to the summer of 2020 when they turned on the evening news and wondered what the hell the president was up to.
exactly "the bill seeks to redress decades old provisions" you're damn straight those provisions were added by red anti-abortion states and have nothing to do with the health and well being of the patient.
I will not vote for any Republican. On that we agree.
But if a Democratic candidate is too far to the Left, I'll stay home. It's not about social programs, it's about what I see as an equal and opposite contempt for and danger to the Constitution. If the only choice you have to offer is between arsenic and cyanide, I reject the choice. American Democracy, at least what I value about American Democracy, dies either way.
No. Democrats danger to the Constitution comes in their not protecting it from the current slate of Republicans. It isn't arsenic and cyanide. It's arsenic and caster oil. Take the caster oil. It's easy enough to reject Dems later if you still have free and fair elections but stay home in a fluff and you won't have the option at all.
I understand what you are saying, but I have not seen a single Democratic candidate who even comes close to being analogous to Trump, Cawthorn, Cruz, Boebert, MTG, Gosar, etc. A whole bunch of people stayed home or voted third party because they thought Hillary "had it in the bag" and we got Trump. Remember, it took Biden a 7 million vote margin to achieve the exact same electoral College Result as Trump with a minus 3 million vote margin.
I respectfully disagree. I turned out for Hillary, and I thought that she would have been a good President. There are Democrats, though, for whom I won't turn out.
When I say "stay home", I really just mean "leave the line blank". In local elections, I've generally voted for the Democrat, if s/he was at all competent; I expect that I would again, unless the candidate had a history of campaigning to defund the police, or was running on a promise to rename the local Lincoln School after Che Guevara.
I have no idea what I'll do, or be able to do, in this year's election. I'm an expat with no legal residence in the US. My last state of residence will allow me to vote in presidential elections, but I'm not sure whether they will in state and local elections, nor whether it would be ethical for me to do so, since I neither live nor pay taxes there anymore. A dilemma I'll need to solve soon -- and probably TMI. 😂
So where are you living and do you feel safe there? I have friends who are actively searching for another country because they see this one as over and done. Sadly I do not have the resources so I have to sit and wait for the Mitch/Trump Sheriff to pull me out of my house and throw me in the ditch (elderly so expendable) when I can't pay my property tax because Mitch/Trump has taken away Medicare and Social Security on which most seniors depend.
Hi. Thanks for the question. 😁 Having paid Illinois property taxes that were higher in the end than my mortgage, I certainly sympathize!
I live in Brazil, and I love it. Like many expats here, I'm married to a Brazilian, I've spoken Portuguese my whole adult life, and I'm very comfortable in the culture. It's not for everybody, though.
For one thing, it's very far away. People in North America don't usually have a very good idea of how far and how big South America is. Flight time from New York to London is about seven hours. Flight time from Miami to Manaus, where I live and the closest major Brazilian city to the US, is about 5 1/2 hours when the direct flight is scheduled, but it's been canceled since the start of the pandemic. Flight times to Rio, São Paulo, or Brasília from Miami are 8 to 9 1/2 hours, plus US connections, and more connections once you get here. That's tough on people who want to go back to visit, or have family visit them, particularly the ones with grandchildren that they want to see frequently. By way of comparison, New York to Cancun in Mexico is 3 1/2 hours.
I feel safe here, but being vigilant and staying out of sketchy places is a must. Pickpocketing, snatch-and-grab, and burglaries are the main types of crime that expats here have to worry about. Unless their personal habits involve them with the drug trade; then all bets are off.
Brazil is a huge (a little larger than the 48 lower United States) monolingual Portuguese-speaking country, that makes little allowance for non-Portuguese speakers. Job#1 for anyone who retires here is to develop enough language proficiency to negotiate daily life ASAP.
There is a retirement visa, but it's not as generous as those of Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, the Dominican Republic, or some other Caribbean countries. From what I've read, those countries have much better infrastructure for retirees. Your friends might want to check them out in detail.
There's a saying, both in English and Portuguese, "Brazil isn't for beginners./ O Brasil não é para calouros." This is a country that people get passionate about. Old Brazil hands wouldn't live anywhere else. Some people visit once and they're hooked forever. But my advice to any non-Portuguese speaking retiree would always be try before you buy, and don't commit until you're sure that it's not just too much trouble compared to other very nice places.
Thank you for this excellent and most useful reply (and for taking my question seriously). My sister and BIL spend a month in Mexico each year and it terrifies me. Your advice is appreciated. (Coming from New Orleans, I have a fondness for the idea of Brazil at festival time.)
Warren, Bernie, Omar, and Tlaib do not even come close. (I do not know who Barnes is), We do not actually have any "far left" Dems in office. You have to go abroad to find any actual far left officials.
Congratulations: that's the first personal attack I've seen in Bulwark comments. Quite a distinction! I think you're looking for the WaPo comments, though.
Nothing excuses bad manners (which I submit includes personal attacks) but there are a lot of them around. However, I do not find it to be an "attack" to suggest or even accuse someone of lacking critical thinking skills. (Lack of critical thinking is a plague these days imho.) It is a critique, a criticism; poor manners perhaps in this setting but nonetheless not an attack. If I suggest it is thin skinned to take it as one, is that also an attack?
I think in this case it was intended to be a personal attack, especially given the response to being called out. I agree lack of critical thinking is a plague. However, it has become an all purpose personal. I have had Trump voters consider my nonacceptance of Trump's Big Lie as indicating a serious lack of critical thinking skills. This all-purpose insult, along with the all-purpose denigration of reading comprehension skills, is often the first step in the total pollution of a comment section. I have watch at least five forums progress in this way from reasonable civil public discourse to cesspool to finally shutdown.
A lot of us do not want to see the Bulwark comment section turn into the personal attack cesspool that characterizes so many comment sections. Several people have asked you to be respectful of others. Moderation here seems to be on the honor system. Don't ruin it. We ALL share the civil public discourse lane.
BTW - interestingly, CNN took a poll on the 1 year anniversary of Jan 6 this year, and only 44% of Democrats and Independents thought that democracy was under threat. So my question is this - if we can't convince a majority of Democrats, how in the world can we convince a majority of Independents and center-right Republicans?
It goes to how most voters aren't engaged, usually until post-Labor Day. And most voters don't pay for subscriptions to organizations like the Bulwark, or online newspapers like WAPO and the NYT, so none of our comments reach any of them. What should the Democratic Party and other like-minded organizations be doing to not only reach them, but to persuade them that Democracy is, indeed, on the ballot in November?
Most voters expect to live their lives without having to pay too much attention to politics. The whole reason to vote for representatives is to be represented, and not slog through ever multiplying memes and slogans to figure out what is fact and what is propaganda. Reading a magazine like the Economist used to be enough to be an informed citizen. Constant vigilance was not necessary.
I truly hope the Jan 6 public hearings bring home the fact that these midterms, unlike most midterms, may well be crucial to the continuance of Democracy. I am up to here with the bad faith insistence on the right that America is not a democracy but a Republic. True enough, but so is The People's Republic of China.
This should be the focus of the Jan 6 committee public hearings.
I think the poll numbers are where they are because you don't see it talked about much at all outside of us nerds. Once the Jan 6 public hearings begin it will have to get covered more and hopefully bring home how close we were to losing everything that day.
Until about five years ago, I ignored party affiliation when deciding who to vote for. I knew that the local elected officials often use their posts as stepping stones to state and then federal posts. I realized that my state and federal level vote was not enough. I had to do my best to figure out the party affiliation of local candidates running for nonpartisan posts and make sure I avoid voting for them. What we have seen is officials who seemed reasonable when elected have almost 100% supported the current iteration of the GOP.
Your point about all the complaints about the bill going further than Roe being lies or willful ignorance - it really highlights how bad democrats are at messaging. Lord I wish that would improve. If you have to "debate" it after-the-fact, then you did a poor job addressing it to begin with. I still remember when a majority of people were against Obama-care, while a majority were in favor of the ACA!
My one hope for the midterms is that Biden's approval numbers reflect people like me. I don't like a lot of things be has done, but you can be damn sure I am going to be voting against the Republican crazy authoritarians.
I was once asked how I thought Clinton was doing; I replied that he was "better than I had hoped, not as bad as I had feared." Biden is not as good as I expected and worse on domestic policy than anticipated; much, much weaker and seemingly half asleep at the wheel, along with every other elected Democrat. The problem is that Americans have lost any semblance of power or control over the federal, and most state, govt machines. Including voting. We are being swept back 200 years by elected monsters.
I’m listening to a guest on Nicolle Wallace’s podcast, “Dateline: White House” who predicts violence here, this November if Republicans feel disgruntled - as in, if they lose.
There is going to be violence here anyway.... more I mean than we already have under trumpests. There are two choices in righting a ship of state before it sinks to the bottom of the pit: ballots and bullets. And the Putin/Mitch/Donald triumvirate has made ballots pretty well meaningless, along with ruining the judicial branch. (Mitch has almost single-handedly taken down the federal govt; dishonesty be damned, it's all about power.) Putin would be gleeful right now if he hadn't screwed up so badly at home.
I have a mental scenario that illustrates this phenomenon for me: a powerful feudal lord is unhappy with the seasoning in his rich, savory beef stew, so he bellows “What is this? Remove this imperfect bowl and bring me some putrid slop!”
Well said. I would only add that wherever there is common ground, we must be willing to compromise a little for the greater good, or the fall of democracy will rest on our shoulders too- rest lighter, but rest as well. If we ask them to recognize the dangerous time we're living in, shouldn't we be willing to do the same? One thing the Bulwark has taught me is even when we don't agree, there is often some common ground, and there are some very good people on the other side too.
Perhaps. But it's actually a perfect example of Democratic "leadership" not only shooting itself in the foot, but screwing over the voters who depend on them to do their jobs. Once again, they've dropped the ball.
Excuse me? Where did you get the idea I'm advocating voting for them? I'm talking about some of their electorate who are persuadable to vote dem, because they don't like what's happening in the GOP.
Ok. I just happen to like Charlie and Tim Miller, and others, even though I disagree with them. I do think they are honorable people and I respect them and their efforts.
Agree about democracy being at stake. Also agree that the Bulwark folks tend to resort to both-sidism sometimes.
But that does not absolve the Dems from making it harder for potential fence sitters (both politicians and right leaning centrists) to actually take action. You could argue Collins, Murkowski etc should take one for the country as much as you could argue Dems should also look for reasonable compromises for exactly the same reason. The all-or-nothing attitude on most issues will make them look rigid and stubborn (even if that is only perception) and strategically dumb. It behooves them to be smart & also behave like grown ups.
Just hoping that people will back them because the alternate is the devil will not suffice. A smart a-hole will be more appealing than a well intentioned weak/inarticulate/stubborn person. That shouldn't be the case, but we don't live in that kind of an ideal world.
If a person votes for the GoP because of some Twittersphere crap from the D's or political incompetency like Schumer has displayed (which from a conservative supporting liberal perspective MIGHT actually be a good thing), then they will deserve the government they get.
The problem is that means a LOT of people (an actual majority of Americans) will get screwed. The Republic will likely end. I do not think I am being hyperbolic here.
In the end, despite what the D's do or do not do--despite how inept they might be at messaging--it is on the voters. As I have said elsewhere, most people have already decided--and that decision is based more upon identity than anything else. Any excuses provided by the media (who are largely suppling them) will be seized upon not to change the vote, but largely to justify the already intended vote.
Our media is such that even if there wasn't a substantive thing to critique, they would find something to critique--and that something would be enough (and would be blown out of proportion enough) to provide the necessary excuse.
But it is easier to blame the politician's and media than to look in the mirror and say, ya I helped kill the Republic--because I couldn't be bothered to think. Couldn't be bothered to get behind and past the narrative. Couldn't shake free of my identity long enough to do it.
I agree. As case in point that voters neglect their citizenship responsibility to stay informed, I heard on one of the many podcasts I subscribe to, that about 3 days after the leaked SCOTUS draft opinion, a majority of polled voters in one of the southern states (South Carolina maybe?) hadn’t heard about it. I can’t even envision the life in which that’s possible. No wait, I can, but it’s incomprehensible to me that such a closed off life (24/7 Fox News?) could constitute a majority. That makes me feel hopeless. What a paradox for our media-driven times.
Ignorance is the rule rather than the exception--even the people who think they are informed aren't well or reliably or accurately informed. A lot of them are just Twittersphere informed--which is often worse than being ignorant. At least with ignorance their is no illusion of knowledge.
Yep. A few years ago there was a study that found viewers of Fox News were less informed than people who consumed no news at all.
I think Americans have been poorly informed historically; what I suspect is different now is that they participate more, either by vocalizing online or voting. But I don’t know if that’s true. Something feels very different; ignorance is proudly on parade.
Read Haidt's article in The Atlantic on "Why the last 10 years of American life have been uniquely stupid" and Tom Nichol's "Death of Expertise." Both relevant and revelatory.
I think all of us here can vouch for the fact that ignorance is much easier than working to acquire knowledge. Basically we are up against cultural laziness. I can see that it’s an irresistible message for certain types that the easiest route is the superior route. That’s American Exceptionalism? It is now.
It isn't just cultural laziness--it is laziness on the level of the individual and it is essentially programmed in.
Anyone who has done some serious thinking knows:
1) It is hard work;
2) It is often uncomfortable (if you aren't discomforted by it, chances are you are not doing it right);
3) it is time consuming; and
4) it separates you from the mass of humanity if you get caught doing it too often or too seriously.
The evolutionary process frowns on excess energy consumption (yes, I am engaging in some personification here). If you look at nature. things are trying to be energy efficient--because that energy has to come from somewhere and usually requires even more expenditure to get.
Which is why predators tend to sleep and laze around a great deal.
So unless some specific energy expenditure provides an evolutionary advantage it usually is avoided.
Someone (I no longer remember who) once wrote we think in order to stop thinking. In other words, when we encounter something novel, we think in order to figure it out. Once we have figured it out, we no longer think about it--dealing with it has become routinized, There are any number of examples of this in daily human life.
It is far easier (and better for group dynamics/participation and social life) to let others tell you what to think than to think yourself. You can't know everything. You do not have time to think about everything--that gets shared/subcontracted out. HOPEFULLY it is shared/subcontracted out to someone who is trustworthy. This is one of the reasons why trust is a vital social commodity and why, if you want to destroy something, you destroy the trust people have for it.
THAT is an exceptional analysis. I’m going to save it. It explains a lot. And in confession, back when I was parenting young children in the 80s, I didn’t have energy left over for the quest for truth. But, it wasn’t as hard then, before the explosion of social media and alternative “news” organizations.
I’ve often thought about the possibility that a benevolent dictatorship is an interesting model for governing a large country, as opposed to our currently messy and often malevolent democracy, which is quite distressing.
I’m a huge fan of personal agency. But damn! It can be exhausting! Maybe the detail that’s exhausting is the contradiction between thinking we have agency when we really don’t?
Trust seems to be the fulcrum, as you say. I use that when I’m voting for obscure positions like judges, and I don’t know the individuals. In addition to reading about their qualifications in the voter pamphlet, I look to see who has endorsed them. Because, trust.
In the end, you simply HAVE to trust somebody or some organization. There is no way around it.
Agency is a difficult/troubling question. That is a rather sizeable onion to peel the layers off of.
People make many bad choices (ignoring the issue of agency for the moment)--and, seemingly, the more of them you get together, it seems often the worse the decision they make.
Bad decisions on the par to voters destroy democracies. Bad decisions on the part of dictators destroys dictatorships... there are simply a lot of bad decisions.
I am not sure that 1 system is REALLY any better than another, when they all tend to end up in the same place given time.
Democracy creates the (at a minimum) illusion of agency and participation, which makes people feel better and makes it more "moral."
Once in a while I spend some time on a topic, come to a determination, but if I did not take notes on my reasoning, months or years later if someone asks why I think a certain way, I might not remember. An advantage of commenting in hostile forums is that it forces me to do the homework and write out my reasoning in comments. THEIR acceptance or nonacceptance is incidental.
That is, indeed, a generous explanation. Not being as generous as you, I would say because their opinion/belief is most likely a "delivered" opinion/belief. It is what those they trust have told them--and so they never really thought about it ITFP and don't really understand their position.
This opinion is usually delivered to them with some basic justification/basis--that oftentimes is either a misrepresentation, a misunderstanding, or not particularly thoughtful in and of itself.
Let me say at the outset that yes, Chuck Schumer is a terrible Senate Majority Leader. He sucks. He’s bad at 21st century politics. I would support his removal as Majority Leader. Charlie is 100% right that Chuck is not the person for the job.
After reading the bill I am convinced that all the complaints about it going further than Roe are lies at worst and willful ignorance at best. The text of the bill has been posted in the Morning Shots comments and other places at The Bulwark so there should be no excuse for it. But it’s a way to hit the Democrats for being dummies and I guess that’s just too tempting to pass up.
But here’s the deal. Today is the twelfth of May in the Year of Our Lord two thousand and twenty-two. We are about 180 days out from the midterm elections. Primaries are underway. The Democrats in power and running their races right now are the Democrats we must work with to stave off the next GOP attack on our Democracy.
Will you agree with all of them? No.
Will you agree with some of them? Maybe not.
Will you think some of them are too “woke”? Probably.
Will you wish they were more like the Republicans you used to support? Sure.
None of that matters. Piss and moan about the Democrats all you want. But if you are serious about protecting Democracy right now is the time you must step up and put aside what you wish had happened and deal with what must happen. And what must happen is that the GOP has to lose and lose badly. This means Democrats must win more seats.
If that means voting for Mandela Barnes if he wins his primary, do it.
If that means voting for someone who supports social programs you don’t, do it.
If you don’t, well, the fall of American Democracy will be on you. The Democrats aren’t forcing you to support the fascist GOP or throwing your vote away on some third party. You are doing that. You are choosing that. You are deciding to let American Democracy die on your watch rather than supporting, if only for a short time, politicians that might say and do dumb stuff but can still be relied on to protect the system we’ve enjoyed for the last couple of hundred years.
Vent if you have to, but when you’re done venting vote against every GOP candidate you can.
I’m about 1/3 of the way through “This Will Not Pass.” It is an incredible and motivating reminder of what it was like, day in and day out, waking up in Trump’s America. I fear the acute dread has lessened for many Americans in the intervening months. We must not forget how truly terrible and terrifying it was.
For sure, the Biden administration has stumbled. Schumer has stumbled. The progressive caucus is troublesome. Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema are troublesome. But let’s not kid ourselves about what truly matters. Voters need to cast their minds back to the summer of 2020 when they turned on the evening news and wondered what the hell the president was up to.
exactly "the bill seeks to redress decades old provisions" you're damn straight those provisions were added by red anti-abortion states and have nothing to do with the health and well being of the patient.
No. Just no.
I will not vote for any Republican. On that we agree.
But if a Democratic candidate is too far to the Left, I'll stay home. It's not about social programs, it's about what I see as an equal and opposite contempt for and danger to the Constitution. If the only choice you have to offer is between arsenic and cyanide, I reject the choice. American Democracy, at least what I value about American Democracy, dies either way.
No. Democrats danger to the Constitution comes in their not protecting it from the current slate of Republicans. It isn't arsenic and cyanide. It's arsenic and caster oil. Take the caster oil. It's easy enough to reject Dems later if you still have free and fair elections but stay home in a fluff and you won't have the option at all.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the Left Wing of the Democratic Party, and be good allies on the subjects where we do see eye to eye.
I understand what you are saying, but I have not seen a single Democratic candidate who even comes close to being analogous to Trump, Cawthorn, Cruz, Boebert, MTG, Gosar, etc. A whole bunch of people stayed home or voted third party because they thought Hillary "had it in the bag" and we got Trump. Remember, it took Biden a 7 million vote margin to achieve the exact same electoral College Result as Trump with a minus 3 million vote margin.
I respectfully disagree. I turned out for Hillary, and I thought that she would have been a good President. There are Democrats, though, for whom I won't turn out.
Whatever. See above. Warren, Bernie, Barnes, Omar, Tlaib vs. Trump, DeSantis, Cawthorn, Boebert, MTG? A distinction without a difference.
So when did Warren Bernie Barnes Omar Tlaib work day and night to make sure you had no right to vote for your choice or have your vote be counted?
I respectfully disagree that the former are as bad as the latter.
Are you in danger of having any Democrats like the ones you mentioned above in your local elections?
Good question.
When I say "stay home", I really just mean "leave the line blank". In local elections, I've generally voted for the Democrat, if s/he was at all competent; I expect that I would again, unless the candidate had a history of campaigning to defund the police, or was running on a promise to rename the local Lincoln School after Che Guevara.
I have no idea what I'll do, or be able to do, in this year's election. I'm an expat with no legal residence in the US. My last state of residence will allow me to vote in presidential elections, but I'm not sure whether they will in state and local elections, nor whether it would be ethical for me to do so, since I neither live nor pay taxes there anymore. A dilemma I'll need to solve soon -- and probably TMI. 😂
So where are you living and do you feel safe there? I have friends who are actively searching for another country because they see this one as over and done. Sadly I do not have the resources so I have to sit and wait for the Mitch/Trump Sheriff to pull me out of my house and throw me in the ditch (elderly so expendable) when I can't pay my property tax because Mitch/Trump has taken away Medicare and Social Security on which most seniors depend.
Hi. Thanks for the question. 😁 Having paid Illinois property taxes that were higher in the end than my mortgage, I certainly sympathize!
I live in Brazil, and I love it. Like many expats here, I'm married to a Brazilian, I've spoken Portuguese my whole adult life, and I'm very comfortable in the culture. It's not for everybody, though.
For one thing, it's very far away. People in North America don't usually have a very good idea of how far and how big South America is. Flight time from New York to London is about seven hours. Flight time from Miami to Manaus, where I live and the closest major Brazilian city to the US, is about 5 1/2 hours when the direct flight is scheduled, but it's been canceled since the start of the pandemic. Flight times to Rio, São Paulo, or Brasília from Miami are 8 to 9 1/2 hours, plus US connections, and more connections once you get here. That's tough on people who want to go back to visit, or have family visit them, particularly the ones with grandchildren that they want to see frequently. By way of comparison, New York to Cancun in Mexico is 3 1/2 hours.
I feel safe here, but being vigilant and staying out of sketchy places is a must. Pickpocketing, snatch-and-grab, and burglaries are the main types of crime that expats here have to worry about. Unless their personal habits involve them with the drug trade; then all bets are off.
Brazil is a huge (a little larger than the 48 lower United States) monolingual Portuguese-speaking country, that makes little allowance for non-Portuguese speakers. Job#1 for anyone who retires here is to develop enough language proficiency to negotiate daily life ASAP.
There is a retirement visa, but it's not as generous as those of Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, the Dominican Republic, or some other Caribbean countries. From what I've read, those countries have much better infrastructure for retirees. Your friends might want to check them out in detail.
There's a saying, both in English and Portuguese, "Brazil isn't for beginners./ O Brasil não é para calouros." This is a country that people get passionate about. Old Brazil hands wouldn't live anywhere else. Some people visit once and they're hooked forever. But my advice to any non-Portuguese speaking retiree would always be try before you buy, and don't commit until you're sure that it's not just too much trouble compared to other very nice places.
Thank you for this excellent and most useful reply (and for taking my question seriously). My sister and BIL spend a month in Mexico each year and it terrifies me. Your advice is appreciated. (Coming from New Orleans, I have a fondness for the idea of Brazil at festival time.)
Warren, Bernie, Omar, and Tlaib do not even come close. (I do not know who Barnes is), We do not actually have any "far left" Dems in office. You have to go abroad to find any actual far left officials.
I think the Squad is pretty far left and I disagree with them but I don't find them an existential threat.
In America, sure, but not nearly far left considering the entire spectrum. I agree they are not the existential threat.
Congratulations: that's the first personal attack I've seen in Bulwark comments. Quite a distinction! I think you're looking for the WaPo comments, though.
And yet, his first three paragraphs are ACCURATE.
But that doesn't excuse the personal attack.
Nothing excuses bad manners (which I submit includes personal attacks) but there are a lot of them around. However, I do not find it to be an "attack" to suggest or even accuse someone of lacking critical thinking skills. (Lack of critical thinking is a plague these days imho.) It is a critique, a criticism; poor manners perhaps in this setting but nonetheless not an attack. If I suggest it is thin skinned to take it as one, is that also an attack?
I think in this case it was intended to be a personal attack, especially given the response to being called out. I agree lack of critical thinking is a plague. However, it has become an all purpose personal. I have had Trump voters consider my nonacceptance of Trump's Big Lie as indicating a serious lack of critical thinking skills. This all-purpose insult, along with the all-purpose denigration of reading comprehension skills, is often the first step in the total pollution of a comment section. I have watch at least five forums progress in this way from reasonable civil public discourse to cesspool to finally shutdown.
Yeah, he could have left out that ONE sentence.
Doubling down isn't helping your case.
A lot of us do not want to see the Bulwark comment section turn into the personal attack cesspool that characterizes so many comment sections. Several people have asked you to be respectful of others. Moderation here seems to be on the honor system. Don't ruin it. We ALL share the civil public discourse lane.
BTW - interestingly, CNN took a poll on the 1 year anniversary of Jan 6 this year, and only 44% of Democrats and Independents thought that democracy was under threat. So my question is this - if we can't convince a majority of Democrats, how in the world can we convince a majority of Independents and center-right Republicans?
It goes to how most voters aren't engaged, usually until post-Labor Day. And most voters don't pay for subscriptions to organizations like the Bulwark, or online newspapers like WAPO and the NYT, so none of our comments reach any of them. What should the Democratic Party and other like-minded organizations be doing to not only reach them, but to persuade them that Democracy is, indeed, on the ballot in November?
Most voters expect to live their lives without having to pay too much attention to politics. The whole reason to vote for representatives is to be represented, and not slog through ever multiplying memes and slogans to figure out what is fact and what is propaganda. Reading a magazine like the Economist used to be enough to be an informed citizen. Constant vigilance was not necessary.
I truly hope the Jan 6 public hearings bring home the fact that these midterms, unlike most midterms, may well be crucial to the continuance of Democracy. I am up to here with the bad faith insistence on the right that America is not a democracy but a Republic. True enough, but so is The People's Republic of China.
That's a really good point - it can be exhausting, not to mention demoralizing, anymore. I still have days when I have to opt out for a bit.
This should be the focus of the Jan 6 committee public hearings.
I think the poll numbers are where they are because you don't see it talked about much at all outside of us nerds. Once the Jan 6 public hearings begin it will have to get covered more and hopefully bring home how close we were to losing everything that day.
Until about five years ago, I ignored party affiliation when deciding who to vote for. I knew that the local elected officials often use their posts as stepping stones to state and then federal posts. I realized that my state and federal level vote was not enough. I had to do my best to figure out the party affiliation of local candidates running for nonpartisan posts and make sure I avoid voting for them. What we have seen is officials who seemed reasonable when elected have almost 100% supported the current iteration of the GOP.
Your point about all the complaints about the bill going further than Roe being lies or willful ignorance - it really highlights how bad democrats are at messaging. Lord I wish that would improve. If you have to "debate" it after-the-fact, then you did a poor job addressing it to begin with. I still remember when a majority of people were against Obama-care, while a majority were in favor of the ACA!
Lol, yeah that was something.
My one hope for the midterms is that Biden's approval numbers reflect people like me. I don't like a lot of things be has done, but you can be damn sure I am going to be voting against the Republican crazy authoritarians.
I was once asked how I thought Clinton was doing; I replied that he was "better than I had hoped, not as bad as I had feared." Biden is not as good as I expected and worse on domestic policy than anticipated; much, much weaker and seemingly half asleep at the wheel, along with every other elected Democrat. The problem is that Americans have lost any semblance of power or control over the federal, and most state, govt machines. Including voting. We are being swept back 200 years by elected monsters.
Anyone in doubt should just close their eyes and imagine what we'd be seeing now in Ukraine if Trump were president.
I’m listening to a guest on Nicolle Wallace’s podcast, “Dateline: White House” who predicts violence here, this November if Republicans feel disgruntled - as in, if they lose.
There is going to be violence here anyway.... more I mean than we already have under trumpests. There are two choices in righting a ship of state before it sinks to the bottom of the pit: ballots and bullets. And the Putin/Mitch/Donald triumvirate has made ballots pretty well meaningless, along with ruining the judicial branch. (Mitch has almost single-handedly taken down the federal govt; dishonesty be damned, it's all about power.) Putin would be gleeful right now if he hadn't screwed up so badly at home.
Ballots or Bullets. I hadn’t heard that phrase, but it feels spot on with our current situation. Scary times.
I have a mental scenario that illustrates this phenomenon for me: a powerful feudal lord is unhappy with the seasoning in his rich, savory beef stew, so he bellows “What is this? Remove this imperfect bowl and bring me some putrid slop!”
Well said. I would only add that wherever there is common ground, we must be willing to compromise a little for the greater good, or the fall of democracy will rest on our shoulders too- rest lighter, but rest as well. If we ask them to recognize the dangerous time we're living in, shouldn't we be willing to do the same? One thing the Bulwark has taught me is even when we don't agree, there is often some common ground, and there are some very good people on the other side too.
Politicians who refuse to compromise, like Schumer, are not doing their jobs. Democracy is all about compromise.
Perhaps. But it's actually a perfect example of Democratic "leadership" not only shooting itself in the foot, but screwing over the voters who depend on them to do their jobs. Once again, they've dropped the ball.
Well said, I agree.
Excuse me? Where did you get the idea I'm advocating voting for them? I'm talking about some of their electorate who are persuadable to vote dem, because they don't like what's happening in the GOP.
Ok. I just happen to like Charlie and Tim Miller, and others, even though I disagree with them. I do think they are honorable people and I respect them and their efforts.
Agree about democracy being at stake. Also agree that the Bulwark folks tend to resort to both-sidism sometimes.
But that does not absolve the Dems from making it harder for potential fence sitters (both politicians and right leaning centrists) to actually take action. You could argue Collins, Murkowski etc should take one for the country as much as you could argue Dems should also look for reasonable compromises for exactly the same reason. The all-or-nothing attitude on most issues will make them look rigid and stubborn (even if that is only perception) and strategically dumb. It behooves them to be smart & also behave like grown ups.
Just hoping that people will back them because the alternate is the devil will not suffice. A smart a-hole will be more appealing than a well intentioned weak/inarticulate/stubborn person. That shouldn't be the case, but we don't live in that kind of an ideal world.
If a person votes for the GoP because of some Twittersphere crap from the D's or political incompetency like Schumer has displayed (which from a conservative supporting liberal perspective MIGHT actually be a good thing), then they will deserve the government they get.
The problem is that means a LOT of people (an actual majority of Americans) will get screwed. The Republic will likely end. I do not think I am being hyperbolic here.
In the end, despite what the D's do or do not do--despite how inept they might be at messaging--it is on the voters. As I have said elsewhere, most people have already decided--and that decision is based more upon identity than anything else. Any excuses provided by the media (who are largely suppling them) will be seized upon not to change the vote, but largely to justify the already intended vote.
Our media is such that even if there wasn't a substantive thing to critique, they would find something to critique--and that something would be enough (and would be blown out of proportion enough) to provide the necessary excuse.
But it is easier to blame the politician's and media than to look in the mirror and say, ya I helped kill the Republic--because I couldn't be bothered to think. Couldn't be bothered to get behind and past the narrative. Couldn't shake free of my identity long enough to do it.
I agree. As case in point that voters neglect their citizenship responsibility to stay informed, I heard on one of the many podcasts I subscribe to, that about 3 days after the leaked SCOTUS draft opinion, a majority of polled voters in one of the southern states (South Carolina maybe?) hadn’t heard about it. I can’t even envision the life in which that’s possible. No wait, I can, but it’s incomprehensible to me that such a closed off life (24/7 Fox News?) could constitute a majority. That makes me feel hopeless. What a paradox for our media-driven times.
Ignorance is the rule rather than the exception--even the people who think they are informed aren't well or reliably or accurately informed. A lot of them are just Twittersphere informed--which is often worse than being ignorant. At least with ignorance their is no illusion of knowledge.
Yep. A few years ago there was a study that found viewers of Fox News were less informed than people who consumed no news at all.
I think Americans have been poorly informed historically; what I suspect is different now is that they participate more, either by vocalizing online or voting. But I don’t know if that’s true. Something feels very different; ignorance is proudly on parade.
Read Haidt's article in The Atlantic on "Why the last 10 years of American life have been uniquely stupid" and Tom Nichol's "Death of Expertise." Both relevant and revelatory.
Yes, I have read both of those!
I think all of us here can vouch for the fact that ignorance is much easier than working to acquire knowledge. Basically we are up against cultural laziness. I can see that it’s an irresistible message for certain types that the easiest route is the superior route. That’s American Exceptionalism? It is now.
It isn't just cultural laziness--it is laziness on the level of the individual and it is essentially programmed in.
Anyone who has done some serious thinking knows:
1) It is hard work;
2) It is often uncomfortable (if you aren't discomforted by it, chances are you are not doing it right);
3) it is time consuming; and
4) it separates you from the mass of humanity if you get caught doing it too often or too seriously.
The evolutionary process frowns on excess energy consumption (yes, I am engaging in some personification here). If you look at nature. things are trying to be energy efficient--because that energy has to come from somewhere and usually requires even more expenditure to get.
Which is why predators tend to sleep and laze around a great deal.
So unless some specific energy expenditure provides an evolutionary advantage it usually is avoided.
Someone (I no longer remember who) once wrote we think in order to stop thinking. In other words, when we encounter something novel, we think in order to figure it out. Once we have figured it out, we no longer think about it--dealing with it has become routinized, There are any number of examples of this in daily human life.
It is far easier (and better for group dynamics/participation and social life) to let others tell you what to think than to think yourself. You can't know everything. You do not have time to think about everything--that gets shared/subcontracted out. HOPEFULLY it is shared/subcontracted out to someone who is trustworthy. This is one of the reasons why trust is a vital social commodity and why, if you want to destroy something, you destroy the trust people have for it.
THAT is an exceptional analysis. I’m going to save it. It explains a lot. And in confession, back when I was parenting young children in the 80s, I didn’t have energy left over for the quest for truth. But, it wasn’t as hard then, before the explosion of social media and alternative “news” organizations.
I’ve often thought about the possibility that a benevolent dictatorship is an interesting model for governing a large country, as opposed to our currently messy and often malevolent democracy, which is quite distressing.
I’m a huge fan of personal agency. But damn! It can be exhausting! Maybe the detail that’s exhausting is the contradiction between thinking we have agency when we really don’t?
Trust seems to be the fulcrum, as you say. I use that when I’m voting for obscure positions like judges, and I don’t know the individuals. In addition to reading about their qualifications in the voter pamphlet, I look to see who has endorsed them. Because, trust.
In the end, you simply HAVE to trust somebody or some organization. There is no way around it.
Agency is a difficult/troubling question. That is a rather sizeable onion to peel the layers off of.
People make many bad choices (ignoring the issue of agency for the moment)--and, seemingly, the more of them you get together, it seems often the worse the decision they make.
Bad decisions on the par to voters destroy democracies. Bad decisions on the part of dictators destroys dictatorships... there are simply a lot of bad decisions.
I am not sure that 1 system is REALLY any better than another, when they all tend to end up in the same place given time.
Democracy creates the (at a minimum) illusion of agency and participation, which makes people feel better and makes it more "moral."
Problem is dictatorships tend not to be benevolent to many subjects. Like the current GOP attack on womanhood itself!
Once in a while I spend some time on a topic, come to a determination, but if I did not take notes on my reasoning, months or years later if someone asks why I think a certain way, I might not remember. An advantage of commenting in hostile forums is that it forces me to do the homework and write out my reasoning in comments. THEIR acceptance or nonacceptance is incidental.
That is, indeed, a generous explanation. Not being as generous as you, I would say because their opinion/belief is most likely a "delivered" opinion/belief. It is what those they trust have told them--and so they never really thought about it ITFP and don't really understand their position.
This opinion is usually delivered to them with some basic justification/basis--that oftentimes is either a misrepresentation, a misunderstanding, or not particularly thoughtful in and of itself.
My first exposure to Tom Nichols was his book, “The Death of Expertise”. The basic premise is what you just wrote.
Its a good read.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson does a Masterclass and the commercial for it is pretty good.
"One of the great challenges is to know enough about a subject to think you're right... but not enough about a subject to know you're wrong."
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing--worse than ignorance, provided that you understand that you are ignorant.
Exactly, and as stated in this article: “The most vital issues are precisely the ones where it’s important to compromise in order to win.”