They should have been messaging the border bad-faith GOP proposals all along. I don't think the Biden team understands their weakness on the border. Work to fix the border and show people that the GOP is not interested in a solution; you'll take away their most potent issue. You won't convert the MAGAs but the middle of the road voter will say "yeah, OK, makes sense-at least Biden says he is trying to get SOMETHING done". Just issue some executive orders that attempt to reign in the chaos. People want a stop to unfettered immigration: they also want to support those who come here in search of a better life and follow the law in doing so. Why is this so hard? I get it: an executive order may get shot down in the Supreme Court. FDR ran against the Supreme Court very successfully. It puts Biden on the offensive. Stop handing the cudgel to Trump.
The hatred of the MAGAs has clouded the Democrats' judgement: "anything that MAGA is for I must be against" is prevalent on the left, which risks being blind to what everyday voters are listing as their concerns. Two things can be true at the same time: MAGA is full of bad people with bad intentions, but that they can also be right and in step with the public on certain issues. Without immigration as a cudgel, Trump would have never gained traction in 2015.
This issue was up on NPR yesterday in a different context. Academic freedom. The professor who was researching the silencing of academics from others on the left for things such as suggesting there were two biological races was asked he was playing into the hands of right-wingers. He said that, of course, right wingers only want to believe facts when it suits them, but in this case, they aren't wrong. Data, research, and verifiable facts can and should be defended against dogma, whether left or right.
He suggested that it's also a huge blind spot for the left to be picking and choosing which facts they want to defend and which they choose not to believe. You are either for freedom of speech and ability to defend your position via data and debate, or you are working to silence dissent.
They should have been messaging the border bad-faith GOP proposals all along. I don't think the Biden team understands their weakness on the border. Work to fix the border and show people that the GOP is not interested in a solution; you'll take away their most potent issue. You won't convert the MAGAs but the middle of the road voter will say "yeah, OK, makes sense-at least Biden says he is trying to get SOMETHING done". Just issue some executive orders that attempt to reign in the chaos. People want a stop to unfettered immigration: they also want to support those who come here in search of a better life and follow the law in doing so. Why is this so hard? I get it: an executive order may get shot down in the Supreme Court. FDR ran against the Supreme Court very successfully. It puts Biden on the offensive. Stop handing the cudgel to Trump.
The hatred of the MAGAs has clouded the Democrats' judgement: "anything that MAGA is for I must be against" is prevalent on the left, which risks being blind to what everyday voters are listing as their concerns. Two things can be true at the same time: MAGA is full of bad people with bad intentions, but that they can also be right and in step with the public on certain issues. Without immigration as a cudgel, Trump would have never gained traction in 2015.
This issue was up on NPR yesterday in a different context. Academic freedom. The professor who was researching the silencing of academics from others on the left for things such as suggesting there were two biological races was asked he was playing into the hands of right-wingers. He said that, of course, right wingers only want to believe facts when it suits them, but in this case, they aren't wrong. Data, research, and verifiable facts can and should be defended against dogma, whether left or right.
He suggested that it's also a huge blind spot for the left to be picking and choosing which facts they want to defend and which they choose not to believe. You are either for freedom of speech and ability to defend your position via data and debate, or you are working to silence dissent.