The case of Marc Elias is not strange, though I can understand how it might be viewed as unproductive. The explanation lies in the difference between a moderate and a progressive, or between a pragmatist and an idealist.
The average elected Repub would rather the neediest starve & die than have able-bodied abuse of social programs. The …
The case of Marc Elias is not strange, though I can understand how it might be viewed as unproductive. The explanation lies in the difference between a moderate and a progressive, or between a pragmatist and an idealist.
The average elected Repub would rather the neediest starve & die than have able-bodied abuse of social programs. The average elected Dem allows that in order to reach the neediest, some of the less needy will abuse the benefit. The moderates will target spending & programs that minimize abuse and address a "good" portion of the hungry. A moderate understands that compromise is required, and helping some people is better than helping no one. A progressive knows that allowing anyone to starve is immoral, and no amount of spin/publicity/etc will change that basic fact.
So Elias is a progressive on voting rights. If we are all equal, then it should not be harder for some people to cast their vote than others. People already have their own hurdles to jump in order to cast their vote - disability, work schedule, childcare, don't have 8 hours to wait in line, etc. It is simply wrong for law & policies to make it harder for some to vote.
And the GOP's views are not simply an alternate view that attempts to weigh election security versus voting access. You yourself have said Dems are here to govern, Repubs are here to obstruct. And because they don't have opposing views on how to accomplish governance, they choose to rely on messaging, emotion, misdirection, gerrymandering and so much more that has nothing to do with solving a problem or accomplishing a goal that means something to citizens.
Democrats are far from perfect, but as a party, they try to accomplish things for the good of citizens. Repubs obstruct and look for ways to reward the richest. No messaging, lying, inciting is too low for them.
And so back to Elias, who does not want us to think there are "good" Repubs. If the party platform and the most viewed messaging represent all Republicans in office, then a good case can be made that there are, in fact, no "good" Republicans. And so instead of watching and wondering how bad the Repubs will get, how much lying they will stand, he is saying that we as a society need to write off the entire Repub party as anti-truth, anti-citizen, anti-worker, anti-little people, anti-letter of the law, anti-plan-for-the-future, etc. We need to "grow up" and move on with getting the real work done without expecting any help from Repubs in office.
I do feel regard for the traditional conservatives that no longer have a home or a way to influence our political world without getting in bed with the McCarthys and McConnells, or worse. I also feel for the "good" Republicans in office held hostage by the insanity river flowing all over this country & around DC. I enjoy reading you & the other Bulwark writers & hope you all stick around. Thank you!
The case of Marc Elias is not strange, though I can understand how it might be viewed as unproductive. The explanation lies in the difference between a moderate and a progressive, or between a pragmatist and an idealist.
The average elected Repub would rather the neediest starve & die than have able-bodied abuse of social programs. The average elected Dem allows that in order to reach the neediest, some of the less needy will abuse the benefit. The moderates will target spending & programs that minimize abuse and address a "good" portion of the hungry. A moderate understands that compromise is required, and helping some people is better than helping no one. A progressive knows that allowing anyone to starve is immoral, and no amount of spin/publicity/etc will change that basic fact.
So Elias is a progressive on voting rights. If we are all equal, then it should not be harder for some people to cast their vote than others. People already have their own hurdles to jump in order to cast their vote - disability, work schedule, childcare, don't have 8 hours to wait in line, etc. It is simply wrong for law & policies to make it harder for some to vote.
And the GOP's views are not simply an alternate view that attempts to weigh election security versus voting access. You yourself have said Dems are here to govern, Repubs are here to obstruct. And because they don't have opposing views on how to accomplish governance, they choose to rely on messaging, emotion, misdirection, gerrymandering and so much more that has nothing to do with solving a problem or accomplishing a goal that means something to citizens.
Democrats are far from perfect, but as a party, they try to accomplish things for the good of citizens. Repubs obstruct and look for ways to reward the richest. No messaging, lying, inciting is too low for them.
And so back to Elias, who does not want us to think there are "good" Repubs. If the party platform and the most viewed messaging represent all Republicans in office, then a good case can be made that there are, in fact, no "good" Republicans. And so instead of watching and wondering how bad the Repubs will get, how much lying they will stand, he is saying that we as a society need to write off the entire Repub party as anti-truth, anti-citizen, anti-worker, anti-little people, anti-letter of the law, anti-plan-for-the-future, etc. We need to "grow up" and move on with getting the real work done without expecting any help from Repubs in office.
I do feel regard for the traditional conservatives that no longer have a home or a way to influence our political world without getting in bed with the McCarthys and McConnells, or worse. I also feel for the "good" Republicans in office held hostage by the insanity river flowing all over this country & around DC. I enjoy reading you & the other Bulwark writers & hope you all stick around. Thank you!