I’m new to Substack/Bulwark +/Triad... however you want to describe this incredible space. My question: if I wanted to tweet a link to, say, your article on Notes how would I even go about inviting the people who follow me on Twitter to make the switch?
Charlie - Here is a worthwhile piece from Lever News (yes, I’ve been seeing other sites on the side) about some of the most vocal Thomas defenders have financial ties to Harlan Crow. To use a fave Syksism: This is my shocked face.
Is this a merger of Bulwark Morning Shots with something called Notes? I joined Bulwark and pay for it happily because of the variety of daily offerings. As mentioned in another comment, today's Morning Shots is a few too few Shots, more like tippling sips. You can only spread yourself so thin, Charlie.
I consider myself a left of center Democrat, sort of a moderate Progressive. But I love the perspectives, discussions and dedication one can find at the Bulwark. Together we can get our country back on track.
I hate to say it but I'm probably not going to do it. I can just barely keep up with the Bulwark's fantastic daily output. This is just going to push me right over the cliff!
Thank you but no thank you, I have never done twitter and never had any desire to. I have paid for the Bulwark and have no intentions of paying for another platform just so I can read it and don't really think I should have to
You don't have to pay for Notes. It's part of the larger Substack platform where Bulwark+ and the Morning Shots is published. Accessing Notes is free, you just need to login with your Bulwark+ credentials which should be saved on your computer or however you accessed this Comment thread.
I enjoy your writing. You are the type of Republican that used to be abundant in my previous political party. Unfortunately, the right has lost their minds and their way. They have veered off the Lincoln highway and ended up in a scene from Deliverance.
Republicans of old bear no small blame for the current state of the GOP.
Reagan's embrace of the Christian Right incurred a debt to them, and the Christian Right began cashing in that debt in the mid-1980s when it tried putting Creationism into high school biology textbooks as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution. At the time, Republican politicians only had to STFU even if they believed one theory was science the other nothing remotely like science.
As time went on, silence was no longer sufficient. The Christian Right REQUIRED Republicans to join in the anti-science/anti-intellectual chorus. Eventually this produced Republican politicians who didn't just go along to get reelected, but ones who believed the Enlightenment was humanity's greatest mistake.
Today GOP politicians find themselves unable to win primary elections unless they stridently call for ever more severe abortion restriction, more guns with no restrictions, send all immigrants back where they came from (including anyone all of whose great-grandparents weren't born in the US), heap derision (at best) upon LGBTQ+, and, er, whitewash US history so school textbooks resemble those in use in the 1920s.
Was this foreseeable? Maybe, but many conservative intellectuals believed electoral victory was crucial to winning the Cold War, so coalition-building was necessary with those who weren't squishy about the Soviet Union, e.g., the Christian Right.
The problem may be that following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the conservative movement had no big themes other than lower taxes (without also cutting spending; can't piss off voters) and, following the 1992 presidential election, sanctimonious vilification of Bill Clinton. To be fair, Clinton was no Carter, and not even a Truman, but not as bad (OK, crass) as Jim Wright. Anyway, the leading conservatives of the 1980s and prior effectively surrendered the political right to Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh in the 1990s, and from them on the main ascendant philosophy on the Right has been ever more performative assholery. Sadly, assholery has developed a very deep fan base in the South and Midwest, though I grant that reaction to coastal condescension is another major reason for today's partisan divide.
I’m new to Substack/Bulwark +/Triad... however you want to describe this incredible space. My question: if I wanted to tweet a link to, say, your article on Notes how would I even go about inviting the people who follow me on Twitter to make the switch?
Charlie - Here is a worthwhile piece from Lever News (yes, I’ve been seeing other sites on the side) about some of the most vocal Thomas defenders have financial ties to Harlan Crow. To use a fave Syksism: This is my shocked face.
https://www.levernews.com/the-paid-pundits-defending-clarence-thomas-and-his-billionaire-benefactor/
Thank you for your invitation to join Substack Notes. My first post here is to suggest a link to a site I never thought I would recommend: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2023/05/what-ukraine-means. Weigel's long article blew my mind.
Is this a merger of Bulwark Morning Shots with something called Notes? I joined Bulwark and pay for it happily because of the variety of daily offerings. As mentioned in another comment, today's Morning Shots is a few too few Shots, more like tippling sips. You can only spread yourself so thin, Charlie.
Such a rational community not sure how this notes thing is going to go viral .. but on ;)
I consider myself a left of center Democrat, sort of a moderate Progressive. But I love the perspectives, discussions and dedication one can find at the Bulwark. Together we can get our country back on track.
I can’t find notes.
It's at the bottom of your screen second from left
What screen? This list of comments has nothing at the bottom on my iPhone 11.
I hate to say it but I'm probably not going to do it. I can just barely keep up with the Bulwark's fantastic daily output. This is just going to push me right over the cliff!
Do it!
Thank you but no thank you, I have never done twitter and never had any desire to. I have paid for the Bulwark and have no intentions of paying for another platform just so I can read it and don't really think I should have to
You don't have to pay for Notes. It's part of the larger Substack platform where Bulwark+ and the Morning Shots is published. Accessing Notes is free, you just need to login with your Bulwark+ credentials which should be saved on your computer or however you accessed this Comment thread.
I’m in.
Let’s learn how this thing works together. ✔️
Is this all of today's newsletter? Somehow, it's just not the same. :)
Morning Shots is in its regular place on the site.
"Noted," Charlie!
Done. Thanks!
Just because of your invite, Charlie, I came. Count me as one of your long time fans from Bulwark+
I enjoy your writing. You are the type of Republican that used to be abundant in my previous political party. Unfortunately, the right has lost their minds and their way. They have veered off the Lincoln highway and ended up in a scene from Deliverance.
Republicans of old bear no small blame for the current state of the GOP.
Reagan's embrace of the Christian Right incurred a debt to them, and the Christian Right began cashing in that debt in the mid-1980s when it tried putting Creationism into high school biology textbooks as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution. At the time, Republican politicians only had to STFU even if they believed one theory was science the other nothing remotely like science.
As time went on, silence was no longer sufficient. The Christian Right REQUIRED Republicans to join in the anti-science/anti-intellectual chorus. Eventually this produced Republican politicians who didn't just go along to get reelected, but ones who believed the Enlightenment was humanity's greatest mistake.
Today GOP politicians find themselves unable to win primary elections unless they stridently call for ever more severe abortion restriction, more guns with no restrictions, send all immigrants back where they came from (including anyone all of whose great-grandparents weren't born in the US), heap derision (at best) upon LGBTQ+, and, er, whitewash US history so school textbooks resemble those in use in the 1920s.
Was this foreseeable? Maybe, but many conservative intellectuals believed electoral victory was crucial to winning the Cold War, so coalition-building was necessary with those who weren't squishy about the Soviet Union, e.g., the Christian Right.
The problem may be that following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the conservative movement had no big themes other than lower taxes (without also cutting spending; can't piss off voters) and, following the 1992 presidential election, sanctimonious vilification of Bill Clinton. To be fair, Clinton was no Carter, and not even a Truman, but not as bad (OK, crass) as Jim Wright. Anyway, the leading conservatives of the 1980s and prior effectively surrendered the political right to Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh in the 1990s, and from them on the main ascendant philosophy on the Right has been ever more performative assholery. Sadly, assholery has developed a very deep fan base in the South and Midwest, though I grant that reaction to coastal condescension is another major reason for today's partisan divide.
Patrick P,
It’s the radical right and it’s wack agenda. (Apologies for continuing to repeat myself.)