Charlie. My man. I love ya. I almost always agree with you when you criticize the Democrats for bad messaging. But I have to push back on the issue of allowing non-citizens to vote in New York. A little tough love for my conservative friends, to paraphrase a certain someone. 😏
The thing I hate most about this issue is that you may w…
Charlie. My man. I love ya. I almost always agree with you when you criticize the Democrats for bad messaging. But I have to push back on the issue of allowing non-citizens to vote in New York. A little tough love for my conservative friends, to paraphrase a certain someone. 😏
The thing I hate most about this issue is that you may well be right about the messaging. Maybe it is too close to "DEMS WANT ILLEGALS TO VOTE FOR PRESIDENT!!!" to avoid having it warped by bad-faith partisans. But that would be a real shame.
Because we aren't talking about illegals. We're talking about legal residents - people with green cards, work permits, student visas, etc. These are people who typically reside here legally for a period of several years (say, for much of the term of a typical elected official), pay taxes, and when they leave may very well be replaced by someone similar to them with similar interests. And I know from listening to your Friday podcast that you're aware of this.
Also, (again, I know you're aware of this) we're talking about them voting in *local* elections. The ones most relevant to people's daily lives. Not federal, not even state elections. You claimed these positions are "indistinguishable". Yet I'm fairly confident most Americans fully understand the difference between state and local government. (Local government is the one they don't care about anymore, even though they know it exists.)
I know how easy it is to be cynical about the average American's capacity for nuance. But we're just plain giving up on it entirely if even folks like you don't want to give an issue the fair hearing it deserves.
A lot of people hear the term "non-citizens" and assume that it's a euphemism for "illegal immigrants" (which makes for a great argument against euphemistic language, but I digress). I even catch myself doing it. In fact, when I first heard about this issue in DC a couple of years ago, I was incredulous at first - until I realized they were talking about legal non-citizen residents and local elections. Then it suddenly seemed far more reasonable.
I think a lot of people would react the same way if those points were emphasized up front. The political ad practically writes itself - "Shouldn't immigrants who love America, follow the rules, and pay their taxes get to vote for dog catcher?"
But when your initial reaction to this is "WTF Democrats?!?" - even if you're reacting purely to the political messaging and timing rather than the substance of the policy - it will be natural for many to assume the worst possible interpretation. Why would reasonable ol' Charlie be getting so upset otherwise?
So please consider revisiting this with a more measured tone. We all know there are people who will distort this issue for political gain - don't inadvertently give them an assist.
Sometimes appears that "if it bleeds it leads" media attitude affects even the most well meaning sources. This issue could have been framed in a lot more positive way - explaining why the NYC policy is neither novel nor stupid - but still acknowledging Democrats will need to counter the inevitable false reporting by alt Right.
This is exactly right. NYC leaders should be making decisions based on what's best for their city, not whether Ted Cruz will post some disingenuous meme. Cuz guess what? HE'S GOING TO DO THAT ANYWAY.
Charlie. My man. I love ya. I almost always agree with you when you criticize the Democrats for bad messaging. But I have to push back on the issue of allowing non-citizens to vote in New York. A little tough love for my conservative friends, to paraphrase a certain someone. 😏
The thing I hate most about this issue is that you may well be right about the messaging. Maybe it is too close to "DEMS WANT ILLEGALS TO VOTE FOR PRESIDENT!!!" to avoid having it warped by bad-faith partisans. But that would be a real shame.
Because we aren't talking about illegals. We're talking about legal residents - people with green cards, work permits, student visas, etc. These are people who typically reside here legally for a period of several years (say, for much of the term of a typical elected official), pay taxes, and when they leave may very well be replaced by someone similar to them with similar interests. And I know from listening to your Friday podcast that you're aware of this.
Also, (again, I know you're aware of this) we're talking about them voting in *local* elections. The ones most relevant to people's daily lives. Not federal, not even state elections. You claimed these positions are "indistinguishable". Yet I'm fairly confident most Americans fully understand the difference between state and local government. (Local government is the one they don't care about anymore, even though they know it exists.)
I know how easy it is to be cynical about the average American's capacity for nuance. But we're just plain giving up on it entirely if even folks like you don't want to give an issue the fair hearing it deserves.
A lot of people hear the term "non-citizens" and assume that it's a euphemism for "illegal immigrants" (which makes for a great argument against euphemistic language, but I digress). I even catch myself doing it. In fact, when I first heard about this issue in DC a couple of years ago, I was incredulous at first - until I realized they were talking about legal non-citizen residents and local elections. Then it suddenly seemed far more reasonable.
I think a lot of people would react the same way if those points were emphasized up front. The political ad practically writes itself - "Shouldn't immigrants who love America, follow the rules, and pay their taxes get to vote for dog catcher?"
But when your initial reaction to this is "WTF Democrats?!?" - even if you're reacting purely to the political messaging and timing rather than the substance of the policy - it will be natural for many to assume the worst possible interpretation. Why would reasonable ol' Charlie be getting so upset otherwise?
So please consider revisiting this with a more measured tone. We all know there are people who will distort this issue for political gain - don't inadvertently give them an assist.
Sometimes appears that "if it bleeds it leads" media attitude affects even the most well meaning sources. This issue could have been framed in a lot more positive way - explaining why the NYC policy is neither novel nor stupid - but still acknowledging Democrats will need to counter the inevitable false reporting by alt Right.
This is exactly right. NYC leaders should be making decisions based on what's best for their city, not whether Ted Cruz will post some disingenuous meme. Cuz guess what? HE'S GOING TO DO THAT ANYWAY.