Cathy, If you were shot and killed after a traffic stop for a nonfunctional brake light, what would you want people to say? Would you think it appropriate that some white women become wary of police in general? Would it be too "progressive" for parents of every color to talk to their children about following police commands to avoid being shot? I agree the causes of such shootings are complex, but we can do better. Failure to follow every command cannot be automatically assessed as a more dangerous situation for officers and therefore warrant deadly force. If we decide as a society that we want it to be that way, we need to make it common knowledge. A person with your intelligence can make an excellent argument. Unfortunately, some will boil that argument down to a meme - 'don't wanna get shot? Don't do stupid shit.'
This is hands down the worst post I've ever read on this site. A man just clad himself in body armor in order to go murder a bunch of black people because he's a white supremacist. The author correctly notes Tucker has been pushing white supremacy through his huge reach on Fox News for years. Fine, that's literally what every news outlet is reporting on right now. As she well knows. Then she pivots to well, what about this old lady tweeting other stuff that should stir outrage. Also here are a couple of guys tweeting about some conspiracy where he's linked to Ukraine, which was already debunked and which like zero people are reporting on seriously, unlike the complete train wreck that Tucker is continuing to promote with his huge following. Bulwark, these are not the same. You're not being balanced reporting both. You just seem stupid. Also completely disgusting after this happened. We had Trump and his both sides crap. Why is the Bulwark pretending both sides are equally awful?
Ah. Yes I see. Well, perhaps technically I misused the Latin term, but maybe all personal attacks are counter productive.
I think Cathy Young is an excellent writer and not at all over her head. I dont always agree with her views, but thats exactly why I “pays good money” to read the Bulwark. It often expands my views and even more often helps me hone my own thoughts. Either way its invaluable to my personal growth. Plus its interesting, and the Thursday zooms are some of the best entertainment on any screen. I hope we see Cathy on a Zoom. Its easier to get a read on someone when you can see them.
I also enjoy the multi-partisan community they’re developing here. Just wish we werent all so white. I really would love to see an Asian American somewhere. Or Native American. I live in NM and let me tell you, their culture has much to add to the conversation.
Before Deb Haaland became our Sec of Interior, she was head of the Dem Party in my State. She is a woman who takes no guff! One time I disagreed w something and fired off a very “guffy” email. Holy cow!! Did she set me straight!! And everything she said was right on point. I wish we had a Deb Haaland on the Bulwark.
Please don’t lecture progressives for having bad manners, relative to the hate the Right is responsible for. It may not have been your intention to play whataboutism, but that is exactly what you did.
Cathy, you are a national treasure. Anytime it seems like there is too much noise or nonsense surrounding a particular topic, I am always relieved to see you take it on in an article. Nobody is immune from bias, but I can't think of another author I trust more to be as fair as possible. Keep on being you.
“There is a group of people in this country who are trying to replace native-born Americans with immigrants who agree with their political views.” Yeah, started in 1492.
There is so much "Us, good guy, police" vrs the scumbags that it is amazing that more citizens aren't killed. When we talk about a 10th of a second decision. We seem to forget that it is all that time before that moment that determine what your decision will be.
It was the left that first started, "people of color are going to replace all you white people" usually followed with a "Niener, niener, niener"
Which I always thought was funny. The cluelessness of the idea that all immigrants were going to automatically vote liberal. Or even that there was a shared identity called "people of color"
About the both-sidesism: Outrage-porn takes on Twitter should not be used to represent progressivism. Not even the one from the blue-check-mark man who ran for congress and lost. He's not a party builder or policymaker. He's a professional troll, and I wish Cathy Young wouldn't feed him. I give her credit for acknowledging that these tweeters don't have the stature of members of Congress and prominent talk-show hosts.
Democrat here - Cathy and Charlie and the others are why I read the Bulwark. At first, I was annoyed that the article didn't stay on the topic of racial killings. However, she introduced me to other "sides" that were thoughtful and brought a broader understanding to me of the several issues involved. Unless Democrats AND Republicans can begin to see each other's broader takes on the political issues of today, we will end up with blood being spilled by people who are human beings just trying to live our lives as well as we can, having been brought to our political beliefs by family or other means. My initial take of annoyance was wrong and I'm so glad I read the rest of the article more thoroughly. Thank you, Cathy. I may get my back up at first glance, but I'm trying to understand Conservatives' beliefs. How will we ever get along together otherwise?
The idea that the two things were worthy of equal space is one of the many problems with this site. She lays out the facts and what people like Tucker with a huge reach are doing to push white supremacy. Then she lays out what a couple of people are tweeting, none of which has any real reach like Tucker has, nor which no one on the left agrees with generally. Can we have more whataboutism? Why laud this for "introducing you to both sides"? I mean, there was literally a President who did both sides. It's not a good luck here, nor was after Charlottesville.
Hi, Sue - I am puzzled about how to comment. Lately, before I die, I am trying to be a Christian in reality, which means loving everyone, despite their point of view. I'm 75, so I guess there's not much time and I've spent a lot of years in pain during the Trump years and my other three siblings are all strong Republicans. I read the Bulwark because it often presents a different way of thinking - not that I always agree. I can't die hating people. I just won't do it.
If you got something from reading it, then it probably means you're more naturally generous than I am. I don't feel I've been exposed to any great new perspective by reading that edition of Morning Shots.
First, the jumping off point for the aside about policing was a tweet from some unknown woman - why exactly is that worthy of a page on policing? Yes, progressives can jump to conclusions due to bias, as human beings do. But I question the sensitivity of the writer for bringing that up right after a racially motivated mass murder. There's a time and a place for everything - and one tweet by "Old Woman Seeking Justice" doesn't make it a good time to talk about it.
Second, did we really need a whole section on a story that has been debunked on links to Ukraine? Why do I need to read tabloid stories here? BTW, the reference to Azov? It's been the right, not the left, that has been talking about that for months now as a reason not support the Ukrainians - see Matt Gaetz. But because this one time, it's a leftist pushing similar stories, it gets repeated here. We should be trying to cut traffic to the twitter feeds of people that just want to sow dissent. They want these stories to be heard and they need to the clicks on their sites.
I don't think either of these stories helped me at all. All it did was make me disappointed.
You are very astute and more thoughtful than I am. And certainly more capable of writing coherently about it. I agree with much of your criticism. However, I am still here on a conservative site to gain some understanding of the viewpoint, not necessarily agreeing with it.
I actually very much enjoy reading their critiques of the Democratic party - as an example, I think Tim Miller's piece on how much Schumer is failing on the abortion issue out of the gate was fair. Their critiques on the D's failure to pass meaningful laws to protect fair and free elections. Even their critiques of the term "defund the police". Because even when I don't agree with them, I can see their point of view. Even parts of this particular post have merit if it were a standalone post and not right after a brutal racially motivated mass murder. But even as a standalone post, you'd have to balance it out by noting the same kind of foolishness on the right - like claiming all BLM rallies are riots - or denying that the police ever murder people.
Once again, well said. I agree with you on the critiques of the Democratic party - we have to become better at legislating. I wonder if the age of the Congressional leaders is sabotaging us in some way?
Re.: "Replacement Theory", it's no small irony that descendants of white Europeans who "replaced" Native Americans as they pursued conquest of their native lands don't see the hypocrisy here. Not to mention that those same ancestors forcibly imported as slaves a population they now see as a threat to their imagined supremacy.
Not to mention the disconnect in the simultaneous banning of abortion, which is guaranteed to make their “replacement theory” more of a reality. But, I think they are misogynistic in equal measure to their racism. Maybe more so.
My father was a policeman all his professional life. He was a policeman when I was born in 1948. He remained a policeman until his death from a heart attack in 1974. When I began driving he told me something I have carried with me all my life. He said "Cops are just people. They can have bad days. If you get stopped put your hands on the wheel. Be respectful. Do not argue. Do what the officer says". In my twenties I was stopped more than I care to admit. I had a heavy foot. But I followed my father's advice and it was invaluable. Not all cops are bad. Not all cops are good. But they are human.
...and Rita, if I may ask... are you White? Because, yes, that matters. A black man with a heavy foot can end up dead because Police often are more afraid of a black man, than they are of a young white girl behind the wheel of a speeding car. Sad yet true.
I am White but what my father told me holds true for everyone. Police officers come in all colors as well. Our police chief is Black. He would agree with being respectful and non-confrontational during a traffic stop. And to reiterate - there are good cops and there are bad cops. When my son started driving we stressed this to him. If he had been a young man of color, we would have been even more emphatic as my friends were with their sons.
Oh yes!! I apologize for not being clear. I agree with your point of being respectful and following all reasonable orders from an armed policeman, and not being confrontational.
Its just that too often if you’re not white being obedient and deferential isnt always enough.
The points we each made are both true and not mutually exclusive.
Amen. I also thought it was interesting my father took time to emphasize to me, his white daughter, that cops could have a bad day and I could pay for it.
Immigration and large demographic changes, differences in birth rates are issues faces by countries of all types, UK, Germany, Sweden, US in the past, even Russia. Definitely no easy answers. It is enormously frustrating to hear people complain endlessly about inflation and lack of workers at the same time they push anti-immigration policies (legal especially). Instead of letting people prove their worth, it is preferred to spend gobs of money to house people in an institution where they are unable to contribute to the economy. Granted some are probably bad people but i assume most are coming for similar reasons to my forebears.
I have an outside-the-box solution for our southern border: build a small, self-contained city that straddles the border, in cooperation with Mexico, that has housing, health care, schools, and some light industry. People can stay there as long as they follow special laws created for that space, while they await the hearings on their immigration cases. Maybe they’ll never want to leave!
"...it appears that approximately 17 percent of Americans harbor strong 'replacement theory' fears." That may seem alarming on its face, but it's nothing new. The nutcase portion of the population has been around 20% for as long as I can remember, which goes back to the 1950's when Dwight Eisenhower was labeled "a conscious agent of the communist conspiracy" by the same John Birch Society that seems to be popping up again these days. 56% of Republicans are reported to believe all or part of the Q-anon stuff, 75% the Big Lie; that may be scary, but it represents 15% and 20% of the population, respectively. What we need is maximum sunlight to keep this minority from ruining the U.S.A. For instance, send The Bulwark to everyone in the country. (As I wrote that last sentence, my 12th grade English teacher, Mrs. Tannenbaum, popped into my head, saying "you can lead a whore to culture but you can't make her drink." True as ever.)
What I find curious is how little white people respect themselves. If they believe they cannot keep their jobs or find a mate, they must think they are not as good as the immigrants they are so desperate to keep out. If they believe they are so easily replaced, then I suppose they dont think theyre good enough to compete w PoC? I tend to agree with them.
When it was the first woman this and the first woman that, men felt threatened that maybe they could not compete. If university degrees are any guide, it might be true. In the 2018-19 academic year about 74 men received a bachelor's degree for every 100 women. Even fewer men graduate with an associate or master's degree, relative to women. Now a woman being hired or appointed is so common as to be not newsworthy. Possibly the same dynamic with first PoC this and first PoC that. The resistance to a functional equal opportunity society suggests anxiety about ability to compete, and provides evidence of the persistence of systemic racism that the right insists went away with the passage of the Civil Right Act sixty years ago.
>Racial bias in policing is real, is due to a number of factors, and is an enormously complicated subject (one that I tried to explore in a long Bulwark article a year ago). But it does not manifest itself in cops coddling white mass shooters while callously gunning down unarmed black people—if only because you could easily find examples of the reverse.
Actually, it does. Have you forgotten that after Charleston cops arrested Dylann Roof, they took him out for Burger King before taking him to jail?
And the two posts you cited from the Left as being off-base, from Old Woman Seeking Justice and Quasim Rashid, were exactly right. I too thought yesterday of the contrast between Buffalo police knocking down 75-year-old BLM protester Martin Gugino and calmly walking past him, and their response yesterday.
This is the second week in a row that you have shown an amazing obtuseness. Last week, you wondered why anyone should foresee a general attack on unenumerated privacy rights in the Constitution on the basis of the Alito draft, and today, you deny that white cops coddle white shooters, which is simply astonishing.
As I observed last week, it is beginning to look more and more like Mr. Sykes has made a very bad mistake in assigning the Sunday morning newsletter to you. I have read the Bulwark for 3 years now but an seriously wondering if I will continue my subscription.
I'm a new subscriber who has already cancelled once because of things I've read here that deeply offend me. Cathy Young became rather uncomfortable after my comment, but when I wrote it I was furious at the smug racism I encountered in her newsletter. I'm very close to cancelling a second and final time.
There are some critical issues treated here that elicit strong feelings across the board. On behalf of the Bulwark, I want to say that I believe the publisher and writers are attempting to make a good faith effort to address their topics in a way that is at least explicable to everyone from Never-Trump conservatives, of which I am one, to Democrats who may not agree with them on everything but can find some merit in their positions. I have pointedly questioned several of the writers on individual issues and am exasperated by what Cathy Young has done the past two Sundays, but I really believe, again, that they are making a good faith effort. Everyone has to decide for himself or herself if that effort is sufficient. I myself may or may not continue reading, but I have found a lot of value here over the past 3 years or so.
I agree. The Bulwark is making a Noble Effort to keep the monsters from overtaking our Government, and another Nobel Effort to open an effective forum for Americans of all political POVs to attempt to find solutions, and to try (in spite of our disagreements) to actually communicate with restraint and civility, as we wade through the muck raining down on us all, politically, environmentally, and medically. The world has never been here before... and if we are to survive at all, we only have each other to rely on. But oh yeah... it's a mess and I sometimes am enraged by what I read here. But only sometimes. And on balance, this is a really great community!
It’s the devotion to “both-sides” that’s starting to rankle me on the Bulwark. I’m noticing it more now that a Democrat is in the White House. The conservative former judge Michael Luttig was on Nicolle Wallace’s podcast, and he says this November’s election is make-or-break for our democracy. He doesn’t engage in “both-sides” at all, because he completely understands we are in the fight of our lives, with regard to our country, and there’s no time to waste with pretending the two sides are both guilty as we march towards the guillotine.
I'm right there with you, G.G. It's almost unconscious with them I think. They've spent decades trying to destroy the Left, and it led to tRump, and now they're embarrassed, but old habits are hard to break. I also think it's possible they are so sick of the violent anti-Americanism that has grown out of their own party that they're flailing about searching for a distraction, so pile on the Dems for not being "better". It's bizarre to me.
I hope more people scroll down this far to read this. Thanks, Michael Huggins. Awesomely researched and stated. 👍🏽 (except for the insults... I really hope we can all find more articulate ways to disagree without ad hominem.)
Thank you. My understanding of ad hominem is when personal comment is *substituted* for argument. I don't believe that's what I'm doing here. I have actually read Ms. Young's columns on and off for a couple of years, linked to them, and quoted them. But her performance last Sunday and today are simply shocking, to me, in their obtuseness. It is beginning to look as if she is simply in over her head. Anyway, thanks for commenting.
Cathy, If you were shot and killed after a traffic stop for a nonfunctional brake light, what would you want people to say? Would you think it appropriate that some white women become wary of police in general? Would it be too "progressive" for parents of every color to talk to their children about following police commands to avoid being shot? I agree the causes of such shootings are complex, but we can do better. Failure to follow every command cannot be automatically assessed as a more dangerous situation for officers and therefore warrant deadly force. If we decide as a society that we want it to be that way, we need to make it common knowledge. A person with your intelligence can make an excellent argument. Unfortunately, some will boil that argument down to a meme - 'don't wanna get shot? Don't do stupid shit.'
This is hands down the worst post I've ever read on this site. A man just clad himself in body armor in order to go murder a bunch of black people because he's a white supremacist. The author correctly notes Tucker has been pushing white supremacy through his huge reach on Fox News for years. Fine, that's literally what every news outlet is reporting on right now. As she well knows. Then she pivots to well, what about this old lady tweeting other stuff that should stir outrage. Also here are a couple of guys tweeting about some conspiracy where he's linked to Ukraine, which was already debunked and which like zero people are reporting on seriously, unlike the complete train wreck that Tucker is continuing to promote with his huge following. Bulwark, these are not the same. You're not being balanced reporting both. You just seem stupid. Also completely disgusting after this happened. We had Trump and his both sides crap. Why is the Bulwark pretending both sides are equally awful?
Ah. Yes I see. Well, perhaps technically I misused the Latin term, but maybe all personal attacks are counter productive.
I think Cathy Young is an excellent writer and not at all over her head. I dont always agree with her views, but thats exactly why I “pays good money” to read the Bulwark. It often expands my views and even more often helps me hone my own thoughts. Either way its invaluable to my personal growth. Plus its interesting, and the Thursday zooms are some of the best entertainment on any screen. I hope we see Cathy on a Zoom. Its easier to get a read on someone when you can see them.
I also enjoy the multi-partisan community they’re developing here. Just wish we werent all so white. I really would love to see an Asian American somewhere. Or Native American. I live in NM and let me tell you, their culture has much to add to the conversation.
Before Deb Haaland became our Sec of Interior, she was head of the Dem Party in my State. She is a woman who takes no guff! One time I disagreed w something and fired off a very “guffy” email. Holy cow!! Did she set me straight!! And everything she said was right on point. I wish we had a Deb Haaland on the Bulwark.
Anyway apologies for veering off-topic. Peace.
A very high point in your favor is your ability to be set straight.
Pakistani American here, what do I count as? ;)
Please don’t lecture progressives for having bad manners, relative to the hate the Right is responsible for. It may not have been your intention to play whataboutism, but that is exactly what you did.
Cathy, you are a national treasure. Anytime it seems like there is too much noise or nonsense surrounding a particular topic, I am always relieved to see you take it on in an article. Nobody is immune from bias, but I can't think of another author I trust more to be as fair as possible. Keep on being you.
“There is a group of people in this country who are trying to replace native-born Americans with immigrants who agree with their political views.” Yeah, started in 1492.
There is so much "Us, good guy, police" vrs the scumbags that it is amazing that more citizens aren't killed. When we talk about a 10th of a second decision. We seem to forget that it is all that time before that moment that determine what your decision will be.
It was the left that first started, "people of color are going to replace all you white people" usually followed with a "Niener, niener, niener"
Which I always thought was funny. The cluelessness of the idea that all immigrants were going to automatically vote liberal. Or even that there was a shared identity called "people of color"
About the both-sidesism: Outrage-porn takes on Twitter should not be used to represent progressivism. Not even the one from the blue-check-mark man who ran for congress and lost. He's not a party builder or policymaker. He's a professional troll, and I wish Cathy Young wouldn't feed him. I give her credit for acknowledging that these tweeters don't have the stature of members of Congress and prominent talk-show hosts.
Democrat here - Cathy and Charlie and the others are why I read the Bulwark. At first, I was annoyed that the article didn't stay on the topic of racial killings. However, she introduced me to other "sides" that were thoughtful and brought a broader understanding to me of the several issues involved. Unless Democrats AND Republicans can begin to see each other's broader takes on the political issues of today, we will end up with blood being spilled by people who are human beings just trying to live our lives as well as we can, having been brought to our political beliefs by family or other means. My initial take of annoyance was wrong and I'm so glad I read the rest of the article more thoroughly. Thank you, Cathy. I may get my back up at first glance, but I'm trying to understand Conservatives' beliefs. How will we ever get along together otherwise?
The idea that the two things were worthy of equal space is one of the many problems with this site. She lays out the facts and what people like Tucker with a huge reach are doing to push white supremacy. Then she lays out what a couple of people are tweeting, none of which has any real reach like Tucker has, nor which no one on the left agrees with generally. Can we have more whataboutism? Why laud this for "introducing you to both sides"? I mean, there was literally a President who did both sides. It's not a good luck here, nor was after Charlottesville.
Hi, Sue - I am puzzled about how to comment. Lately, before I die, I am trying to be a Christian in reality, which means loving everyone, despite their point of view. I'm 75, so I guess there's not much time and I've spent a lot of years in pain during the Trump years and my other three siblings are all strong Republicans. I read the Bulwark because it often presents a different way of thinking - not that I always agree. I can't die hating people. I just won't do it.
If you got something from reading it, then it probably means you're more naturally generous than I am. I don't feel I've been exposed to any great new perspective by reading that edition of Morning Shots.
First, the jumping off point for the aside about policing was a tweet from some unknown woman - why exactly is that worthy of a page on policing? Yes, progressives can jump to conclusions due to bias, as human beings do. But I question the sensitivity of the writer for bringing that up right after a racially motivated mass murder. There's a time and a place for everything - and one tweet by "Old Woman Seeking Justice" doesn't make it a good time to talk about it.
Second, did we really need a whole section on a story that has been debunked on links to Ukraine? Why do I need to read tabloid stories here? BTW, the reference to Azov? It's been the right, not the left, that has been talking about that for months now as a reason not support the Ukrainians - see Matt Gaetz. But because this one time, it's a leftist pushing similar stories, it gets repeated here. We should be trying to cut traffic to the twitter feeds of people that just want to sow dissent. They want these stories to be heard and they need to the clicks on their sites.
I don't think either of these stories helped me at all. All it did was make me disappointed.
You are very astute and more thoughtful than I am. And certainly more capable of writing coherently about it. I agree with much of your criticism. However, I am still here on a conservative site to gain some understanding of the viewpoint, not necessarily agreeing with it.
I actually very much enjoy reading their critiques of the Democratic party - as an example, I think Tim Miller's piece on how much Schumer is failing on the abortion issue out of the gate was fair. Their critiques on the D's failure to pass meaningful laws to protect fair and free elections. Even their critiques of the term "defund the police". Because even when I don't agree with them, I can see their point of view. Even parts of this particular post have merit if it were a standalone post and not right after a brutal racially motivated mass murder. But even as a standalone post, you'd have to balance it out by noting the same kind of foolishness on the right - like claiming all BLM rallies are riots - or denying that the police ever murder people.
Once again, well said. I agree with you on the critiques of the Democratic party - we have to become better at legislating. I wonder if the age of the Congressional leaders is sabotaging us in some way?
Re.: "Replacement Theory", it's no small irony that descendants of white Europeans who "replaced" Native Americans as they pursued conquest of their native lands don't see the hypocrisy here. Not to mention that those same ancestors forcibly imported as slaves a population they now see as a threat to their imagined supremacy.
Not to mention the disconnect in the simultaneous banning of abortion, which is guaranteed to make their “replacement theory” more of a reality. But, I think they are misogynistic in equal measure to their racism. Maybe more so.
Tucker Carlson and all media people who hype the Great Replacement Theory share responsibility for these murders.
Sadly, we live in a culture where "shared responsibility" is meaningless because there is no shared accountability.
My father was a policeman all his professional life. He was a policeman when I was born in 1948. He remained a policeman until his death from a heart attack in 1974. When I began driving he told me something I have carried with me all my life. He said "Cops are just people. They can have bad days. If you get stopped put your hands on the wheel. Be respectful. Do not argue. Do what the officer says". In my twenties I was stopped more than I care to admit. I had a heavy foot. But I followed my father's advice and it was invaluable. Not all cops are bad. Not all cops are good. But they are human.
...and Rita, if I may ask... are you White? Because, yes, that matters. A black man with a heavy foot can end up dead because Police often are more afraid of a black man, than they are of a young white girl behind the wheel of a speeding car. Sad yet true.
I am White but what my father told me holds true for everyone. Police officers come in all colors as well. Our police chief is Black. He would agree with being respectful and non-confrontational during a traffic stop. And to reiterate - there are good cops and there are bad cops. When my son started driving we stressed this to him. If he had been a young man of color, we would have been even more emphatic as my friends were with their sons.
Oh yes!! I apologize for not being clear. I agree with your point of being respectful and following all reasonable orders from an armed policeman, and not being confrontational.
Its just that too often if you’re not white being obedient and deferential isnt always enough.
The points we each made are both true and not mutually exclusive.
What a crazy world we’ve collectively created!
Amen. I also thought it was interesting my father took time to emphasize to me, his white daughter, that cops could have a bad day and I could pay for it.
Immigration and large demographic changes, differences in birth rates are issues faces by countries of all types, UK, Germany, Sweden, US in the past, even Russia. Definitely no easy answers. It is enormously frustrating to hear people complain endlessly about inflation and lack of workers at the same time they push anti-immigration policies (legal especially). Instead of letting people prove their worth, it is preferred to spend gobs of money to house people in an institution where they are unable to contribute to the economy. Granted some are probably bad people but i assume most are coming for similar reasons to my forebears.
I have an outside-the-box solution for our southern border: build a small, self-contained city that straddles the border, in cooperation with Mexico, that has housing, health care, schools, and some light industry. People can stay there as long as they follow special laws created for that space, while they await the hearings on their immigration cases. Maybe they’ll never want to leave!
One of the candidates for California governor has a similar proposal for using all that empty land on the California-Mexico border.
That’s hopeful - I had no idea anyone else was thinking outside the box that way. Maybe I should write to my Congressional reps.
"...it appears that approximately 17 percent of Americans harbor strong 'replacement theory' fears." That may seem alarming on its face, but it's nothing new. The nutcase portion of the population has been around 20% for as long as I can remember, which goes back to the 1950's when Dwight Eisenhower was labeled "a conscious agent of the communist conspiracy" by the same John Birch Society that seems to be popping up again these days. 56% of Republicans are reported to believe all or part of the Q-anon stuff, 75% the Big Lie; that may be scary, but it represents 15% and 20% of the population, respectively. What we need is maximum sunlight to keep this minority from ruining the U.S.A. For instance, send The Bulwark to everyone in the country. (As I wrote that last sentence, my 12th grade English teacher, Mrs. Tannenbaum, popped into my head, saying "you can lead a whore to culture but you can't make her drink." True as ever.)
What I find curious is how little white people respect themselves. If they believe they cannot keep their jobs or find a mate, they must think they are not as good as the immigrants they are so desperate to keep out. If they believe they are so easily replaced, then I suppose they dont think theyre good enough to compete w PoC? I tend to agree with them.
When it was the first woman this and the first woman that, men felt threatened that maybe they could not compete. If university degrees are any guide, it might be true. In the 2018-19 academic year about 74 men received a bachelor's degree for every 100 women. Even fewer men graduate with an associate or master's degree, relative to women. Now a woman being hired or appointed is so common as to be not newsworthy. Possibly the same dynamic with first PoC this and first PoC that. The resistance to a functional equal opportunity society suggests anxiety about ability to compete, and provides evidence of the persistence of systemic racism that the right insists went away with the passage of the Civil Right Act sixty years ago.
Ms. Young, you wrote:
>Racial bias in policing is real, is due to a number of factors, and is an enormously complicated subject (one that I tried to explore in a long Bulwark article a year ago). But it does not manifest itself in cops coddling white mass shooters while callously gunning down unarmed black people—if only because you could easily find examples of the reverse.
Actually, it does. Have you forgotten that after Charleston cops arrested Dylann Roof, they took him out for Burger King before taking him to jail?
And the two posts you cited from the Left as being off-base, from Old Woman Seeking Justice and Quasim Rashid, were exactly right. I too thought yesterday of the contrast between Buffalo police knocking down 75-year-old BLM protester Martin Gugino and calmly walking past him, and their response yesterday.
This is the second week in a row that you have shown an amazing obtuseness. Last week, you wondered why anyone should foresee a general attack on unenumerated privacy rights in the Constitution on the basis of the Alito draft, and today, you deny that white cops coddle white shooters, which is simply astonishing.
As I observed last week, it is beginning to look more and more like Mr. Sykes has made a very bad mistake in assigning the Sunday morning newsletter to you. I have read the Bulwark for 3 years now but an seriously wondering if I will continue my subscription.
I'm a new subscriber who has already cancelled once because of things I've read here that deeply offend me. Cathy Young became rather uncomfortable after my comment, but when I wrote it I was furious at the smug racism I encountered in her newsletter. I'm very close to cancelling a second and final time.
There are some critical issues treated here that elicit strong feelings across the board. On behalf of the Bulwark, I want to say that I believe the publisher and writers are attempting to make a good faith effort to address their topics in a way that is at least explicable to everyone from Never-Trump conservatives, of which I am one, to Democrats who may not agree with them on everything but can find some merit in their positions. I have pointedly questioned several of the writers on individual issues and am exasperated by what Cathy Young has done the past two Sundays, but I really believe, again, that they are making a good faith effort. Everyone has to decide for himself or herself if that effort is sufficient. I myself may or may not continue reading, but I have found a lot of value here over the past 3 years or so.
I agree. The Bulwark is making a Noble Effort to keep the monsters from overtaking our Government, and another Nobel Effort to open an effective forum for Americans of all political POVs to attempt to find solutions, and to try (in spite of our disagreements) to actually communicate with restraint and civility, as we wade through the muck raining down on us all, politically, environmentally, and medically. The world has never been here before... and if we are to survive at all, we only have each other to rely on. But oh yeah... it's a mess and I sometimes am enraged by what I read here. But only sometimes. And on balance, this is a really great community!
It’s the devotion to “both-sides” that’s starting to rankle me on the Bulwark. I’m noticing it more now that a Democrat is in the White House. The conservative former judge Michael Luttig was on Nicolle Wallace’s podcast, and he says this November’s election is make-or-break for our democracy. He doesn’t engage in “both-sides” at all, because he completely understands we are in the fight of our lives, with regard to our country, and there’s no time to waste with pretending the two sides are both guilty as we march towards the guillotine.
I'm right there with you, G.G. It's almost unconscious with them I think. They've spent decades trying to destroy the Left, and it led to tRump, and now they're embarrassed, but old habits are hard to break. I also think it's possible they are so sick of the violent anti-Americanism that has grown out of their own party that they're flailing about searching for a distraction, so pile on the Dems for not being "better". It's bizarre to me.
Thank God for people like Michael Luttig!!!!
Can we clone him?
I hope more people scroll down this far to read this. Thanks, Michael Huggins. Awesomely researched and stated. 👍🏽 (except for the insults... I really hope we can all find more articulate ways to disagree without ad hominem.)
Thank you. My understanding of ad hominem is when personal comment is *substituted* for argument. I don't believe that's what I'm doing here. I have actually read Ms. Young's columns on and off for a couple of years, linked to them, and quoted them. But her performance last Sunday and today are simply shocking, to me, in their obtuseness. It is beginning to look as if she is simply in over her head. Anyway, thanks for commenting.