Bending but not breaking my practice of not posting on the goings-on in states other than my own (and California where my wife’s family lives), I wanted to ask a question. What lesson will House Democrats take away from yesterday’s election results? I’m seeing a lot of editorials, columns, and posts giving advice.
My offhand guess is that the House leadership will take them as a sign that they must redouble their efforts in getting a maximally transformative “infrastructure” (as opposed to infrastructure) bill passed in reconciliation.
I’ve had other matters to tend to this morning but I did hear a statement by a progressive Congressperson. If I catch your drift I think you are correct. This Congressman said the problem was the moderates and advocated a bigger, bolder progressive shift.
Its not my party, but I think this person is bat shit crazy. CRT, which is taught in VA schools contra media and politicians claims, really took the wind out of suburban women. Further, every trip to a retail outlet of any type drives home the inflation issue. Lastly, crime and the defund the police nonsense lost everywhere.
From the news reports this morning; you are correct. There is history there; it is what Pelosi did with the ACA after the election loss in Mass in 2010.
One side note; I don’t get why the US has adopted the tradition of having the party in power try to ‘nationalize’ state or local races. It would have been painful but not humiliating if the VP wasn’t saying ‘this determines 22 and 24’, the President, the ex-President wasn’t campaigning with McAuliffe. Similar things occurred with Trump.
In Canada; the party in power at the Federal level endorses a provincial party in elections; but would never have the Prime Minister go and campaign. This risk of blowback is seen as too great.
Because it has worked in the past. Another explanation: financing. The candidates they want to promote frequently don’t have a lot of genuine grassroots support.
I’m not sure what you mean by “nationalizing,” CO. If its making a local election a referendum on a national officeholder, or vice versa, its a natural thing. Its just a variant of voters preferring divided government.
If its using, say, an ex-president to campaign for a local it a long standing practice because, as Dave notes, it works.
But sometimes it doesn’t. In my opinion in VA it was a huge mistake for BO to go in and (fake) mock culture issues. People just didn’t buy his BS. And it was pure BS. The Dems run 24/7 on dividing on culture issues. It backfired.
Separately, with Clinton crony McAuliffe going down it appears that the last vestiges of Clinton influence are now gone. And Obama has been relegated to shadow government, but carries little sway in a public setting.
I would suspect Dave is mulling over a post on the geriatric issues of the Dems. Pelosi, Schumer, Clinton and Obama on the wane. The young progressive squad, or the old and decrepit Bernie and Pocahontas, just bizarre. Newsome almost recalled. The deposed Cuomo a sexual predator. Where do they go? Absentee Pete, Mayor of S Bend? Beto, the bankrupt man’s Bobby Kennedy?
Drew is on to something when he observed the impact the CRT curriculum had on parents, while the Dems denied having a CRT curriculum. The schools, nonetheless, demanded parents sign a NDA before they were allowed to see what was being taught to their children. Then you have all the price increases, some seemingly rising on a daily basis, while the Dems chatted about the great economy. It’s all the lies and distortions of the democrat party that are coming home to roost – including the Afghanistan debacle; the border crisis (that is not a crisis in the Dem vernacular); a radical increase in crime, as the Dems call to defund the police; the twisted CDC data the Dems use as unquestionable science, resulting in censoring any other medical opinions/data, rendering draconian mandates, shut-downs and losses for everyone but elite Dem donors.
I heard one statement that summed this election up perfectly: “It wasn’t that people were voting for the Republican party, but rather they were voting out insanity.†That is what the Dems have become – insane and over the top with their policies and absolute power.
When has it worked — the only 2 times since 1980 where a President intervened in an election where he wasn’t on the ticket and it succeeded was 1998 and 2002 (requiring a Presidential approval of 60+%, with peace and prosperity or a nation united by tragedy).
I can understand the party out of power trying to nationalize a race (what have they got to lose?). Its senseless for the party in power.
The Dems wont learn much. The current trend is to double down and never admit you were wrong. You have to give credit to the right propaganda crew also. No evidence that anyone is teaching CRT but they scared the suburban housewives with it. The GOP got a big lift forma he kid sexually assaulting the girl int he bathroom. Took a long time for the fact that they had been having sex before and the girl invited the boy into the bathroom to come out. Damage already done by then. I am betting there is precious little woke stuff going on there but what is got big play. I doubt the percentage of the truly woke* in the Dem party is much different than the percent truly racist in the GOP but the GOP is better at scaring people with it.
*Woke means whatever people want it to mean so hard to figure out.
Steve
I wasn’t but it’s a serious issue. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and James Clyburn, the top 3 ranking House Democrats, are all over 80. They’re not even Baby Boomers—they’re Silent Generation as Joe Biden is.
The top 3 ranking Senate Democrats are Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, and Patty Murray. Schumer and Durbin are fairly early Baby Boomers (the Clintons are as old as you can be and still be a Baby Boomer); Durbin is Silent Generation. Obama is a late Baby Boomer.
Another “truth†that has had more exposure since the 2020 election ruckus is the high propensity for the Dems to cheat. Even those who were more discreet and quiet about the 2020 “irregularities†seem to instinctively know it happened, making them become better prepared for this election. Youngkin, for instance, invested considerable money into party poll watchers, lawyers, hot lines, infrastructure to go into action on Election Day should any irregularities be reported. The RNC partnered with him on this venture. Consequently, when Fairfax wanted to rescan their ballots both sides had to approve it. This type of scrutiny was sadly absent in 2020, becoming the biggest present day fears as to “what kind of shanaghains would the Dems engage in to win this election.†Already in NJ, such timely oversight, was able to detect double counting by Murphy’s side, putting this tight race back into Ciaffarelli’s column. I personally believe more rigorous/efficient, equal participation by republicans, all over the country, created fewer opportunities for said “irregularities†to occur, giving the R’s the edge achieved in yesterday’s election.
What constantly crosses my mind, though, is why is cheating more predominant in Democrat quarters than Republican ones? Whatever the answer may be, while the Dems are considered to be “woke,†the republicans seem to now be awakened.
What would you consider evidence and what would you consider an acceptable source? If we define “critical race theory” as the belief that American laws and institutions are inherently racist, I think there’s quite a bit of proof out there. If it’s defined as “critical race theory as it was originally taught in law schools”, I think I would agree that it’s not being taught at the K-12 level.
I think that Democrats and Leaning Democratic are about 55% and Republicans and Leaning Republican are about 45%. I think that largely obscures the actual debate. “Leaners” doesn’t actually mean anything. The plurality of Americans are neither reliable Democratic nor reliable Republican voters.
“No evidence that anyone is teaching CRT but they scared the suburban housewives with it.”
Juan Williams tried to peddle this bullshit this morning. One of the hosts was lying in wait. Immediately called for a graphic of an official VA curriculum guidelines be put up on the screen. And there it was, in black and white. One of the line items was teaching critical race theory – by name. Juan changed the subject………….. Oopsy.
Too much MSNBC for you, steve. But I hope you and Dem pols keep it up. Its election gold.
But its even bigger than CRT. It was the shutdowns. The voiced notion that only the elites should dictate, and parents should STFU. Vaccinating kids. The only good thing that teaching by zoom did was show parents the constant indoctrination going on in classrooms. Kids and pocketbook issues. You better be careful there.
NEWS ITEM
Racist Republican Virginia Voters Who Wear Confederate Flag Patches and Carry Tiki Torches Elect First Black Female Lieutenant Governor in State’s History
Noted anti-white racist, extremist, and low-functioning idiot — and homophobe; or wait, she was actually “hacked,” right? Joy Reid’s blog blames the bloodbath in Virginia on “White Ignorance.”
NEWS ITEM
Winsome Sears was elected the first black female Lieutenant Governor of Virginia.
I guess White Ignorance helped her in this — white people just thought she was very tan. Yeah, that’s it.
I don’t have strong views on this subject. I do think it’s complicated. We accept vaccine mandates to attend public schools but they are qualitatively different for several reasons:
1) They weren’t put into place by executive order.
2) Measles vaccination are to protect the children and the other children they attend school with. I’m not convinced that vaccinating children under 12 against COVID-19 is to protect the child and the other children but to protect the adults. IMO that’s unethical.
3) As matter of practical fact we don’t actually know what the effects of inoculating children under 12 with mRNA vaccines again and again and again are. And the J&J does not appear to be as effective as was thought.
If it is genuinely believed that inoculating these children against COVID-19 is in the children’s best interests, the state legislatures should be enacting laws to that effect rather than imposing it by executive order.
“inoculating children under 12 with mRNA vaccines”
If artificially produced immunity were not as effective or long lasting as naturally acquired immunity, I would not be surprised.
And therefore if vaccinating children denies them the protection of natural immunity from immune response to exposure, it is wrong because the fatality rate in children is so low and our knowledge of the complexity of the human immune system is so limited.
Gray, your assumptions are all true – scientifically true! Natural immunity is broader and longer lasting than vaccine-induced immunity. Also, natural immunity does not suppress t-cell or killer cell effectiveness like vaccines will do. However, these briefly tested vaccines, put out by big pharma, have skipped many testing hoops and are being pushed involuntarily into the arms of children who want to have in-person schooling, and adults who want to have a job.
It’s beyond belief that this would be happening here in this country!
Pre-election polling in VA (mentioned in this week’s 538 podcast) indicated that among parents/guardians with at least one child in grade K through 12, a generic Republican was favored over a generic Democrat by 20 percentage points. All of the rest taken together favored a Democrat by 1.
Along with some exit polling that probably isn’t finalized yet, it looks like parents in their 30 and 40s were the key shift from D to R, and this is more pronounced in women than men because men already lean R regardless of education. I see some reporting that white women with some college or less were the largest block shifting from Biden to Youngkin. That group constituted 19% of the electorate, compared with all blacks at 16%.
It seems to me that parents are anxious and worried about their children’s education; that their losses will create permanent harm. Politicians need to recognize this and how emphasizing other values or issues reduces the broader message. There is also a lot of talk about rising costs that will hit larger households more. I don’t know whether the costs can be dealt with that much at the state level, but the marginal voter is probably very worried about it.
To that I would add that the public employees’ unions are presently vital to the Democratic Party. When parents question the schools it undermines those schools and, implicitly, the teachers’ unions. It would be prudent to be more cautious.
Here is a typical article claiming CRT is being taught in schools. They mention CRT then go on to talk about other stuff, essentially any mention of race becomes the same as CRT. It looks as though some administrators and teachers have been advised or maybe even paid to study CRT but no evidence anyone is teaching it, unless you want to say talking about stuff like Jim Crow or redlining is CRT, which seems like BS to me. YMMV, bout then in the future I get to define words however I want.
https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/yes-virginia-there-is-critical-race-theory-in-our-schools/article_ba449c18-cf99-11eb-a719-4bfc9103236c.html
“The only good thing that teaching by zoom did was show parents the constant indoctrination going on in classrooms.”
No. It showed the value of teachers and going to school. After all of these years of conservatives denigrating teachers and schools they are suddenly good again. BTW, I know you are devoid of principles so I fully expect you and your ilk to be denouncing public schools again shortly.
PD- Yeah, I think the lockdowns were probably a big issue though I dont really know what VA was doing. Is anyone requiring vaccines for kids under 12?
Steve
steve ignores the VA curriculum document, and then changes the subject to Clintonian parsing of other articles a-la-Juan Williams.
Nothing is better in an adversary than blind delusion. Keep it up.
vaccines
I think its yet to be determined, and think legislation is a correct point. The risk reward is clearly vastly different for children vs older persons. More importantly, the lack of long term studies (and we have seen how “the science” changes about every other Tuesday) and the miniscule risk to children argue for parental choice.
I don’t believe for a second that the Biden Admin cares deeply for the people. They see defeating covid as a politically advantageous position to be in. And if a few eggs have to be broken along the way……….
I see Joe Biden had a presser today. His remarks make clear its double down and deny, deny, deny. Pelosi’s comments suggest the same.
Suicide is not something we should watch, unless its political suicide. Maybe Manchin will save him.
So here is the House Democratic response (in the BBB bill).
https://www.wsj.com/articles/pelosi-says-house-democrats-will-add-paid-leave-back-to-bill-11635951745?mod=hp_lead_pos3
Adding back everything that was stripped to satisfy Joe Manchin’s request to have a bill without “shell games” and stay around 1.75 trillion dollars. Now they are going to expand SALT deduction, parental leave, immigration changes.
It seems like a change in strategy. The previous plan was to pass whatever Manchin and the Senate parliamentarian allowed; and not require major amendments after passing the House — and hold BIF hostage to get Manchin to an agreement.
Now it seems like the House will pass the maximum legislation that can get 218; and then dare Manchin to vote it down/strip contentious measures out. Left unsaid is what is going to happen with the BIF (I assume the bill will pass eventually since it contains must pass legislation).
Another factoid, there are 37 House Democrats that won in 2020 by a margin of 10% or less. They would lose their seat if the swing in Virginia from 2020 Presidential race to 2021 Governor race was replicated across the country.
The Dems adding everything back into a bill, already decried for it’s size, is just another sign showing their political agenda is more important than making an economy work for the people they supposedly serve.
The Curriculum document, the one I know about, says they were advocating that teachers should learn about CRT. And of course no teachers who have confirmed they were teaching it.
We have billions of doses of the vaccine given out. They have an excellent safety profile. Problems with vaccines are almost always seen early. Late problems are truly rare. The issue is not really so much safety for kids as it is if there is any benefit for them. The direct benefit will be pretty small. The benefit comes from protecting others. For kids who rely upon care from older adults that is not an inconsiderable advantage.
Steve
“I don’t believe for a second that the Biden Admin cares deeply for the people. They see defeating covid as a politically advantageous position to be in.”
I see that and raise you one. As Alan Grayson said, the conservative plan for all health care is that we just let people die. That has been your plan all along.
Steve
“The Curriculum document, the one I know about, says they were advocating that teachers should learn about CRT. And of course no teachers who have confirmed they were teaching it.”
The one you choose to know about. And murderers generally tend to not admit to murder. A simple search will reveal the document, and, by the way, McAuliffe’s advocacy of it. Are you aware that it was parents with eyes and ears who started showing up at these meetings, having seen the zoom teaching? Have you seen the teaching materials? Its smoking gun. No need, I know the answer is no. You do realize my daughter is a teacher and is privy to this crap. As usual, your comments are as useful as the crap out of your ……..
“As Alan Grayson said, the conservative plan for all health care is that we just let people die. That has been your plan all along.”
Seriously? You and Joy Reid should get married, or at least do the nasty. You understand and deserve each other. You know someone is completely devoid of any argument when they start posting that kind of crap. Evidence of a weak mind.
I just commented over at OTB mainly about education. I think it’s going to be one of the primary salient issues next year and in 2024 for all the reasons PD Shaw cites. But I’m also biased in that I’m a parent with school-aged kids and most of the people I know are parents with school-aged kids. So I may have blinders on.
But from my perspective, the bottom line is that many parents are not taking education for granted and are not as deferential to educational authorities anymore. Covid policies and effects and CRT/DEI are the drivers.
To put it another way, CRT/DEI took over the commanding heights of the culture without much fight. But now that cultural battle is moving to k-12 education and, as it stands, I think Democrats are currently on the losing side of this.
Even here in my own state, school board elections were a big deal and the “anti-CRT” candidates did very well everywhere except for the liberal bastions. Racial essentialism just isn’t popular with most people.
“Seriously? You and Joy Reid”
Seriously? You say stupid crap and then get offended when you get it back in the same degree. Oh that’s right. If someone says something you dont like you claim it is PC or you are being cancelled or something. This whining on your part is a huge upgrade.
“Are you aware that it was parents with eyes and ears who started showing up at these meetings, having seen the zoom teaching? Have you seen the teaching materials?”
Have you? The stuff I have seen is parents unhappy because they talked about Jim Crow or lynchings. Not CRT. As usual neither you nor jan dont provide links or evidence just claims.
Steve
From what I’ve seen, CRT has been used as shorthand for teachings on race that are more extreme and more controversial than just talking about Jim Crow laws and lynchings. I was taught about those things in the Deep South in a red state in the 70s and early 80s and it was not controversial at all. It was taught in a way that evoked shock and horror and true reflection on this time in our recent past but also appropriately discussed the accomplishments of the Civil Rights movement and the great principles that MLK Jr stood for.
As for use of the term CRT, perhaps DEI is more accurate but from what I’ve seen this is the effluent that flows downstream.
I’m certainly not privy to all the curricula now being taught, any more than is steve or others. I’ve seen enough though to have concerns (if I think on it, I believe the worst examples I’ve seen came from upper class private schools like in NYC so maybe that should be considered separately.)
I think another factor reinforcing my concerns is that we are hearing more and more anecdotes of HR departments enforcing various ideas that clearly do come from CRT as taught in higher academia. The struggle session type of employee trainings on DEI is not only repulsive and dangerous for adults, but alarming to think of potential use on kids. At the very least, parents have a right to know how our history of racial tension is being taught to our children and the obvious gaslighting by school boards, politicians, and media makes one suspicious that they do not want transparency.
and I was taught about those (and slavery) in a Border State twenty years before that. In high school, for example, I learned about the Tulsa riots that were commemorated recently with people saying that nobody knew about them which surprised me.
To be clear, I think that some teachers are probably teaching some variation that is heavily influenced by CRT, but I think it is pretty limited. Parts of NYC, California, DC and maybe even the VA suburbs though I suspect the tis largely in private schools. So I dont really have the patience to look at ever clip on every right wing site so I wont know about every place, but I can say that when I have looked at stuff on line that people are claiming is CRT it is definitely not “all white people are evil and should die.” Look at right wing sites and you you will find almost exactly those words used.
In southern Indiana in the 60s Jim Crow and anything racial was carefully avoided. US history didnt cover it and the cases of the Civil War were just glossed over.
Steve
Well steve, I could say the same about the way that many anti-black racist incidents are covered by left-leaning media sources (including many hoaxes where the initial “crime†is widely covered and the retractions, if they’re printed at all, are in fine print.)
Should I then ignore all of it and assume that mistreatment of POC by whites is rare, or do I have a moral obligation to try to learn the truth?
I know this guy has some affiliation with Fox and Tucker Carlson, but if you read Christopher Rufo’s collection of articles at City Journal he’s not mischaracterizing stuff as CRT and it’s not as limited as you seem to believe it is.
https://christopherrufo.com/critical-race-theory-in-education/
At least in my area and from what I’ve read about k-12 education elsewhere, DEI initiatives and programs are applied CRT, and operationalize at least some CRT concepts.
CRT is a theory (the word is in the name). The theory isn’t being taught in schools, but the theory is increasingly being used to inform policies and curricula.
That was very different from my experience in St. Louis a decade or so before that. But St. Louis was different. For example, it had the first fully integrated major school district in the U. S.
CRT is a theory (the word is in the name). The theory isn’t being taught in schools, but the theory is increasingly being used to inform policies and curricula.
Exactly, which is what’s galling about the media refrain that “CRT†isn’t being taught or that it’s a racist dog whistle.
In early elementary school when we all learned about the principles of the founding documents of the US it didn’t matter that we weren’t explicitly taught Locke’s Natural Law theory.
Speaking of Indiana:
https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2021/11/04/indiana-school-administrator-youd-better-believe-we-teach-crt-and-lie-to-parents-about-it-n427026
But steve, and the liars at places like MSNBC, tell us that Republicans are just dog whistling to scare the hell out of suburban moms.
The only good think you can say is that as long as they wallow in their willful ignorance and obfuscation the more they will lose voters and elections. But at least they will think they are somehow winning on narrow media and internet sites.
Drew’s link is like everything else. A conservative activist making unsubstantiated claims. Like if I quoted Michael Moore to prove that everyone in Youngkin’s campaign was racist.
Rufo? Is there anyone less credible than Michael Moore? That would be the equivalent. Millions of schoolchildren and thousands of teachers. There ought to be some examples of teachers actually teaching CRT. Or if there is stuff that is not CRT but too close then have specific examples.
Steve
If Democrats hope to retain the presidency after Biden’s term, he needs to step aside and endorse Joe Manchin, the other Joe.
That’s what they need to learn.
Steve, do you ever engage with anything besides ad hominem? If I had links to neutral investigative reporters I’d provide them. I’m not asking you to endorse Rufo’s overarching premise, just asked you to consider the specific instances cited. Some involved instruction in the schools, others were from teacher training sessions.
Did Rufo make these up?
Were they simply not a big deal?
Not numerous enough to concern you?
The ad hominem fallacy is a fallacy when the criticism of an individual is irrelevant to the matter being considered. Such a criticism may be relevant but in general only if the individual has a history of falsification.
The ad hominem fallacy takes a number of different forms including questioning the individual’s motives, suggesting a conflict of interests, or simply criticizing the individual.
In general motives are not dispositive. They may make you suspect the individual as a source but it disproves nothing.
CS- Maybe you dont realize it by now but I actually read the stuff I comment upon. It says in Drew’s cited article that the person making the claims is a conservative activist. Not some parent with conservative leanings but an activist. I am supposed to accept what an activist says as objective? Questioning that is an ad hominem? Dont think so. Nonetheless I read the article. As I said no instances where someone was teaching CRT to students.
Rufo? You do know the guy has worked and trained at several prominent right wing think tanks and written for them also, including the Discovery Institute. Who is also identified as a conservative activist. Is it really an ad hominem to suggest that someone who makes his living writing as a conservative activist might bee biased? That we cant necessarily take them at their word?
So while I dont think this is ad hominem I would point out that you dont see me citing people with such obvious questionable credibility. (I do understand that when I cite something from the New England Journal or JAMA that those are now considered liberal sources but I would contend they are nothing like citing a political writer who gets paid to attack his enemies.) Nonetheless I have read a lot of Rufo. Like any good attack writer he often/usually doesnt contact anyone to hear the other side of the story. He uses insinuations a lot. What he does document well I think that among corporations there is a lot of DEI education going on and a lot fo people dont like it.
So tell me why Should believe Rufo and not this article.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/07/christopher-rufo-and-the-critical-race-theory-moral-panic.html
Steve
Believing what Rufo reports and believing that he is doing it in a provocative and self-interested way are not mutually exclusive.
But by golly, I think you are on to something here…we really should look with a jaundiced eye at the writings of ideological (and/or self-serving) activists and how those are being promulgated. Of course if that kind of skepticism were being applied to the antiracist authors and speakers and diversity trainers then Rufo would need to find another line of work.
Rufo is definitely an activist. But he has extensively documented the incidents he reports on. I don’t think those are made up.
The bigger question is what does it mean? Are these cherry-picked examples that are rare and isolated and don’t speak to any larger trend, or not? It’s hard to say. I don’t really believe Rufu that this is some kind of crisis. But then again I don’t really believe the Sarah Jones piece which claims it’s all a nothingburger and moral panic.
But I think it is pretty clear that DEI is making inroads into k-12. Even in my relatively conservative/GoP area, our district is setting up a DEI office this year. DEI is not an isolated thing.
But…the extent to which the more problematic aspects of DEI are actually applied in terms of policy, curriculum, and pedagogy isn’t clear. So I think anyone making broad claims is getting in over their skis. What I’d like is more data.
“But by golly, I think you are on to something here…we really should look with a jaundiced eye at the writings of ideological (and/or self-serving) activists and how those are being promulgated. ”
Thing is, I largely agree with this. We should be more skeptical of the anti-racist writers, especially when their living depends upon promoting their ideas. I am truly skeptical when they want to push their training stuff when as far as I can tell there is zero evidence it changes anything.
So I guess the difference between us here is that I am skeptical of people who have an obvious bias, especially when they are making money promoting something. I want them to show me very concrete specific examples of their claims, not vague insinuations. You, OTOH, are selective. You believe Rufo and are not bothered by his obvious bias but you are bothered by that of the anti-racists. That suggests to me that you arent worried about principles here just ideology.
Thats fine. I will just understand then that anytime I criticize someone you like for any reason you will consider it an ad hominem.
Andy- Sources on the left claim he has made up stuff. How do we know? Should it worry me that we dont have someone with a smidgin more credibility pushing this? I think the WSJ is more right wing than does Dave, but most of that comes from the editorial and opinion people. If a WSJ reporter was putting this out I would be much more inclined some effort was made to get at the truth.
Steve
Steve
I think the WSJ opinion page is slightly right of center. It’s more pro-business. You will notice that I rarely cite its more rightwing columnists. The ones I cite more frequently are William Galston (who is a Democrat), Walter Russell Mead (not sure—probably independent), and Jason L. Riley who is a Republican.
WSJ news reporting is not particularly biased at all.
I think it’s fallacious to discount anybody, however biased. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. However, you’ve got to learn to distinguish between assertions of fact and statements of opinion. Assertions of fact need to be considered critically but not rejected out-of-hand based on the views of the person who is asserting them. You’ve got to sort of read around the statements of opinion.
With those principles in mind I can (and do) read both The Nation and The National Review. If you’re looking for someone with no biases at all it’s a pretty small set—practically nobody.
And it’s definitely possible to evaluate information separately from the source.
@ Steve,
My opinion on this is pretty close to Andy’s I think. There’s reason to be concerned and I’d like more facts but that doesn’t mean I’m allowing myself to be manipulated into a moral panic. Since the only people looking into it are on the right, I’m looking for the ones who cite some materials and at the moment Rufo is the one who’s done more of that than anyone. I can read his stuff and still have some skepticism. Main reason I’m concerned is that the stuff in academia and corporate HR departments has been trending toward the insane and when it was first starting there were lots of people saying that it wasn’t a big deal, just fringe extreme anecdotes being used to stoke the culture war. Now, a lot more people see how widespread and extreme it’s become and if it is bleeding into K12 education it needs to stop.