The very fine people at The Democratic Strategist have been nice enough to lay out and pdf my entire Wall Street Journal Saturday Essay for your reading pleasure. It looks terrific and is great for sending on to your friends who are seeking enlightenment. Thanks to TDS for this public service!
Wednesday, August 19, 2020
USC Panel Tracking Poll Out
Biden has an 11 point lead. The panel structure allows the survey to look at people who actually went for Trump and Clinton 2016, rather than just rely on retrospective self-report. Note the larger defections among Trump vs. Clinton voters (9-4). This is in line with the Nationscape data reported in my Washington Post/Monkey Cage piece with John Halpin and a significant development.
Tuesday, August 18, 2020
On Wisconsin
Biden's lead in Wisconsin--currently the tipping point state in a lot of forecasts--has been running a steady 6-7 points in the 538 average. The latest nonpartisan WI poll, from Morning Consult, has his lead at 6 points and is worth a look for the breakdown on the horse race question. Among other things it shows a swing in Biden's favor of 7-8 margin points (relative to States of Change data) among both white college and white noncollege voters in the state. That's game.
Sunday, August 16, 2020
State 'O The Race
With the DNC starting tomorrow, this seemed like a good time to check in on the state of the Presidential race, looking at the most salient aspects based on available data.
Modeled Forecasts
Princeton Election Consortium: 93 percent probability Biden win
Economist: 89 percent Biden win
538: 72 percent Biden win
Electoral Vote Forecasts:
Princeton Election Consortium: 356-182 Biden
Economist: 350-188 Biden
538: 325-213 Biden
There are many other EV assessments outside of the modeled forecasts. They generally have Biden over 270 because they see him taking back MI, PA and WI. Assignment of other states varies and the overall split is affected by how many states they don't call but put in a "toss-up" category.
National Biden-Trump Trial Heat Averages
CNN: 52-41 Biden (+11)
538: 51.2-42.5 Biden (+8.6)
RCP: 49.8-41.9 (+7.9)
State Biden-Trump Trial Heat Averages
Too much data to list here. But places where you can get trial heat averages for states of interest are 538, RCP, CNN and CBS Battleground. Currently, in 538 Biden is ahead in every state Clinton carried in 2016 plus: AZ, FL, MI, NC, OH, PA and WI.
National Vote/Electoral Vote Split
This remains a real possibility but probably less of one than in 2016. Evan Scrimshaw remarks at Decision Desk HQ: "[Nate Silver's] estimates, at the launch of the model, say that Wisconsin is the tipping point state, and that a 1.9% Democratic lead nationally would be enough to win the state, down from the 2.8% it would have taken in 2016. In other words, Trump’s vaunted Electoral College advantage is now small enough that a Hillary Clinton margin of popular vote victory would be enough to win the Electoral College this time – at least, more often than not. A 2% Democratic lead is a ways away from the current high single digit averages, and even if there has been some recent movement, it is a lot easier to close a lead from ~11 to ~9, and incrementally harder to move it every unit after." Harry Enten notes: "If the live interviews polls [are] exactly correct, the difference between the tipping state in the electoral college (i.e. state containing the median electoral vote plus one) and the national vote would be under two points and perhaps closer to one point. It was nearly three points in 2016. A slightly under two-point gap is much more in-line with what has happened historically."
Polling Error
There was significant polling error in key states in 2016, primarily because state polls that did not weight by education undersampled white noncollege voters. That has generally been corrected this year. Also,there is little evidence that large numbers of "shy Trump voters" are being missed by polls, as a number of recent pieces have noted. Finally, with the kind of lead Biden has, any plausible polling error would not affect the outcome. Of course, if the race gets very, very tight, anything is possible.
Turnout
Various indicators suggest that turnout should be very high this year. Michael McDonald, a leading expert on voter turnout and director of the US Elections Project says, ". “I expect voter turnout to be exceptional, perhaps the highest in over a century, since 1908." It's very difficult to gauge how much Trump's obvious efforts to interfere with mail balloting, which is expected to skew Democratic, might affect turnout, as opposed to simply delaying the vote count. Mail balloting can also have higher spoiled ballot rates, which might also have some effect on ultimate Democratic totals.
Nonwhite Voters
Recent polling suggests that black, Hispanic and Asian support for Biden is firming up, where previously it had been running a little behind Clinton's 2016 margins. Turnout of these groups is difficult to gauge in advance, but it would not have to be particularly robust to surpass that of the 2016 election. Also, it is worth noting that even if nonwhite turnout and support did not budge over 2016 levels,, Biden could still carry MI, PA and WI simply on the basis of underlying shifts in the population of eligible voters. Thus what is essential for Biden is less exceptional performance among nonwhite voters than reasonable performance among these voters, coupled with a Trump failure to expand his margin among white noncollege voters.
White Noncollege Voters
Biden is running 10-15 margin points ahead of Clinton among this demographic. Since Trump probably loses the election if he fails to expand his 2016 lead (+31) among these voters, Biden's success in significantly cutting Trump's margin, if maintained, is a death knell for Trump's chances. As an illustration, since nonwhite college voters will be such a large group in the 2020 electorate, if Biden cuts Trump's advantage by 10 points among this group (5 points more for Biden, 5 points less for Trump), that shifts the election 4.2 points in Biden's direction nationally. The effect would be larger in midwest states like MI, PA and WI where the white noncollege population is significantly larger. In contrast, increasing black turnout by 5 points (assuming no other group's turnout increases) would add .8 percentage points to Biden's margin nationally, more or less in specific states depending on how large their black eligible voter share is.
White College Voters
Polls indicate Biden is running ahead of Clinton's margin (+7) among white college voters by perhaps 5-10 margin points. Pew had Biden's margin at +23 among this demographic but I suspect this is an outlier. As a rule, any given improvement in Biden's margin among white college voters is worth about 30-45 percent less (depending on state) than an equivalent improvement in his margin among white noncollege voters.
Can Joe Biden Hold the Democrats Together?--Full Text
I have heard from a number of folks who can't get through the WSJ paywall to read my pearls of wisdom. A tragedy! As a humanitarian gesture, I reproduce below the full text of the article--minus the snazzy graphics alas.
Since the New Deal, Democrats have struggled to hold together the eclectic elements of their coalition. Under President Franklin Roosevelt, who forged the party as we know it, the bedrock of Democratic support was the white working class, the “solid South” and Black Americans. But that alliance proved unstable. It came apart in the 1960s as the party struggled to incorporate the voters and demands of a range of new social movements—on civil rights, Vietnam, women’s liberation and the environment. Barack Obama’s victory in 2008 gave Democrats hope that they were forming a new coalition, perhaps one even more durable than its New Deal predecessor. President Obama brought together the rising, 21st-century constituencies of nonwhite voters—Black, Hispanic, Asian—as well as younger voters, educated urban whites and even a solid portion of the white working class.
But it proved difficult to maintain the enthusiasm of Mr. Obama’s first, barrier-shattering election among the Democrats’ rising constituencies, and the white working class resumed its march toward the Republican Party, culminating in Donald Trump’s win in 2016. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by some three million people, but her coalition was a shadow of Mr. Obama’s: strong yet somewhat diminished support among nonwhite voters, the younger generation and educated white voters, alongside a catastrophic performance among the white working class and seniors.
The moral of the story is that a successful Democratic coalition cannot rely just on the votes of the party’s rising constituencies; it also needs serious backing from non-college-educated whites and other less supportive voter groups. The party seems to have absorbed that lesson. As things now stand, the Democratic Party led by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris seems likely to have a very good election. If that happens, the Biden coalition will present a new face of the Democratic Party, marching to take back the White House and perhaps the Senate with the backing of not just the usual demographic suspects but also relatively large numbers of moderate suburban whites, older voters and blue-collar white workers.
My analysis of data from the bipartisan States of Change project and the nonpartisan Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape survey (of 6,000 new respondents a week) indicates that seniors and working class whites have had particularly large shifts toward the Democrats in recent months; Mr. Biden has cut Mrs. Clinton’s fatal 30-point deficit among non-college-educated whites by more than half, and elderly voters have gone from being a strongly negative group for the Democrats to one with a solid Democratic advantage. If Mr. Biden wins convincingly, he will probably owe it to these voters, not to the so-called rising American electorate of growth demographics.
The Biden coalition includes some strongly left-leaning groups that aren’t likely to see things this way. These forces consider themselves the vanguard of a new Democratic Party quite different from Mr. Biden’s comparatively staid liberal meliorism. Take Cori Bush, a social-justice activist and nurse who recently defeated William Lacy Clay, a 10-term member of Congress from St. Louis, in the Democratic primary. “We’ve been dismissed as an impossible fringe movement,” Ms. Bush said in her victory speech. “But now, we are a multiracial, multiethnic, multigenerational, mass movement united in demanding change, in demanding accountability, in demanding that our police, our government, our country recognize that Black lives do indeed matter.”
Similarly, in New York, educator Jamaal Bowman recently defeated Rep. Eliot Engel, a 16-term incumbent and the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, in a Democratic primary including parts of the Bronx and some New York suburbs. Mr. Bowman was boosted by the Justice Democrats, a national group that backs insurgent candidates. In his primary night speech, he said, “You know what Donald Trump is more afraid of than anything else? A Black man with power.”
As such new leaders join Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her congressional “Squad,” they are likely to pose a core question for their party: Can the broad Biden coalition stay together, or are the Democrats just renting some new voters—suburban moderates, seniors and working class whites—to get rid of President Trump? It isn’t hard to see the potential fault lines. Mr. Biden represents the sort of inclusive, big-tent Democratic Party that might accommodate more moderate voters by avoiding an agenda that is too aggressive or “woke” for their comfort.
In the primaries, Mr. Biden was repeatedly pushed by his more left-leaning rivals, including Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, to endorse a range of radical policy options: “Medicare for All” reforms that would eliminate private health insurance; a Green New Deal with an aggressive timeline for eliminating fossil fuels; decriminalizing all migration over the border with Mexico; abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; promising reparations to the descendants of Black slaves; and much more. He refused. When activists called to “defund the police” after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police in May, Mr. Biden quickly made clear that he didn’t endorse their demand. Indeed, his criminal-justice plans include a proposal to increase funding for community policing.
Biden’s plans are both large-scale and broadly popular.
Mr. Biden’s governing program—known as “Build Back Better”—is quite progressive compared with what Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton proposed as candidates. The former vice president plans to use government actively to confront America’s ongoing crises, including the pandemic and the economic collapse, even as he cleaves to the center of public opinion. His plans are both large-scale and broadly popular, including a coordinated federal response to the pandemic that offers free Covid-19 tests and related medical care, a public option for health care, lowering the age of Medicare eligibility and a multipronged approach to police reform. He also promises massive relief for hard-hit communities and a major push to help the unemployed, including a national job corps to help with Covid-19 contact tracing and other public-health tasks and major spending on infrastructure and clean energy.
But the wing of the party inspired by Mr. Sanders and Ms. Ocasio-Cortez may well not be satisfied with this. For now, an uneasy peace reigns—in part because of Mr. Biden’s savvy inclusion of Mr. Sanders’s supporters in campaign task forces and in larger measure because of the shared, intense focus of all wings of the party on beating Mr. Trump.
If Democrats capture both the White House and the Senate, the activist left will claim a good deal of credit. That may embolden them to pressure Mr. Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Chuck Schumer and other Democratic leaders to move significantly to the left of the current Biden program, perhaps reviving the sort of ideas that Mr. Biden declined to endorse in the primaries. Mr. Biden may be hoping that his selection of Ms. Harris, a Black woman who was one of his primary rivals, as his running mate will insulate him from such left-wing pressure, but given Ms. Harris’s comparatively moderate profile, that seems doubtful. As president, he would either have to try to reshape the Democratic Party in ways that could unnerve the relatively centrist new voters who helped put him in office, or risk a bloody intraparty fight that might undermine his ability to pass urgently needed legislation.
Could a Biden administration avoid such a clash? Can Mr. Biden find a way to keep all the factions of his coalition reasonably united once Mr. Trump is out of the way?
Perhaps, but it won’t be easy. Mr. Biden will need to forge a grand bargain among his party’s wings—one that recognizes the need to keep most of Mr. Biden’s new voters on board while moving forward on a generally progressive program. For the Sanders/Warren/Squad faction, that will mean accepting that some signature issues like defunding the police are off the agenda. For the Biden wing, it will mean accepting somewhat bolder changes than they would otherwise be comfortable with and a continuing effort to remain attentive to the needs of the Democrats’ most loyal constituencies.
Some are optimistic that such a grand bargain can be struck. Jared Bernstein, chief economist for Mr. Biden when he was vice president and now a key economic adviser to the Biden campaign, argues that “the Biden coalition basically wants to get to the same place. What differs is how fast they get there, either step-by-step or leapfrogging.” He notes that this “broad coalition wants universal coverage, affordable health care and child care, higher-quality jobs, useful trade policy vs. damaging trade policy, a path toward clean energy that creates good jobs along the way, more progressive tax policy, less inequality, stronger worker bargaining power [and] racial justice.”
This approach could work, if the new left can accept the sort of “step-by-step” path that Mr. Biden will undoubtedly favor. But what if the left wing won’t? Activists who aren’t long on patience could campaign to move immediately toward Medicare for All, pass a Green New Deal, defund the police or fund slavery reparations. Such campaigns could be a huge problem early in a Biden administration.
A President Biden will almost certainly face a raging pandemic and a staggering economy. Mr. Trump’s inability to solve these problems is what forged the Biden coalition in the first place. Being an effective president and tackling these crises will be job one for Mr. Biden.
He knows this, which explains his ambitious “Build Back Better” plans. Mr. Biden thinks that large-scale, liberal, activist government will be the key to getting the country back on its feet. He will have to produce and produce fast. As Michael Tomasky, editor of the liberal journal Democracy, notes, the victorious Democrats’ biggest problem would probably be “letting themselves get stuck in gridlock and passing nothing of consequence, dispiriting their own voters.”
The remedy? Unite Democrats to push comprehensive, ambitious legislation swiftly onto Mr. Biden’s desk. Call it the FDR approach. The incoming administration’s rescue package could well move toward many of the goals Mr. Bernstein cites, but the priority would remain tackling the nation’s intertwined crises.
That may cause grumbling. Michael Kazin, a history professor at Georgetown and an editor of the leftist magazine Dissent, notes, “The Democrats still have to figure out how to craft (and pass) policies that have appeal to nearly all groups in their coalition, while assuring Blacks, Latinos, LGBT folks and others that they and their demands are respected and pursued. This has been a problem for the Democrats since the 1960s.”
Beyond those constituencies sits another that may be even more influential. “If Democrats come in with big majorities, the suburban, college-educated, liberal wing of the party is in the driver’s seat,” says Patrick Ruffini, a co-founder of the Republican polling firm Echelon Insights. “That’s true even if Biden improves the party’s standing among white working class voters. Trump’s defeat will be seen as the ultimate victory for the ‘Resistance,’ which grew as an upscale, mostly white movement in the suburbs.”
Mr. Ruffini argues that suburban liberals punch above their electoral weight in the Democratic Party, much like free-market conservatives in the GOP. “That’s who the donors and activists are, and it’s who drives policy,” he says. “That means uncompromising liberal stances on social and cultural issues.”
Inflexibly leftist stances on, say, reparations or defunding the police could crack the unity that Mr. Biden’s Democrats will need to pull the country out of its hole—to actually “build back better.” “Unless more robust economic growth resumes, Democrats will struggle to maintain unity as they make tough decisions about tax and budget priorities,” says the pollster Guy Molyneux of Hart Research Associates. Mr. Biden will surely remember the early years of the Obama administration, when the failure to produce a rapid recovery from the 2008-09 financial crisis fueled mounting opposition to the Democrats’ legislative agenda—and a wipeout in the 2010 midterms.
Could that history repeat? Harvard economist Larry Summers, a longtime adviser to Democratic presidents, is worried. “Once again, big picture, the risks of doing too little far outweigh the risks of doing too much,” he says. “This time, the hole is even bigger than it was in 2009, but I’m not sure that lesson has been learned.” And the pandemic makes the challenge even starker.
In this hour of crisis, the party should be able to unite around a grand bargain: leftist support for solving immediate problems, and liberal support for a long-term plan to advance other progressive priorities. Only shoring up the Biden coalition can produce inspiring governance that will improve—and save—Americans’ lives. Letting the coalition fall apart will probably lead to another surge of illiberal populism and more division and dysfunction, rather than the era of progressive political domination that Democrats now see as tantalizingly at hand.
The Biden Coalition: Temporary Truce or Blueprint for Dominance?
This is my latest. It's now online and will be in the print edition of the Wall Street Journal on Saturday on the front page of the Review section. Some excerpts:
"Since the New Deal, Democrats have struggled to hold together the eclectic elements of their coalition. Under President Franklin Roosevelt, who forged the party as we know it, the bedrock of Democratic support was the white working class, the “solid South” and Black Americans. But that alliance proved unstable. It came apart in the 1960s as the party struggled to incorporate the voters and demands of a range of new social movements—on civil rights, Vietnam, women’s liberation and the environment. Barack Obama’s victory in 2008 gave Democrats hope that they were forming a new coalition, perhaps one even more durable than its New Deal predecessor. President Obama brought together the rising, 21st-century constituencies of nonwhite voters—Black, Hispanic, Asian—as well as younger voters, educated urban whites and even a solid portion of the white working class.
But it proved difficult to maintain the enthusiasm of Mr. Obama’s first, barrier-shattering election among the Democrats’ rising constituencies, and the white working class resumed its march toward the Republican Party, culminating in Donald Trump’s win in 2016. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by some three million people, but her coalition was a shadow of Mr. Obama’s: strong yet somewhat diminished support among nonwhite voters, the younger generation and educated white voters, alongside a catastrophic performance among the white working class and seniors.
The moral of the story is that a successful Democratic coalition cannot rely just on the votes of the party’s rising constituencies; it also needs serious backing from non-college-educated whites and other less supportive voter groups. The party seems to have absorbed that lesson. As things now stand, the Democratic Party led by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris seems likely to have a very good election. If that happens, the Biden coalition will present a new face of the Democratic Party, marching to take back the White House and perhaps the Senate with the backing of not just the usual demographic suspects but also relatively large numbers of moderate suburban whites, older voters and blue-collar white workers....
As...new leaders [like Cori Bush and Jamal Bowman] join Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her congressional “Squad,” they are likely to pose a core question for their party: Can the broad Biden coalition stay together, or are the Democrats just renting some new voters—suburban moderates, seniors and working class whites—to get rid of President Trump? It isn’t hard to see the potential fault lines. Mr. Biden represents the sort of inclusive, big-tent Democratic Party that might accommodate more moderate voters by avoiding an agenda that is too aggressive or “woke” for their comfort....
If Democrats capture both the White House and the Senate, the activist left will claim a good deal of credit. That may embolden them to pressure Mr. Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Chuck Schumer and other Democratic leaders to move significantly to the left of the current Biden program, perhaps reviving the sort of ideas that Mr. Biden declined to endorse in the primaries. Mr. Biden may be hoping that his selection of Ms. Harris, a Black woman who was one of his primary rivals, as his running mate will insulate him from such left-wing pressure, but given Ms. Harris’s comparatively moderate profile, that seems doubtful. As president, he would either have to try to reshape the Democratic Party in ways that could unnerve the relatively centrist new voters who helped put him in office, or risk a bloody intraparty fight that might undermine his ability to pass urgently needed legislation....
Could a Biden administration avoid such a clash? Can Mr. Biden find a way to keep all the factions of his coalition reasonably united once Mr. Trump is out of the way?
Perhaps, but it won’t be easy. Mr. Biden will need to forge a grand bargain among his party’s wings—one that recognizes the need to keep most of Mr. Biden’s new voters on board while moving forward on a generally progressive program. For the Sanders/Warren/Squad faction, that will mean accepting that some signature issues like defunding the police are off the agenda. For the Biden wing, it will mean accepting somewhat bolder changes than they would otherwise be comfortable with and a continuing effort to remain attentive to the needs of the Democrats’ most loyal constituencies.....
A President Biden will almost certainly face a raging pandemic and a staggering economy. Mr. Trump’s inability to solve these problems is what forged the Biden coalition in the first place. Being an effective president and tackling these crises will be job one for Mr. Biden.
He knows this, which explains his ambitious “Build Back Better” plans. Mr. Biden thinks that large-scale, liberal, activist government will be the key to getting the country back on its feet. He will have to produce and produce fast. As Michael Tomasky, editor of the liberal journal Democracy, notes, the victorious Democrats’ biggest problem would probably be “letting themselves get stuck in gridlock and passing nothing of consequence, dispiriting their own voters."....
In this hour of crisis, the party should be able to unite around a grand bargain: leftist support for solving immediate problems, and liberal support for a long-term plan to advance other progressive priorities. Only shoring up the Biden coalition can produce inspiring governance that will improve—and save—Americans’ lives. Letting the coalition fall apart will probably lead to another surge of illiberal populism and more division and dysfunction, rather than the era of progressive political domination that Democrats now see as tantalizingly at hand."
Please read the whole thing of course. I think you'll find it worthwhile.
Thursday, August 13, 2020
Two Left Historians Speak Some Common Sense on Our Political Moment
I was very impressed with this piece on the Dissent website by the historians Alan Rothman and Barbara J. Fields. The article is titled The Death of Hannah Fizer with the deck "Black people suffer disproportionately from police violence. But white skin does not provide immunity." Hannah Fizer was an unarmed white woman in Sedalia, Missouri who was pulled over for a traffic stop, deemed "non-compliant" and wound up getting shot to death. Everything here is familiar except the color of the victim. It shouldn't be. Unjustified police violence up to and including death of a suspect doesn't just happen to blacks; it happens to whites, Latinos and those of other race as well. Sifting through any database of such incidents confirms that excessive police violence is a broad-based problem whose solution would benefit a wide range of communities.
That is the point of Rothman's and Fields' article. They remark:
"Amid widespread protests against police killings of black people, it seems a familiar story: an unarmed person smart-mouths a police officer and dies for it. But Hannah Fizer was white. That should not surprise anyone. According to a database of police shootings in the United States since 2015, half of those shot dead by police—and four of every ten who were unarmed—have been white. People in poor neighborhoods are a lot more likely to be killed by police than people in rich neighborhoods. Living for the most part in poor or working-class neighborhoods as well as subject to a racist double-standard, black people suffer disproportionately from police violence. But white skin does not provide immunity.
Nor does white skin provide immunity against police clad in riot gear and armed with military-grade weapons violating freedom of speech, assembly, and worship. Just ask Martin Gugino, the seventy-five-year-old man who spent a month in the hospital with a fractured skull after he was knocked down by police in Buffalo, and received death threats as a reward. Or ask white clergy and others beset by tear gas and military helicopters to clear space for a photo-op for President Trump during the “Battle of Lafayette Square” in early June. Militarized attacks on unarmed, peaceful protesters have taught thousands of previously uninvolved Americans that they, too, have a stake in curbing the excessive use of force by the police."
They conclude on a strategic note with some particularly sharp words for the current fashion for talking about "white privilege", a toxic approach to building an effective politics.
"[A] successful national political movement must appeal to the self-interest of white Americans. The growing number of nonwhite voters may appear to have reduced the need to appeal to white voters, but white voters remain two-thirds of the electorate. The Republicans can still win a national election without a critical mass of nonwhite voters, but the opposition cannot unseat them without a critical mass of white voters.
Therefore, those seeking genuine democracy must fight like hell to convince white Americans that what is good for black people is also good for them. Reining in murderous police, investing in schools rather than prisons, providing universal healthcare (including drug treatment and rehabilitation for addicts in the rural heartland), raising taxes on the rich, and ending foolish wars are policies that would benefit a solid majority of the American people. Such an agenda could be the basis for a successful political coalition rooted in the real conditions of American life, which were disastrous before the pandemic and are now catastrophic.
Attacking “white privilege” will never build such a coalition. In the first place, those who hope for democracy should never accept the term “privilege” to mean “not subject to a racist double standard.” That is not a privilege. It is a right that belongs to every human being. Moreover, white working people—Hannah Fizer, for example—are not privileged. In fact, they are struggling and suffering in the maw of a callous trickle-up society whose obscene levels of inequality the pandemic is likely to increase. The recent decline in life expectancy among white Americans, which the economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton attribute to “deaths of despair,” is a case in point. The rhetoric of white privilege mocks the problem, while alienating people who might be persuaded."
This is indeed common sense for our political moment. The progressive movement has an opportunity to not only defeat Trump but make serious steps toward the kind of society we would presumably all like to see. But that will only be done by uniting, not dividing, the people we wish to reach.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/…/the-death-of-hannah-fizer….
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)