Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Being positive about both Sen Feinstein AND the kids - a good way to look at it
Greg Sargent has a great view on the Feinstein-kid discussion, highlighting positives about both Feinstein and the kids.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1099289821976104960.html
1) I watched the whole Dianne Feinstein video, and I have to say, I'm baffled by the outrage.
I say this episode was a good thing.
Yes, she was at times cantankerous and a bit dismissive of the legitimate political aspirations of these children and their parents.
*THREAD*
2) Feinstein shouldn't have hinted that the fact that the kids are too young to vote has significance.
They and their parents were engaging in political advocacy, and they were doing so effectively.
3) I think Feinstein was too dismissive of the GND.
It's not okay to simply say, "we can't afford it," as if that ends the conversation.
4) But the kids got the key responses to this across very effectively:
That the costs of inaction are greater, and that political elites often don't acknowledge that "we can't afford it" disguises hidden priorities that often aren't acknowledged, and should be acknowledged.
5) At bottom this episode also showcased a deeper dispute over theories of change.
Feinstein simply doesn't see the utility of pushing large, aspirational policies if they can't pass the Senate. That's her view. She's consensus minded.
6) On this, too, I think Feinstein is wrong to say this ends the conversation. But here again, the kids got the key responses across effectively:
They pointed out that articulating ambitious visions of a far better world inspires people, & that this itself can be good politics.
7) Also, crucially, the problem with Feinstein's "realism" is that it lets GOP climate denialism place limits on our political imagination.
This is crazy, given that it is its own form of deep delusion, and is far less "realistic" than the animating GND goals and values are.
8) While Feinstein was dismissive at times, on balance she listened to the kids. She even seemed to acknowledge some of their larger points, particularly about the irresponsibility of the political class' inaction, given the enormous stakes on the line for the kids' future.
9) Bottom line: People are angry at Feinstein because she disagrees with the GND's goals and with the theory of change animating it.
Fine: This is the argument we need to be having. The edited clip does disservice to what's actually useful/illuminating about this episode. FIN
I say this episode was a good thing.
Yes, she was at times cantankerous and a bit dismissive of the legitimate political aspirations of these children and their parents.
*THREAD*
2) Feinstein shouldn't have hinted that the fact that the kids are too young to vote has significance.
They and their parents were engaging in political advocacy, and they were doing so effectively.
3) I think Feinstein was too dismissive of the GND.
It's not okay to simply say, "we can't afford it," as if that ends the conversation.
4) But the kids got the key responses to this across very effectively:
That the costs of inaction are greater, and that political elites often don't acknowledge that "we can't afford it" disguises hidden priorities that often aren't acknowledged, and should be acknowledged.
5) At bottom this episode also showcased a deeper dispute over theories of change.
Feinstein simply doesn't see the utility of pushing large, aspirational policies if they can't pass the Senate. That's her view. She's consensus minded.
6) On this, too, I think Feinstein is wrong to say this ends the conversation. But here again, the kids got the key responses across effectively:
They pointed out that articulating ambitious visions of a far better world inspires people, & that this itself can be good politics.
7) Also, crucially, the problem with Feinstein's "realism" is that it lets GOP climate denialism place limits on our political imagination.
This is crazy, given that it is its own form of deep delusion, and is far less "realistic" than the animating GND goals and values are.
8) While Feinstein was dismissive at times, on balance she listened to the kids. She even seemed to acknowledge some of their larger points, particularly about the irresponsibility of the political class' inaction, given the enormous stakes on the line for the kids' future.
9) Bottom line: People are angry at Feinstein because she disagrees with the GND's goals and with the theory of change animating it.
Fine: This is the argument we need to be having. The edited clip does disservice to what's actually useful/illuminating about this episode. FIN
Staying positive about all Democrats is CRITICAL. We should all be looking for the positive in all Democrats, and focusing on that. Our rule should be: “never say anything negative about Democrats.” If you don’t like something about one candidate or politician, find something positive about another candidate, about your candidate, and talk about that.
I like here how Sargent emphasizes the good aspects of what was said by both the kids and Feinstein. He notes some things he disagrees with, but overall he finds a constructive direction. It’s good.
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
