I almost always agree with you, Ben, and I found your guest, Professor Hinton, to be an eloquent spokesperson for humane public policies founded on a truthful understanding of our history. However, I have to take exception to your listing of "short term solutions." Nixon clearly did focus on southern voters and used crime to draw them away from a Democratic Party newly committed to racial justice. However, you know full well that it's more complex than that today and probably was in 1968, too. The fear of crime, especially the unwarranted fear of crime based on racism and fear of the poor, is as just as prevalent in the north and west as in the south, and influences northern voters in both urban and rural areas. One cannot write off as narrow cynical responses to crime when it is an almost universal fear among the electorate. The same is true of immigration -- it's not just Arizona, it's an almost universal issue. In my view at least, it reflects a recognition -- conscious or not -- that a basic requirement for a nation is control over its borders. For a democracy, there is another requirement -- there must be a democratically arrived at decision about who is allowed to join the democracy. The uproar over immigration policy goes well beyond Arizona and reflects an general awareness that we have not controlled our borders and, initially under Biden, were not even attempting to do so. Moreover, as a nation, we had not employed our democratic processes to decide who to admiit. The U.S. did sign the Global Compact for Migration but my progressive friends seem to have overlooked that the Compact is a "non-binding" agreement, and insists that we have no legal right to decide who enters and on what terms. A democracy must follow democratic procedures in deciding who is allowed to become a member. Asserting that "whoever asks must be admitted" as immigration activists do is undemocratic nonsense.
I could go on -- we don't send weapons to Israel simply because we're afraid of AIPAC and we aren't reluctant to regulate the oil and gas industry merely because they spend millions on political contributions and millions more on deceptive advertising. The last time I checked, the polls showed that, despite general support for environmental protection, most Americans oppose regulation that might raise their costs, limit their choice in vehicles, or restrict other aspects of their daily life.
My point -- you don't help our cause by rendering every issue into an accusatory slogan that is easily refuted.
Thanks for your thoughts, Ed. I think I could refute my points in that part of the interview, too! I was speeding through them as a rhetorical tool to highlight that we still see a lot of short-term thinking, especially when it comes to electoral calculations. So, yeah, maybe not helping anyone's cause... but I was eager to hear how Professor Hinton weighs some of the pragmatic considerations that any election entails versus her wish for longer term justice.
Our lives do depend on this vote.
Appreciated the no-drama analytical critique of Harris' positioning in this election.
Thank you!
I almost always agree with you, Ben, and I found your guest, Professor Hinton, to be an eloquent spokesperson for humane public policies founded on a truthful understanding of our history. However, I have to take exception to your listing of "short term solutions." Nixon clearly did focus on southern voters and used crime to draw them away from a Democratic Party newly committed to racial justice. However, you know full well that it's more complex than that today and probably was in 1968, too. The fear of crime, especially the unwarranted fear of crime based on racism and fear of the poor, is as just as prevalent in the north and west as in the south, and influences northern voters in both urban and rural areas. One cannot write off as narrow cynical responses to crime when it is an almost universal fear among the electorate. The same is true of immigration -- it's not just Arizona, it's an almost universal issue. In my view at least, it reflects a recognition -- conscious or not -- that a basic requirement for a nation is control over its borders. For a democracy, there is another requirement -- there must be a democratically arrived at decision about who is allowed to join the democracy. The uproar over immigration policy goes well beyond Arizona and reflects an general awareness that we have not controlled our borders and, initially under Biden, were not even attempting to do so. Moreover, as a nation, we had not employed our democratic processes to decide who to admiit. The U.S. did sign the Global Compact for Migration but my progressive friends seem to have overlooked that the Compact is a "non-binding" agreement, and insists that we have no legal right to decide who enters and on what terms. A democracy must follow democratic procedures in deciding who is allowed to become a member. Asserting that "whoever asks must be admitted" as immigration activists do is undemocratic nonsense.
I could go on -- we don't send weapons to Israel simply because we're afraid of AIPAC and we aren't reluctant to regulate the oil and gas industry merely because they spend millions on political contributions and millions more on deceptive advertising. The last time I checked, the polls showed that, despite general support for environmental protection, most Americans oppose regulation that might raise their costs, limit their choice in vehicles, or restrict other aspects of their daily life.
My point -- you don't help our cause by rendering every issue into an accusatory slogan that is easily refuted.
Thanks for your thoughts, Ed. I think I could refute my points in that part of the interview, too! I was speeding through them as a rhetorical tool to highlight that we still see a lot of short-term thinking, especially when it comes to electoral calculations. So, yeah, maybe not helping anyone's cause... but I was eager to hear how Professor Hinton weighs some of the pragmatic considerations that any election entails versus her wish for longer term justice.