Intellectually enjoyable and enlightening summary of greater New York politics through the lens of its disruption by the primary election of the Democratic Socialists. This movement has seen hopeful germination in other places across the country. And once again you bring up the persistent issue of the press’ reflexive problematization of prior social media posts that don’t line up with candidates’ current positions. I appreciate yours and others’ efforts to rip this moral and intellectual laziness a new asshole. Yes, past problematic social media posts ARE a problem if the quasi-fascist still held those views up until election time and then attempts to equivocate or ignore criticism by ruthlessly “staying on message.” But less cynical and reptilian people grow, evolve, and mature because that is their true nature - open to change. You’d think many journalists, writers, and pundits learned their craft sitting in the pews listening to tirades from John Calvin.
My take: a person’s past informs their present; it does not obscure it. Additionally, context is everything. Those who rail against candidates, like Graham Platner for instance, deliberately ignore his and others’ arc-of-life between then and now. Distinguishing true shifts in a person’s political personality is not as hard as they make it out to be.
One party thinks campaigning is like mud wrestling- just throw out personal attacks and loaded buzz words like “communist” and “red-blooded” and your job is done. No need to explore the effects of proposals, F’rinstance dairy farms and builders failing if their employees are deported - who could have predicted that? The other party usually proposes workable policies including financing and extended social effects.
Intellectually enjoyable and enlightening summary of greater New York politics through the lens of its disruption by the primary election of the Democratic Socialists. This movement has seen hopeful germination in other places across the country. And once again you bring up the persistent issue of the press’ reflexive problematization of prior social media posts that don’t line up with candidates’ current positions. I appreciate yours and others’ efforts to rip this moral and intellectual laziness a new asshole. Yes, past problematic social media posts ARE a problem if the quasi-fascist still held those views up until election time and then attempts to equivocate or ignore criticism by ruthlessly “staying on message.” But less cynical and reptilian people grow, evolve, and mature because that is their true nature - open to change. You’d think many journalists, writers, and pundits learned their craft sitting in the pews listening to tirades from John Calvin.
My take: a person’s past informs their present; it does not obscure it. Additionally, context is everything. Those who rail against candidates, like Graham Platner for instance, deliberately ignore his and others’ arc-of-life between then and now. Distinguishing true shifts in a person’s political personality is not as hard as they make it out to be.
Thank you for this thoughtful response.
One party thinks campaigning is like mud wrestling- just throw out personal attacks and loaded buzz words like “communist” and “red-blooded” and your job is done. No need to explore the effects of proposals, F’rinstance dairy farms and builders failing if their employees are deported - who could have predicted that? The other party usually proposes workable policies including financing and extended social effects.