1/ I’m not one for ‘told ya so’s but in 1989 when David Duke won the state House seat in Louisiana, some of us said this was an inflection point in American politics. This wasn’t just the logical result of Reaganesque racial dog whistling. It was something different (a thread)...

2/ It wasn’t even George Wallace, strictly speaking, though it was closer to that than Reagan. It was the blatant introduction of racist appeals under the guise of mainstream conservatism, and w/a polish and media-savvy Wallace lacked, as had most previous white supremacists...

3/ Duke knew how to use media. He cut 30 minute infomercials in his Senate run in 1990 — unheard of at the time — to slowly lay out his politics of racial resentment, knowing it would find a home w/white folks angered by previous GOP scapegoating of welfare, etc..

4/ ...but wanting to do more with it than just win an election. He wanted to turn mainstream racially-resentful conservatism into full blown white nationalism. And he knew it would take a while. He was grooming the electorate for what was to come....

5/ And yes, he lost in 90. But he got 60% of the white vote. I want to reiterate that. Six in ten whites in Louisiana voted for someone they all knew was a white supremacist. Indeed, a Nazi. And at the time, folks outside of Louisiana told us, “ah, that’s just LA...”

1/ The SCOTUS decision in favor of the "religious freedom" to gather in large groups despite the pandemic is part of a larger effort to elevate so called religious liberty above all other freedoms, but not in the way most agree with...

2/ Most everyone would agree that people's right to worship as they see fit should be protected, to believe as they wish, free from persecution, etc. That is not what this is, or what other religious liberty cases are about...

3/ These cases are about elevating the rights of persons claiming to be acting on the basis of religious belief, to engage in activity that injures others, without consequence. So here it means the right to worship in large groups even if it endangers public health...

4/ In other cases it means the right to discriminate against customers if you have a 'religious objection' to their sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. And what's especially disturbing is the real endgame, which few talk about...

5/ This is really about gutting civil rights protections. If you ask virtually any right wing conservative jurist, or commentator or politician, they will admit, if you push, that they don't think civil rights law should ever have applied to private businesses...

1/ Some people on the left have this magical thinking problem when it comes to why our ideas don't often carry the day within the Dem Party. We act like it's all "big Pharma money" etc. And yes, that money is corrupting. But it's not magic...

2/ If a Rep knew the majority of THEIR constituents (not Dem voters from other parts of the country but THEIR constituents) supported more left policies *and would actually show up & vote against them if they didn't vote for those policies* they would vote for them, obviously.

3/ A major goal of a Rep is to keep being one, so no one would go against the wishes of the majority of their constituents just to get contributions, if that would cost them the job. But it WON'T. Either bc the folks who could punish them don't bother to vote, or, more likely...

4/ bc most voters are savvy enough to care about more than one issue, so even if a Rep doesn't fight for M4A, they might be good on other things voters care about and much better than the GOP alternative. Now, if these are progressive districts where the D is sure to win..

5/ ...it's different. THERE it makes sense to push hard for those Reps to do the left thing. But that means running good candidates in primaries, so those Reps feel the heat. Twitter shaming them or forcing floor votes to "expose" people means nothing w/o a viable alternative...