I’d never considered the details leading up to an inauguration. I watched this one like a nervous parent, making sure everything went as planned. #velshi
1/13
I have watched every presidential inauguration that I can remember, since I was a little boy, and long before I ever imagined I would live in America. But I had never watched one the way I watched the inauguration of Joe Biden. #velshi
I’d never considered the details leading up to an inauguration. I watched this one like a nervous parent, making sure everything went as planned. #velshi
Thanks to the last four years, everything is different, now. Our demons are on full display, our Union is certifiably imperfect. Our nation is divided. #velshi
After a year that takes first place in our history for death, destruction, fear and injustice, normalcy is struggling to regain its place. One thing with which we will struggle in this new day for America is the death of shame. #velshi
In addition to the other norms the former president destroyed, he turned lying - deliberate, casual and often with the force of law - into an art form and, with that, contributed to the death of shame. #velshi
I’ve been a business journalist for most of my career. When I’d interview a CEO and they’d tell me something that wasn’t true, and I’d have the evidence that it wasn’t true, it would make for an awkward moment. #velshi
The CEOs tried to explain it away. Their people would offer clarifications and maybe, there’d be a statement of clarification. Maybe even an apology. #velshi
If the lie - or any kind of wrongdoing pointed out by the press, was significant, someone might resign, a red letter of sorts on their chest. A mark of shame. #velshi
For some people - some liars – there’s no shame now. One reason I haven’t had Trump officials or allies on @VelshiMSNBC for the last several months is that confronting them with the truth stopped mattering. When caught lying or distorting the facts, they lied more. #velshi
To wear a red letter - TWO red letters, in the former president's case - both capitals for impeachment. It means little to him; there is no contrition. #velshi
He explains it away as partisan or calls it a hoax or a witch hunt. A source of shame once again somehow morphed into to a badge of honor. The death of shame - is the real catastrophe. #velshi
If we as humans do not feel shame in doing something wrong, or in getting caught doing something wrong, what guardrails exist? #velshi
More from Ali Velshi
More from Biden
Biden clearly should not do #1. The problem with #2 is that reconciliation delays the inevitable and creates a tiered system where issues that happen to be ineligible - like civil rights and democracy reform - are relegated to second-class status and left to die by filibuster.
This👇is the danger. By using reconciliation you’re conceding the point that major legislation deserves to pass by majority vote, but only certain kinds for arbitrary reasons. Plus the process itself is opaque and ugly. You risk laying a logistical & political trap for yourself.
All the “here’s what you can do through reconciliation” takes are correct but also look through the wrong end of the telescope. Any of the items mentioned, or a small number of them, would be relatively easy. But putting them all together in one leadership-driven mega package...
... with no committee involvement and no real oversight, enduring tough press for jamming a massive package through a close process and stories about lobbyist giveaways while dodging the adverse parliamentary rulings that are virtually inevitable and still maintaining 50 votes...
It’s possible! Maybe the mega-ness of the package ends up helping hold 50 votes. But the ugliness of the process is being underpriced. And to what end? You’re just delaying the inevitable since you can’t use it for civil rights nor can you allow civil rights to die by filibuster.
Biden will have two options:
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) January 23, 2021
1. Cut the price tag sharply to court GOP support.
2. Use reconciliation to do what he can with 50 votes\u2014some stuff has to go, like $15 wage.
(A 3rd option is nuke the filibuster but @PressSec says he doesn\u2019t favor that.)https://t.co/AV49BcmDaI
This👇is the danger. By using reconciliation you’re conceding the point that major legislation deserves to pass by majority vote, but only certain kinds for arbitrary reasons. Plus the process itself is opaque and ugly. You risk laying a logistical & political trap for yourself.
Obvious answer is 2b where you tie yourself in knots trying to go nuclear lite and totally lose the plot in the process
— Liam Donovan (@LPDonovan) January 23, 2021
All the “here’s what you can do through reconciliation” takes are correct but also look through the wrong end of the telescope. Any of the items mentioned, or a small number of them, would be relatively easy. But putting them all together in one leadership-driven mega package...
... with no committee involvement and no real oversight, enduring tough press for jamming a massive package through a close process and stories about lobbyist giveaways while dodging the adverse parliamentary rulings that are virtually inevitable and still maintaining 50 votes...
It’s possible! Maybe the mega-ness of the package ends up helping hold 50 votes. But the ugliness of the process is being underpriced. And to what end? You’re just delaying the inevitable since you can’t use it for civil rights nor can you allow civil rights to die by filibuster.
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
