I agree with your take on this, but I do think a little further context is needed. As I recall, part of the reason the "Great Replacement" stuff picked up steam was in response to articles in places like Slate celebrating the impending demographic demise of the white population in the West.
It was one of those situations where the narrative turned on a dime. Similar to when seemingly overnight we went from "defund the police" to "nobody actually wanted to defund the police." It went from "thank god white people are doomed" to "where did they get this crazy great replacement idea?"
I think it's fair to criticize the author of the article and the free press though, because this isn't some random guy on Facebook who reacted negatively to a slate headline. This is a guy who presumably got paid by a media outlet that claims to be factual to put lipstick on the pig of people reacting negatively to the demographic destiny stuff .
As Randolph noted, the emerging democratic majority was a theory that was simply proven wrong. The GOP has been able to gain non-white support after the Obama years without shedding too much of their party principles. Id be forgiving of a random commentor not realizing how wrong it is, but again, the Free Press? If they are selling what they say they are selling, they should know better.
You have psychos publishing screeds about how they want to repeal the 19th amendment. Should the free press do an article about the GOP plan to disenfranchise women?
I don't consider discussing why people feel a certain way to be lipstick on a pig, especially when it turns out that they have plenty of good reasons. Weather democrats are doing this intentionally or not, it's ridiculous that the media has forced the question outside the Overton window.
This book/thesis in particular - which both authors have now rejected, but the idea stays alive in social media posts about how "all the old white people will die and we will become a progressive country" or other things to that effect
I agree, there is little to no evidence of the "The Great Replacement Theory" as a coordinated plan.
My question, then, is why is it so important to let millions of undocumented migrants, with little to no vetting, come into our country? Because 'someone' in charge, sure seems to think it's a really great idea...
This is the main takeaway. Like a power vacuum, an information vacuum practically invites conspiracy theories. Why are democrats so enthusiastic about mass amounts of unvetted immigration? They have never bothered to defend their policy choices, unwelcome explanations should be expected.
Excellent point. And it wasn't that long ago when the Democrats opposed illegal immigration as bad for the working class (see, e.g., Bernie Sanders). That has now changed. Why?
As conspiracy theories go, in the face of the information vacuum you reference, one could at least make a reasonably rational argument for the Great Replacement Theory.
This is my take on it. I haven’t been able to find evidence that there’s a lot of voting by illegal immigrants. But the Democratic party actively, passionately seeks to invite in massive numbers of unvetted illegal immigrants, and then resists all attempts to make it harder (in a pragmatic sense) for them to vote. The American electorate disagrees with these stances by 70+% majorities from what I’ve seen, so they’re not doing it to win legal votes. So if Democrats are not bringing these folks in to vote illegally, why are they so insistent on, well, bringing them here and making it easy for them to vote illegally? It’s sus.
A policy exists that, if continued, will have the effect of shifting demographics significantly in ways that will disproportionately reward democrats through a change in demographics. Democrats advocate for this policy. Sometimes democrats even make statements acknowledging that changing demographics will benefit them -- and such statements and attitudes have existed for as long as I have been politically conscious. At some point this got branded a conspiracy theory because *bad people* started saying it loudly that they were being hurt by such policies.
I find the "well you don't see democrats boasting about how the immigration policy will benefit them electorally, so this is a mean spirited conspiracy" argument stupid (also sometimes they do say it, and expressly advocate for accelerated paths to citizenship) in the same way I find a "Republicans aren't boasting about gerrymandering on racial lines, so this is a mean spirited conspiracy" argument stupid.
Whether it is (1) congressional apportionment based on citizens and noncitizen populations, (2) an express pathway to citizenship which would gain votes (notwithstanding that the children of illegal immigrants born in the states are citizens who will eventually vote) or (3) noncitizens voting (which i am aware Jesse firmly believes doesn't happen at scale), it is fair to criticize the immigration policies of democrats for the impact on future elections.
I just cannot with all the bluster of "this is an evil conspiracy theory that shouldn't be spread or talked about". I find it overly simplistic in the same way I'd find it overly simplistic to say people shouldn't speculate that Republicans gerrymander on racial lines (intentionally or not) simply because they don't say it out loud
Excellent point. People have always been free to debate motives behind policy choices. Just think of how many times malicious intentions have been attributed to Trump, Bush, congressional Republicans, conservative justices, etc., and I don't remember any of those being labeled as "conspiracies." It's weird that Democrats have managed to carve out a media-enforced safe harbor on this one issue, and convenient that it's the issue for which they've never been able to form a coherent response.
Unfortunately, life in Mauritania is very difficult right now. No doubt thousands or even millions of Mauritanians would emigrate to the United States if they could. Unquestionably there are millions and hundreds of millions of people in many countries that have similarly hard lives. It should be obvious that the United States can not possibly accommodate all of them. The great replacement theory as you have outlined it may be nonsensical but no reasonable person can deny that the presence of large numbers of migrants who need housing, jobs, medical care etc. absorbs resources that could be used to aid needy citizens.
Yes, you are correct. You could also say, in Australia, that Rose’s parents immigrated from England (or Sri Lanka, or Malaysia, or wherever they came from.)
There are at least four conclusions that *reasonable* people could reach about the policies of the Biden / Harris admin that have tripled the rate of illegal migration across US borders. I think there is truth in all of them – and more besides – because there are many stakeholders, there is a push and pull of politics and greed, and the reality is that people most often have many motives for the same action.
1) Altruistic compassion to shelter the world’s poor and huddled masses.
2) A demographic reset that – at least in the short term – is likely to benefit Democrats.
3) Cheap labor for corporations, facilitated by political donations, and cartel activity – to the tune of 100s of billions of dollars.
4) Rollback of Trump administration border and immigration policies based on puerile disdain followed by sheer incompetence (i.e., Biden admin never intended the level of illegal immigration we’ve seen).
To write a novel arguing that the Free Press article is incorrect and immoral is foolish.
This is just one more and particularly egregious instantiation of the fatal flaw of The Free Press: they provide just enough cover for craziness on the right to make manias like this one seem just one among several plausible points of view. They are preoccupied with the excesses of ultra-progressives, but they almost completely give a pass to right-wing lunacy and extremism. Bari Weiss, et al, are providing aid and comfort to those who think the destructive Trumpist response to the 2020 loss was reasonable or even absolutely appropriate and necessary, and their comments section reflects perfectly their pursuit of this bunch as their target market. I think that what started out with some good intentions has degenerated into ...well into exactly the approach that you describe so eloquently. But hey, they're valued at $100 million, and they're not going to walk away from that for the sake of decency and journalistic ethics.
It's almost enough to make one want to subscribe to TFP for a month, just to be able to comment "It's the Joos doing it innit" and kick back to watch the carnage.
I am a subscriber, but I am happily letting it lapse. It's sensationalist and full of chop logic. Quite different from Singal. Oddly enough, its readers, commenters at least, consider it "too left". I won't miss it, and I regret giving them money.
On the one hand, it’s not entirely fair to judge a publication on the basis of its commenters. On the other, they have absolutely made their - very profitable! - bed.
I think it’s fine if they want to be a pro-Trump op (which, following Matt Yglesias here, is less about what they do cover than what they don’t cover). It’s fine if they want their editorial line to be “don’t blame us, it’s the Left that’s crazy!” What’s less fine is their insistence that they’re a one-stop non-ideological news shop, which is laughable.
Plus, the staff writers there are just so insufferably sanctimonious and have zero sense of humor. Which, to be fair, is not a requirement for journalistic excellence per se, but is definitely a big turn-off for me.
Exactly. You can't point out the faults almost exclusively of just one part of the political spectrum and call that objectivity, but that's what they've done.
I want to like The Free Press in theory, but the obvious tilt of their coverage decisions, the overall lack of rigor (here, in Coleman's piece that Radley Balko criticized), and then their lack of reasonable response to criticism is making that impossible, which is a shame.
It would be good if a reasonable, rigorous, straight-shooting center-right inflected journalistic enterprise existed, but so far TFP ain't it.
YES. TFP paid little attention to Trump's 34 felony convictions, but when Biden appeared foggy in a debate they just about lost their shit demanding he drop out of the race. Then when he DID drop out, they lost their shit about the way he did it.
If Bari Weiss wants to advocate for Trump, fine, but I sure wish she'd just be open about that so we'd all know where she stands.
I also read that FP article and came away disappointed because there just wasn’t enough information in it to either explain the issue or to make a compelling argument. The author ultimately failed to do either, and I fully agree with Jesse on that point.
Thanks for taking the time to fully explain what was missing and what could have made it a worthwhile piece.
Yeah, I didn't feel like I came away from the FP article better informed in either direction.
I think Jesse should've used his extra keyboard strokes about Nazi theology to mention the more recent media victory lapping surrounding the "Emerging Democratic Majority" that is probably more relevant to an American context.
I don't think that the Mauritanians just happen to all end up in the same obscure town in Ohio because the first asylum seeking family threw a dart in a map and thousands more, without knowing the language, traversed our vast country to find them. I think that for whatever reason, (probably economical because Ohio is cheap) they were steered that direction.
But as soon as someone ties any immigration policy to some misguided hope for an election advantage, some lefty cries "great replacement theory!" Fuck off. You're capable of making arguments without implying people are being duped by ancient antisemitism.
I'm not saying everyone who believes in gravity is a eugenicist, but every eugenicist believes in gravity!
There are also refugee resettlement cities (e.g. in Manchester NH we get people from Nepal and Congo), and there are also networks of nonprofits and employers who manage housing assistance and employment placement for new arrivals. It's likely the same for these new temporary asylum/refugee populations - I'd be willing to bet there was a nonprofit that found an employer in the area who was happy to get a steady supply of entry level employees.
Not to sound like the stereotypical immigration advocate but I do appreciate all the Nepalese food I get to eat 🤷♂️
I'm sure it's something like that. There's probably a non-profit that's got some kind of advantage or comfort level working in this one town in Ohio, or there were a lot of vacancies in this town that the non-profit learned of. Their job was to get people under a roof, not to overwhelm this specific town with migrants. That was just the outcome.
And we all know who works for non-profits. DEMONCRATS!
Rigor is really your argument? I hate mind reading disguised as information as much as the next person, but you can’t stop people speculating as to why an observable phenomenon is happening. You do it yourself with your own assumptions and projections onto people concerned over illegal immigration.
A very judicious analysis of the article. Bari Weiss somewhat confounds me. I initially dismissed or discounted what I took to be her alarmist perception of widespread anti-semitism. The protests following October 7th made me reconsider. But the anti-semitism of the Right is ascendant as well. Her ambivalence of a Trump victory is therefore startling.
I don't understand why people always have to go for the maximalist crazy person argument when advocating for policy change - like, something along the lines of "our completely out of control illegal immigration is making life more difficult for both American citizens and the people who come here without authorization. If we had an orderly, lawful immigration system it would be harder for Massachusetts pizza shop owners to have slaves." (yes this happened, link below) would be a lot more compelling.
There is conspiracy of incentives for people to want to come to the US and for their employers in the US to abuse/take advantage of them. But as Jesse says, the actual conversation should be about the tradeoffs between different policy options, not a shouting match about how one side is racist and the other side wants to replace the electorate.
The reason is simple - the argument presented here is ever present. Many top politicians and political thinkers often advocate for more/any immigration controls.
It has not made a difference. No one cares.
"They're eating the cats" - that message stuck. Love it or hate the information ecosystem is what it is. You can't get change by making well reasoned arguments - we'll see in a week if unreasoned arguments can.
I canceled my sub to the fp. I just got tired of the endless rightward skew they put on every (?) story. I had hoped they would be a little more centrist, but I fear the election has them gunning for trump. I appreciated Matt Yglesias’ take here.
Yeah this past month they've been way too Trump-apologist for me. Did we really need two days in a row this week with an email subject about Biden's stupid "garbage" comment? (Ugh, why couldn't he just shut up) I've always been a free subscriber, but I certainly wouldn't start paying now...
I have posted about the Free Press comments section several times in the weekly BARpod discussion thread. There is a very active group in the FP comments section that seems to be trying to form a Breitbart-like group of far-right symapticos. But this group is very, very, very small if the FP's reports on its subscriber base are to be believed. So I would be hesitant to link any FP journalism as being impacted by its comment section. If anything, TGIF writers seem to enjoy tweaking that angry group.
Good points all around. If Trump wins, immigration will have a lot to do with it. And the failure of Harris to admit that Biden administration border policies were in hindsight way too loose and that they were too slow to correct them. But they did course correct.
I agree with your take on this, but I do think a little further context is needed. As I recall, part of the reason the "Great Replacement" stuff picked up steam was in response to articles in places like Slate celebrating the impending demographic demise of the white population in the West.
It was one of those situations where the narrative turned on a dime. Similar to when seemingly overnight we went from "defund the police" to "nobody actually wanted to defund the police." It went from "thank god white people are doomed" to "where did they get this crazy great replacement idea?"
It’s all in our heads, pure imagination!
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/24/books/chapters/the-emerging-democratic-majority.html
I think it's fair to criticize the author of the article and the free press though, because this isn't some random guy on Facebook who reacted negatively to a slate headline. This is a guy who presumably got paid by a media outlet that claims to be factual to put lipstick on the pig of people reacting negatively to the demographic destiny stuff .
As Randolph noted, the emerging democratic majority was a theory that was simply proven wrong. The GOP has been able to gain non-white support after the Obama years without shedding too much of their party principles. Id be forgiving of a random commentor not realizing how wrong it is, but again, the Free Press? If they are selling what they say they are selling, they should know better.
You have psychos publishing screeds about how they want to repeal the 19th amendment. Should the free press do an article about the GOP plan to disenfranchise women?
I don't consider discussing why people feel a certain way to be lipstick on a pig, especially when it turns out that they have plenty of good reasons. Weather democrats are doing this intentionally or not, it's ridiculous that the media has forced the question outside the Overton window.
Well, as I wrote, I agree with Singal's critique of TFP in this case. But his article is also about the Great Replacement Theory and how it caught on.
This book/thesis in particular - which both authors have now rejected, but the idea stays alive in social media posts about how "all the old white people will die and we will become a progressive country" or other things to that effect
https://capitalresearch.org/article/the-thesis-that-drove-american-politics-crazy-part-1/
That’s an interesting link, thank you. I haven’t read that book in a couple of decades and it refreshed my memory a bit.
The big weakness of that theory is that people get older....
Care to provide a link to the Slate piece?
I agree, there is little to no evidence of the "The Great Replacement Theory" as a coordinated plan.
My question, then, is why is it so important to let millions of undocumented migrants, with little to no vetting, come into our country? Because 'someone' in charge, sure seems to think it's a really great idea...
This is the main takeaway. Like a power vacuum, an information vacuum practically invites conspiracy theories. Why are democrats so enthusiastic about mass amounts of unvetted immigration? They have never bothered to defend their policy choices, unwelcome explanations should be expected.
Excellent point. And it wasn't that long ago when the Democrats opposed illegal immigration as bad for the working class (see, e.g., Bernie Sanders). That has now changed. Why?
As conspiracy theories go, in the face of the information vacuum you reference, one could at least make a reasonably rational argument for the Great Replacement Theory.
This is my take on it. I haven’t been able to find evidence that there’s a lot of voting by illegal immigrants. But the Democratic party actively, passionately seeks to invite in massive numbers of unvetted illegal immigrants, and then resists all attempts to make it harder (in a pragmatic sense) for them to vote. The American electorate disagrees with these stances by 70+% majorities from what I’ve seen, so they’re not doing it to win legal votes. So if Democrats are not bringing these folks in to vote illegally, why are they so insistent on, well, bringing them here and making it easy for them to vote illegally? It’s sus.
This:
"It's sus."
A policy exists that, if continued, will have the effect of shifting demographics significantly in ways that will disproportionately reward democrats through a change in demographics. Democrats advocate for this policy. Sometimes democrats even make statements acknowledging that changing demographics will benefit them -- and such statements and attitudes have existed for as long as I have been politically conscious. At some point this got branded a conspiracy theory because *bad people* started saying it loudly that they were being hurt by such policies.
I find the "well you don't see democrats boasting about how the immigration policy will benefit them electorally, so this is a mean spirited conspiracy" argument stupid (also sometimes they do say it, and expressly advocate for accelerated paths to citizenship) in the same way I find a "Republicans aren't boasting about gerrymandering on racial lines, so this is a mean spirited conspiracy" argument stupid.
Whether it is (1) congressional apportionment based on citizens and noncitizen populations, (2) an express pathway to citizenship which would gain votes (notwithstanding that the children of illegal immigrants born in the states are citizens who will eventually vote) or (3) noncitizens voting (which i am aware Jesse firmly believes doesn't happen at scale), it is fair to criticize the immigration policies of democrats for the impact on future elections.
I just cannot with all the bluster of "this is an evil conspiracy theory that shouldn't be spread or talked about". I find it overly simplistic in the same way I'd find it overly simplistic to say people shouldn't speculate that Republicans gerrymander on racial lines (intentionally or not) simply because they don't say it out loud
Excellent point. People have always been free to debate motives behind policy choices. Just think of how many times malicious intentions have been attributed to Trump, Bush, congressional Republicans, conservative justices, etc., and I don't remember any of those being labeled as "conspiracies." It's weird that Democrats have managed to carve out a media-enforced safe harbor on this one issue, and convenient that it's the issue for which they've never been able to form a coherent response.
Unfortunately, life in Mauritania is very difficult right now. No doubt thousands or even millions of Mauritanians would emigrate to the United States if they could. Unquestionably there are millions and hundreds of millions of people in many countries that have similarly hard lives. It should be obvious that the United States can not possibly accommodate all of them. The great replacement theory as you have outlined it may be nonsensical but no reasonable person can deny that the presence of large numbers of migrants who need housing, jobs, medical care etc. absorbs resources that could be used to aid needy citizens.
Yes, I'm a pedant: One immigrates to a place, or emigrates from a place. One cannot emigrate to a place.
Here is the Oxford Dictionary of English usage example for "emigrate": "Rose's parents emigrated to Australia."
Yes, you are correct. You could also say, in Australia, that Rose’s parents immigrated from England (or Sri Lanka, or Malaysia, or wherever they came from.)
Someone needs to make a The Free Press headline generator: "Is the Left [doing horrible thing] to [right-coded vulnerable group]? People are saying!"
There are at least four conclusions that *reasonable* people could reach about the policies of the Biden / Harris admin that have tripled the rate of illegal migration across US borders. I think there is truth in all of them – and more besides – because there are many stakeholders, there is a push and pull of politics and greed, and the reality is that people most often have many motives for the same action.
1) Altruistic compassion to shelter the world’s poor and huddled masses.
2) A demographic reset that – at least in the short term – is likely to benefit Democrats.
3) Cheap labor for corporations, facilitated by political donations, and cartel activity – to the tune of 100s of billions of dollars.
4) Rollback of Trump administration border and immigration policies based on puerile disdain followed by sheer incompetence (i.e., Biden admin never intended the level of illegal immigration we’ve seen).
To write a novel arguing that the Free Press article is incorrect and immoral is foolish.
This is just one more and particularly egregious instantiation of the fatal flaw of The Free Press: they provide just enough cover for craziness on the right to make manias like this one seem just one among several plausible points of view. They are preoccupied with the excesses of ultra-progressives, but they almost completely give a pass to right-wing lunacy and extremism. Bari Weiss, et al, are providing aid and comfort to those who think the destructive Trumpist response to the 2020 loss was reasonable or even absolutely appropriate and necessary, and their comments section reflects perfectly their pursuit of this bunch as their target market. I think that what started out with some good intentions has degenerated into ...well into exactly the approach that you describe so eloquently. But hey, they're valued at $100 million, and they're not going to walk away from that for the sake of decency and journalistic ethics.
It's almost enough to make one want to subscribe to TFP for a month, just to be able to comment "It's the Joos doing it innit" and kick back to watch the carnage.
I am a subscriber, but I am happily letting it lapse. It's sensationalist and full of chop logic. Quite different from Singal. Oddly enough, its readers, commenters at least, consider it "too left". I won't miss it, and I regret giving them money.
On the one hand, it’s not entirely fair to judge a publication on the basis of its commenters. On the other, they have absolutely made their - very profitable! - bed.
I think it’s fine if they want to be a pro-Trump op (which, following Matt Yglesias here, is less about what they do cover than what they don’t cover). It’s fine if they want their editorial line to be “don’t blame us, it’s the Left that’s crazy!” What’s less fine is their insistence that they’re a one-stop non-ideological news shop, which is laughable.
Plus, the staff writers there are just so insufferably sanctimonious and have zero sense of humor. Which, to be fair, is not a requirement for journalistic excellence per se, but is definitely a big turn-off for me.
Exactly. You can't point out the faults almost exclusively of just one part of the political spectrum and call that objectivity, but that's what they've done.
I want to like The Free Press in theory, but the obvious tilt of their coverage decisions, the overall lack of rigor (here, in Coleman's piece that Radley Balko criticized), and then their lack of reasonable response to criticism is making that impossible, which is a shame.
It would be good if a reasonable, rigorous, straight-shooting center-right inflected journalistic enterprise existed, but so far TFP ain't it.
YES. TFP paid little attention to Trump's 34 felony convictions, but when Biden appeared foggy in a debate they just about lost their shit demanding he drop out of the race. Then when he DID drop out, they lost their shit about the way he did it.
If Bari Weiss wants to advocate for Trump, fine, but I sure wish she'd just be open about that so we'd all know where she stands.
Every now and then I want to restart my subscription, and then a batshit crazy piece like Savodnik’s reminds me why I cancelled in the first place.
I also read that FP article and came away disappointed because there just wasn’t enough information in it to either explain the issue or to make a compelling argument. The author ultimately failed to do either, and I fully agree with Jesse on that point.
Thanks for taking the time to fully explain what was missing and what could have made it a worthwhile piece.
Yeah, I didn't feel like I came away from the FP article better informed in either direction.
I think Jesse should've used his extra keyboard strokes about Nazi theology to mention the more recent media victory lapping surrounding the "Emerging Democratic Majority" that is probably more relevant to an American context.
I don't think that the Mauritanians just happen to all end up in the same obscure town in Ohio because the first asylum seeking family threw a dart in a map and thousands more, without knowing the language, traversed our vast country to find them. I think that for whatever reason, (probably economical because Ohio is cheap) they were steered that direction.
But as soon as someone ties any immigration policy to some misguided hope for an election advantage, some lefty cries "great replacement theory!" Fuck off. You're capable of making arguments without implying people are being duped by ancient antisemitism.
I'm not saying everyone who believes in gravity is a eugenicist, but every eugenicist believes in gravity!
There are also refugee resettlement cities (e.g. in Manchester NH we get people from Nepal and Congo), and there are also networks of nonprofits and employers who manage housing assistance and employment placement for new arrivals. It's likely the same for these new temporary asylum/refugee populations - I'd be willing to bet there was a nonprofit that found an employer in the area who was happy to get a steady supply of entry level employees.
Not to sound like the stereotypical immigration advocate but I do appreciate all the Nepalese food I get to eat 🤷♂️
I'm sure it's something like that. There's probably a non-profit that's got some kind of advantage or comfort level working in this one town in Ohio, or there were a lot of vacancies in this town that the non-profit learned of. Their job was to get people under a roof, not to overwhelm this specific town with migrants. That was just the outcome.
And we all know who works for non-profits. DEMONCRATS!
(That last part is a joke)
Seems like The Free Press is decaying from being a "classically liberal" center-right publication into Breitbart Lite.
Rigor is really your argument? I hate mind reading disguised as information as much as the next person, but you can’t stop people speculating as to why an observable phenomenon is happening. You do it yourself with your own assumptions and projections onto people concerned over illegal immigration.
A very judicious analysis of the article. Bari Weiss somewhat confounds me. I initially dismissed or discounted what I took to be her alarmist perception of widespread anti-semitism. The protests following October 7th made me reconsider. But the anti-semitism of the Right is ascendant as well. Her ambivalence of a Trump victory is therefore startling.
I don't understand why people always have to go for the maximalist crazy person argument when advocating for policy change - like, something along the lines of "our completely out of control illegal immigration is making life more difficult for both American citizens and the people who come here without authorization. If we had an orderly, lawful immigration system it would be harder for Massachusetts pizza shop owners to have slaves." (yes this happened, link below) would be a lot more compelling.
There is conspiracy of incentives for people to want to come to the US and for their employers in the US to abuse/take advantage of them. But as Jesse says, the actual conversation should be about the tradeoffs between different policy options, not a shouting match about how one side is racist and the other side wants to replace the electorate.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/owner-boston-pizzeria-chain-arrested-forced-labor-charges
The reason is simple - the argument presented here is ever present. Many top politicians and political thinkers often advocate for more/any immigration controls.
It has not made a difference. No one cares.
"They're eating the cats" - that message stuck. Love it or hate the information ecosystem is what it is. You can't get change by making well reasoned arguments - we'll see in a week if unreasoned arguments can.
I canceled my sub to the fp. I just got tired of the endless rightward skew they put on every (?) story. I had hoped they would be a little more centrist, but I fear the election has them gunning for trump. I appreciated Matt Yglesias’ take here.
Yeah this past month they've been way too Trump-apologist for me. Did we really need two days in a row this week with an email subject about Biden's stupid "garbage" comment? (Ugh, why couldn't he just shut up) I've always been a free subscriber, but I certainly wouldn't start paying now...
Exactly.
https://open.substack.com/pub/matthewyglesias/p/democrats-need-to-talk-about-their?r=90a9a&utm_medium=ios
I have posted about the Free Press comments section several times in the weekly BARpod discussion thread. There is a very active group in the FP comments section that seems to be trying to form a Breitbart-like group of far-right symapticos. But this group is very, very, very small if the FP's reports on its subscriber base are to be believed. So I would be hesitant to link any FP journalism as being impacted by its comment section. If anything, TGIF writers seem to enjoy tweaking that angry group.
Good points all around. If Trump wins, immigration will have a lot to do with it. And the failure of Harris to admit that Biden administration border policies were in hindsight way too loose and that they were too slow to correct them. But they did course correct.