Yes, but remember she was the only politician to vote against the Iraq war. She's got guts and even if it's symbolic, she has had death threats and paid a political price for that vote
That great that she did that but she has been showing her self to be just another dem who made one courageous vote 20 years ago lately. She even congratulated Neera Tanden last week.
It's say it's maybe 80% political theater, 20% substantive.
Obviously it's not going anywhere in the Senate, much less with Biden in the White House, so fundamentally it's political theater. But at the same time, it's an unprecedented national endorsement of ending the War on Drugs, which has possibly been the most destructive domestic policy of the past half century. The War on Drugs is in many ways the root of exploding police budgets, mass incarceration, the evisceration of search and seizure protections, ubiquitous state surveillance, etc. And no one here needs reminding of all the ways these policies are targeted primarily at people of color, the poor, and the left.
Anything that adds legitimacy to ending the War on Drugs is at least worth something. Libs dig in their heels against big, bold changes that appear to be ahead of where the political winds are blowing, but they'll slowly dole out progress where it appears safe to do so. The most directly democratic national legislative body taking this step is a good way of showing lib politicians that's the case.
The War on Drugs is in many ways the root of exploding police budgets...
Pedantic point, maybe, but the real root of those things was a mix of racism and a desire to violently oppress poor people to benefit the wealthy. The War on Drugs was a powerful means to do this, but without it, there would have been something else.
"The War on Bad Childhoods," where Black and/or poor parents are surveilled/incarcerated/beaten/shook down for "yelling" at their kids, perhaps?
That's a great point. There may well have been something else that would have been used to similar effect.
I don't think we should take for granted that this would have happened, though -- that skirts dangerously close to "whatever we do won't have any effect, anyways" territory. Maybe the replacement for the War on Drugs would have been substantially less harmful, or substantially easier to counter. Maybe it would have been more limited to the U.S. instead of becoming an imperialist project like the War on Drugs has become.
political theater, they know it won't pass so everyone gets to virtue signal their "support".
Yes, but remember she was the only politician to vote against the Iraq war. She's got guts and even if it's symbolic, she has had death threats and paid a political price for that vote
That great that she did that but she has been showing her self to be just another dem who made one courageous vote 20 years ago lately. She even congratulated Neera Tanden last week.
Oh. Yeah congratulating Neera is cringe. Sigh
lol she endorsed Kamala in the primaries
Oof
It's say it's maybe 80% political theater, 20% substantive.
Obviously it's not going anywhere in the Senate, much less with Biden in the White House, so fundamentally it's political theater. But at the same time, it's an unprecedented national endorsement of ending the War on Drugs, which has possibly been the most destructive domestic policy of the past half century. The War on Drugs is in many ways the root of exploding police budgets, mass incarceration, the evisceration of search and seizure protections, ubiquitous state surveillance, etc. And no one here needs reminding of all the ways these policies are targeted primarily at people of color, the poor, and the left.
Anything that adds legitimacy to ending the War on Drugs is at least worth something. Libs dig in their heels against big, bold changes that appear to be ahead of where the political winds are blowing, but they'll slowly dole out progress where it appears safe to do so. The most directly democratic national legislative body taking this step is a good way of showing lib politicians that's the case.
Pedantic point, maybe, but the real root of those things was a mix of racism and a desire to violently oppress poor people to benefit the wealthy. The War on Drugs was a powerful means to do this, but without it, there would have been something else.
"The War on Bad Childhoods," where Black and/or poor parents are surveilled/incarcerated/beaten/shook down for "yelling" at their kids, perhaps?
That's a great point. There may well have been something else that would have been used to similar effect.
I don't think we should take for granted that this would have happened, though -- that skirts dangerously close to "whatever we do won't have any effect, anyways" territory. Maybe the replacement for the War on Drugs would have been substantially less harmful, or substantially easier to counter. Maybe it would have been more limited to the U.S. instead of becoming an imperialist project like the War on Drugs has become.