If it's "motivated by pure political theater", why call him a bigot? It seems, rather, that he's a cynical political huckster willing to pass bigoted laws in exchange for votes.
That's a different thing, and if we are trying to predict his behavior (what all such analysis is) we should recognize his true motivations.
Gross dangerous overreactions, everywhere, on all sides, born of anger and fear, mongered by those who are in a position to take full advantage of that anger and fear and will take full advantage of that anger and fear until we say "enough" or until inevitably, “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold”. But in the end, it's our anger and fear. No one else's. Ours. We can check ourselves, moderate ourselves. Make ourselves better! As has been said before, the thing about democracy is that we tend to get the leaders we deserve.
I like how you included the complaint and Mr. Wu's story. It makes me think - and similar to how the media has started to center the victims of gun shootings instead of the shooters - that all news should be focused on the impact to the victims vs giving the bigots of this world more oxygen.
Thanks Abby. While policies should not be based on anecdotes, on the other hand individual stories have a resonance that statistics are incapable of conveying.
I agree that focusing on victims of shootings, including the communities where they happen, should get more media coverage.
Thanks David. The larger point I was trying to make is that instead of giving the Ron DeSantis's of the world air time when they propose horrific policies, we should focus on the data and anecdotes of the impact of those policies. For instance, to play devil's advocate, does it matter / help to say Ron DeSantis is a bigot? What's more important is that his policies will strengthen the racist infrastructure in the state of Florida, hurting the Mr. Wu's of the world and the financial prosperity of everyone in the state. I fear when we focus on the perpetrator and call them names (going back to George W as "stupid") we create a boxing match that benefits both republicans and democrats - but not the people they purportedly serve.
It's a fine line. Harmful policies happen because specific people will them into being. I generally agree about ad hominem attacks. I should have titled the post "Another Bigoted Policy by Ron DeSantis," but I let my emotions drive the title.
The only recourse we have as voters and citizens to a policy we believe is harmful is to try to convince other voters and citizens that the author of the policy should not be in a position of power. We should do that primarily by showing the effects of the policy on people. But I don't think we can ignore who made the policy.
Bottom line: I should have phrased my language differently. So, thanks for "challenging my thinking!"
Thank you for sharing, David! I posted on FB when I first read about DeSantis' anti-Chinese real estate law, and you're right that while it seems like small fry in relation to his other offenses, race-based laws are discriminatory; if you let one stand, a slew of them against other groups will follow. Plus it hits close to home for me as an Asian, a silent and often-overlooked group. Even before the 1850's Gold Rush/railroad era, states enacted anti-Chinese laws that prevented them from testifying in court (which already banned Black and Native Americans from doing so), owning business within certain city limits, created race-based income tax (Chinese Miners Taxes), and culminated in the federal Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which, even when it ended, was effectually renewed under different act names; and though exclusion acts were repealed when they became WWII allies, immigration was still limited by race-based quotas. Congress didn't overhaul the quota system for undesirable immigrants until 1990, and didn't condemn the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 until 2011-2012.
As your comment shows, it's a long and shameful history of legal discrimination that should have long ago come to an end. As a country built by and of immigrants (and we need more), we can ill-afford to let this type of discrimination stand. Let's hope the law is found to be unconstitutional.
If it's "motivated by pure political theater", why call him a bigot? It seems, rather, that he's a cynical political huckster willing to pass bigoted laws in exchange for votes.
That's a different thing, and if we are trying to predict his behavior (what all such analysis is) we should recognize his true motivations.
Interesting point. But per Aristotle's quote, we become our actions. So I'd say bigotry remains bigotry even if inspired by other motivations.
He's the type of leader who sees which way the crowd is marching and runs to the front of it.
If he were plucked up and replanted in place where a cosmopiltan ethos prevailed, he would be shouting that.
Gross dangerous overreactions, everywhere, on all sides, born of anger and fear, mongered by those who are in a position to take full advantage of that anger and fear and will take full advantage of that anger and fear until we say "enough" or until inevitably, “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold”. But in the end, it's our anger and fear. No one else's. Ours. We can check ourselves, moderate ourselves. Make ourselves better! As has been said before, the thing about democracy is that we tend to get the leaders we deserve.
Agree plus your comment made me look up origin of "monger." Now I understand why brokerage firms don't call themselves "securities-mongers."
I like how you included the complaint and Mr. Wu's story. It makes me think - and similar to how the media has started to center the victims of gun shootings instead of the shooters - that all news should be focused on the impact to the victims vs giving the bigots of this world more oxygen.
Thanks Abby. While policies should not be based on anecdotes, on the other hand individual stories have a resonance that statistics are incapable of conveying.
I agree that focusing on victims of shootings, including the communities where they happen, should get more media coverage.
Thanks David. The larger point I was trying to make is that instead of giving the Ron DeSantis's of the world air time when they propose horrific policies, we should focus on the data and anecdotes of the impact of those policies. For instance, to play devil's advocate, does it matter / help to say Ron DeSantis is a bigot? What's more important is that his policies will strengthen the racist infrastructure in the state of Florida, hurting the Mr. Wu's of the world and the financial prosperity of everyone in the state. I fear when we focus on the perpetrator and call them names (going back to George W as "stupid") we create a boxing match that benefits both republicans and democrats - but not the people they purportedly serve.
It's a fine line. Harmful policies happen because specific people will them into being. I generally agree about ad hominem attacks. I should have titled the post "Another Bigoted Policy by Ron DeSantis," but I let my emotions drive the title.
The only recourse we have as voters and citizens to a policy we believe is harmful is to try to convince other voters and citizens that the author of the policy should not be in a position of power. We should do that primarily by showing the effects of the policy on people. But I don't think we can ignore who made the policy.
Bottom line: I should have phrased my language differently. So, thanks for "challenging my thinking!"
And thank you for the fun debate!
Thank you for sharing, David! I posted on FB when I first read about DeSantis' anti-Chinese real estate law, and you're right that while it seems like small fry in relation to his other offenses, race-based laws are discriminatory; if you let one stand, a slew of them against other groups will follow. Plus it hits close to home for me as an Asian, a silent and often-overlooked group. Even before the 1850's Gold Rush/railroad era, states enacted anti-Chinese laws that prevented them from testifying in court (which already banned Black and Native Americans from doing so), owning business within certain city limits, created race-based income tax (Chinese Miners Taxes), and culminated in the federal Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which, even when it ended, was effectually renewed under different act names; and though exclusion acts were repealed when they became WWII allies, immigration was still limited by race-based quotas. Congress didn't overhaul the quota system for undesirable immigrants until 1990, and didn't condemn the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 until 2011-2012.
As your comment shows, it's a long and shameful history of legal discrimination that should have long ago come to an end. As a country built by and of immigrants (and we need more), we can ill-afford to let this type of discrimination stand. Let's hope the law is found to be unconstitutional.