DEI is only part of the problem. Biden was not smart enough or competent enough to resist caving to the whims of the far left wing of his party. He left the Democratic Party in shambles from which it may never recover.
If the remaining party leaders (whoever they might be) were smart (which they are not) they would look closely at at Trump’s many executive orders (EO’s) and maybe find a few popular ones that they could agree with and then use those along with the more popular positions that they currently endorse as the basis for a resurgence in 2026 and 2028.
So what’s currently in their bag that people don’t hate and what can be done with them to make them more salable to a majority.
First, a woman’s right to an abortion is popular but many believe there should be some time limit put on its availability as development proceeds from a single cell ( . ) to a 👶. So consider limiting it to the first trimester except to protect the health of the mother or when the fetus is not viable.
Second, most people are worried about climate change but the intermittent renewable energy sources located far from load centers Democrats are currently pushing will never provide reliable energy. The best long term solution is nuclear power plants located at existing coal fired plant locations that already have cooling and distribution infrastructure and are located near where electricity is needed. In the meantime we should be leading an international effort to develop geoengineering solutions to the problem because we will never reduce carbon emissions in time to stave off disaster.
Third, most people support vaccinations when their development is transparent and their use is voluntary. Use that approach to offset the current anti-vaccine rhetoric of the Republicans.
Back to Trump’s executive orders. There are three worth considering supporting.
The first of these EO’s recognizes that open borders are politically unacceptable and that the age of mass migration is over. Importing millions of people who will work for next to nothing just to be here destroys the wages of working class Americans and drives up housing costs when we can't house our own citizens. People cannot overpopulate their home country and just expect to move to greener pastures. There are no more green pastures. They need to voluntarily reduce their own country's population to an environmentally sustainable level, stay home and work there to improve their living conditions.
His second important EO addresses the insanity of gender identity which denies the reality of human sexuality and results in men invading women’s sports, restrooms, locker rooms and prisons. Women need and are entitled to privacy from men. Even more diabolical is the mutilation of innocent children (many who would grow up gay) in pursuit of the impossible because you can’t change your birth sex.
Finally his EO that corrects the craziness of DEI which discriminates against whites, Asians and men in attempting to cure past discrimination against others is absolutely the correct approach. Who could believe that creating a new privileged class and a new discriminated against class would provide a solution to the problem? Not to mention that it’s clearly unconstitutional.
Would these actions help the Democrats recover? Who knows, but absent change there is no hope for them.
I’m all for these, Dave. In the article I make that clear.
Diversity has had a precarious brand and it has for a long time. The myriad ineffective practices persist because there are some people who “win” (at least short-term, with a few exceptions like Sharpton, for whom it is career-defining) with single-identity tropes.
There are others who follow them on that bandwagon because it has had success because many companies are perpetually reacting to tragedy without examine the causes.
Or, whether such tragedies can be prevented thru examination and persistent action.
Or whether it is a tragedy that would be better having compassionate for but not necessarily reacting to because the reaction might do more harm than good long-term.
It’s always about requirements. And, that gets compromised because of networks and affiliation and doesn’t have anything to do with group identity in most cases.
So, I hope we get closer to a meritocratic ideal. And, if that is done uniformly, it means that hiring people because of “who you know” has to shift to achieve it.
I’m not so confident, as was the person that coined the phrase “meritocracy” that close ties will stop helping “their own,” even when the employers they influence, to gain preference for those they know best, have other, perhaps better qualified, higher-merit options.
DEI is only part of the problem. Biden was not smart enough or competent enough to resist caving to the whims of the far left wing of his party. He left the Democratic Party in shambles from which it may never recover.
If the remaining party leaders (whoever they might be) were smart (which they are not) they would look closely at at Trump’s many executive orders (EO’s) and maybe find a few popular ones that they could agree with and then use those along with the more popular positions that they currently endorse as the basis for a resurgence in 2026 and 2028.
So what’s currently in their bag that people don’t hate and what can be done with them to make them more salable to a majority.
First, a woman’s right to an abortion is popular but many believe there should be some time limit put on its availability as development proceeds from a single cell ( . ) to a 👶. So consider limiting it to the first trimester except to protect the health of the mother or when the fetus is not viable.
Second, most people are worried about climate change but the intermittent renewable energy sources located far from load centers Democrats are currently pushing will never provide reliable energy. The best long term solution is nuclear power plants located at existing coal fired plant locations that already have cooling and distribution infrastructure and are located near where electricity is needed. In the meantime we should be leading an international effort to develop geoengineering solutions to the problem because we will never reduce carbon emissions in time to stave off disaster.
Third, most people support vaccinations when their development is transparent and their use is voluntary. Use that approach to offset the current anti-vaccine rhetoric of the Republicans.
Back to Trump’s executive orders. There are three worth considering supporting.
The first of these EO’s recognizes that open borders are politically unacceptable and that the age of mass migration is over. Importing millions of people who will work for next to nothing just to be here destroys the wages of working class Americans and drives up housing costs when we can't house our own citizens. People cannot overpopulate their home country and just expect to move to greener pastures. There are no more green pastures. They need to voluntarily reduce their own country's population to an environmentally sustainable level, stay home and work there to improve their living conditions.
His second important EO addresses the insanity of gender identity which denies the reality of human sexuality and results in men invading women’s sports, restrooms, locker rooms and prisons. Women need and are entitled to privacy from men. Even more diabolical is the mutilation of innocent children (many who would grow up gay) in pursuit of the impossible because you can’t change your birth sex.
Finally his EO that corrects the craziness of DEI which discriminates against whites, Asians and men in attempting to cure past discrimination against others is absolutely the correct approach. Who could believe that creating a new privileged class and a new discriminated against class would provide a solution to the problem? Not to mention that it’s clearly unconstitutional.
Would these actions help the Democrats recover? Who knows, but absent change there is no hope for them.
I’m all for these, Dave. In the article I make that clear.
Diversity has had a precarious brand and it has for a long time. The myriad ineffective practices persist because there are some people who “win” (at least short-term, with a few exceptions like Sharpton, for whom it is career-defining) with single-identity tropes.
There are others who follow them on that bandwagon because it has had success because many companies are perpetually reacting to tragedy without examine the causes.
Or, whether such tragedies can be prevented thru examination and persistent action.
Or whether it is a tragedy that would be better having compassionate for but not necessarily reacting to because the reaction might do more harm than good long-term.
I appreciate your insights.
Amri: And I appreciate your well considered views.
It’s always about requirements. And, that gets compromised because of networks and affiliation and doesn’t have anything to do with group identity in most cases.
So, I hope we get closer to a meritocratic ideal. And, if that is done uniformly, it means that hiring people because of “who you know” has to shift to achieve it.
I’m not so confident, as was the person that coined the phrase “meritocracy” that close ties will stop helping “their own,” even when the employers they influence, to gain preference for those they know best, have other, perhaps better qualified, higher-merit options.