Mediaboss Marketing

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Parenthood is awesome, but you learn a lot. If you ever had kids in middle school, you know what sustained emotional drama looks like. Everything's fairly placid up until about seventh grade. And then the four horsemen of the adolescent apocalypse arrive: hormones, homework, dating and acne. And things get very volatile, very fast. The main symptom of this period of childhood development, apart from door-slamming, is wild overstatement. No longer is anything okay, or not very good. No. Even the mildest inconvenience is transformed into a horrifying, world-ending disaster. The Titanic meets Vesuvius, plus Y2K. Four minutes late for school is the single worst day of my life ever. Waking up before 9 is like death. A pop quiz in math class? That's the emotional equivalent of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, except much more upsetting.

It's pretty intense. Thankfully, most kids get over middle school, those who don't tend to leave home and not come back. They become interpretive dance majors at small, liberal arts colleges, or they run for Congress. Ever wonder why America's traditional party of the unionized working man suddenly sounds like a van full of eighth grade girls on the way to prom, all breathy and on the verge of tears? Well, it's simple. Because at this point, that's pretty much exactly what the Democratic Party is. You'll really notice it in the way they speak.

REPUBLICANS SEE SIGNS OF MIDTERM RED WAVE IN SF SCHOOL BOARD RECALL: THEYVE IGNORED PARENTS'

For Democrats, there are no more small problems, no challenges minor. Every speed bump is a full-blown catastrophe. Every disagreement? Total war. Losing an election? They can't even talk about it. Close your eyes and try to picture the scariest threat you can imagine. The prowler at the door. The monster under the bed. An IRS audit. Now multiply that scene by a million sweat-covered nightmares, and you are just beginning to approach the level of terror the Democrats feel when they think about giving up power. It's not just a bad outcome, it's the end of democracy. Watch:

DON LEMON: Is the end of our democracy in sight?

AOC: And I believe that the election of Joe Biden essentially paused our descent into just the complete upending of our democracy, but we are not out of it.

MSNBC: So Donald Trump's comeback, it's the end of our democracy

CNN: We might see the end of democracy in the coming years.

WOLF BLITZER: So you're saying it's still possible we could lose our democracy here in the United States?

ADAM SCHIFF: Without a doubt.

SCHUMER: If Americans lose faith in the veracity and honor of our elections, it's the beginning of end of our democracy.

HILLARY CLINTON: I think that could be the end of our democracy, not to be too, you know, appointed about it, but I want people to understand.

ABC ANCHOR: Hillary Clinton said a couple of weeks ago that if he runs and wins, that could be the end of our democracy. Do you share that fear?

MAX BOOT: Well, I don't want to be overly alarmist, but I think we should be alarmed because potentially this could be the end of American democracy. I never thought I'd be saying something like that.

It could be the end of American democracy, and I never thought I'd be saying something like that, says Max Boot. Well, that makes two of us. We always knew that Max Boot loved to kill brown people in impoverished villages, in faraway countries, or precisely send other people's kids to do it for him. But we had no idea that Max Boot was in the middle of a full-blown emotional breakdown. He must be, because how else do you explain a reaction like that?

FLORIDA BOASTS RECORD TOURIST NUMBERS DESPITE MEDIA FEAR-MONGERING ABOUT THE STATE

For a well-adjusted, normal person, unwanted election outcomes are part of life. Voters don't always do what you want them to do. It is frustrating, but that's how it works. In fact, when voters reject you, you get a chance to assess your own behavior. Chances are, there is a reason that people didn't want you in power, and you now have time to think about what that reason might be. That's a healthy process. So when you lose, it is hardly proof that the system is broken. In fact, it's usually evidence that things are working exactly as intended. But people like Max Boot and Liz Cheney do not see it that way. They are too fragile to face their own unpopularity.

To people like that, the prospect of rejection by voters, of losing control of the country, means literally, literally, literally the end of democracy itself. Imagine feeling that way.

If you really believe that your election loss meant the end of America and the beginning of a thousand years of darkness, you might have trouble keeping perspective on politics. Every election would feel like climate change, the most profound existential crisis in the history of the world. And if your side ever lost an election, whoa, how do you describe a disaster that existentially existential?

Honestly, words would fail you. You'd have only animal sounds.

REACTION TO TRUMP VICTORY.

Yes, Democrat, someone you didn't vote for won the presidential election. You know, if you're not a Democrat, it's pretty hard to imagine the pain of a moment like that. For Democrats, it was like being boiled alive in a giant mug of the world's hottest latte, but without the soothing foam. Four years of wrenching agony. The whole experience hurt so much that Democrats inevitably came to the obvious conclusion. Going forward, no voter alive or dead, citizen or illegal, should ever again be asked to show voter ID at the polls. It was a simple, elegant solution that no sensible person could disagree with. Unfortunately, not everyone is sensible. Many people are like Hitler. So they oppose voter fraud. Democrats wasted no time in becoming hysterical about this.

GOP LEADER MCCARTHY BACKS PARENTS, VOTERS WHO TOSSED THREE SAN FRANCISCO SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS OUT

REV. AL SHARPTON, MSNBC: Tonights lead, Jim Crow 2.0.

BIDEN: It is the most pernicious thing, this makes Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle.

AOC: Are remnants of Jim Crow, I shouldnt even say remnants, revivals -- an attempted revival of Jim Crow.

HAKEEM JEFFRIES: A Jim Crow KKK like caucus.

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, MSNBC: Their strategy right now is to pass a bunch of racist voting laws, effectively a new Jim Crow in the south.

ARI BERMAN, MSNBC: And allow Republicans all across the country to implement Jim Crow 2.0.

MICHAELERICDYSON, MSNBC: Jim Crow 2.0? This is Jim, Jane Crow, Sally and every other Crow we can imagine.

DON LEMON, CNN: Its voter suppression, its the new Jim Crow.

That's right. Showing photo ID to vote, says Mr. Michael Eric Dyson, who not only teaches at a college, but has three names, that is both Jim Crow and Jane Crow, and for that matter, very much like their little-known love child, Josephus Crow, who's even more racist than his parents are. That's how immoral voter ID is. So stop it right now, says Michael Eric Dyson. It's the end of democracy.

At this point, a lot of things are the end of democracy, including we are here to tell you, not wearing a mask in an elevator. Yes, that's the end of democracy, too. So says the latest bulletin from, I want to be clear here we're not accusing anyone of hysteria, just reporting the news, from this sitting Democratic congresswoman, who in point of fact rarely sits, but instead leaps around pointing a finger people and accusing them of things. In any case, here she is explaining the latest threat to democracy.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL: This has happened to me where you get on an elevator and people refuse to wear a mask. And your choices are to either get off the elevator or to get on the elevator and to tell them to wear a mask. That should not be a problem in the United States Congress. And I really believe that our colleagues who refuse to even adhere to the basic norms of civility are undermining our democracy. And of course, we're seeing it in all kinds of even more serious ways, like the Jan. 6 insurrection.

So those are your choices when an insurrectionist gets on the elevator without a mask. Of course, the other choice is to seek immediate psychiatric care and behave like an adult, that has not occurred to them. Because democracy is at stake.

It turns out you can destroy our ancient democracy just by forgetting to wear your mask in an elevator. Think about that for a moment, Mr. and Mrs. America. Our democracy is that brittle.

One act of carelessness, and it could shatter into a million pieces like a priceless vase. It's enough to keep you up at night. Adam Kinzinger has not slept since he realized that. The thought that some oaf might trip on a carpet edge and drop democracy onto a hardwood floor, literally, literally makes Adam Kinzinger cry. It's how sensitive he is.

KINZINGER: I never expected today to be quite as emotional for me as it has been. // You know, you talk about the impact of that day. But you guys won. You guys held. You know, democracies are not defined by our bad days, we're defined by how we come back from bad days.

Yes, another seventh grade girl representing you in Congress, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Adam Kinzinger. You've got to wonder if we would all be much better off if Adam Kinzinger had just stuck to interpretive dance. Too late now.

This article is adapted from Tucker Carlson's opening monologue on the February 16, 2022 edition of "Tucker Carlson Tonight."

Read the original here:
Tucker Carlson: Every speed bump for Democrats is a full-blown catastrophe - Fox News

Todays Democrats fancy themselves as the party that trusts the evidence wherever it might lead. This is why they invest heavily in science and technology and set up arms of government to translate that knowledge into action. But despite claiming to prioritize new ways of improving our society, Democrats dont always act in ways that are rooted in research.

In fact, sometimes they actively resist doing what the evidence says especially when it comes to implementing policies that give financial benefits to people low on Americas societal totem pole. Its not always said out loud, but the reality is that some Democrats, and American voters in general, do not think very highly of poor people or people of color there are countless examples of how society is quick to dehumanize them and how politicians struggle to address their needs in a meaningful way. These patterns of thinking and misleading portrayals of marginalized people too often mean that the policies that could help them most are opposed time and time again.

That opposition is, of course, rarely framed in terms of antipathy or animus toward a particular group. Instead, it is often framed as rationality, like adherence to fiscal conservatism, especially among members of the GOP, who have long abided by small-government views. But some Democrats are really no different. Consider President Bidens reluctance to cancel student loan debt, or the federal governments hesitancy to provide free community college, or West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchins recent opposition to including the child tax credit in the Build Back Better plan, reportedly on the grounds that low-income people would use the money on drugs. Indeed, politicians across the political spectrum have found a number of scapegoats to use while arguing against expanding the social safety net, including playing to Americans fears about rising inflation rates. As a result, various programs that would help people namely the poor and people of color have become taboo.

Whats striking, though, is that if you actually look at most social science research, investing in the social safety net is fiscally responsible it pays large dividends for both individuals and our collective society. Economists have studied this for decades, finding that anti-poverty and cash-assistance programs executed both in and outside of the U.S. are linked to increased labor participation in the workforce, while investing in childcare benefits not only children, but the broader economy and society they are raised in. Moreover, newer initiatives like canceling student debt could add up to 1.5 million jobs and lift over 5 million Americans out of poverty in addition to freeing many Americans of the debt trap that is contributing to a lagging housing market and widening racial wealth gap. Other research suggests that those saddled with student loan debt would be more likely to get married or have children if their dues were forgiven.

That is the evidence. Yet, rather than acting on it, there has been a tendency to highlight stories and tropes about people who might waste the resources invested in them. And thats oftentimes enough to undermine public and political support for these policies. So what were seeing from some moderate Democrats today is likely born out of an inherent distrust of what might happen if you just give people money or help them through an expanded social safety net.

But if we look in the not-too-distant past less than a hundred years ago, in fact we quickly see that Democrats didnt always oppose distributing money to support Americans well-being. In fact, former Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt rolled out safety-net programs like Oprah would give away her favorite things. In response to the Great Depression, Roosevelt oversaw a massive expansion of the social safety net during the 1930s and 40s, which included giving grants to states that implemented unemployment compensation, aid to dependent children and funding to business and agriculture communities. Recognizing the importance of a safety net to protect people from the uncertainties brought on by unemployment, illness, disability, death and old age, the federal government also created Social Security, which it deemed vital at the time for economic security. And in the 1960s, long after the Great Depression was over, the government created the Medicare program for similar reasons under former President Lyndon B. Johnson, another Democrat.

What is clear from these examples is that the federal government once understood the importance of a robust safety net for the health, well-being and the broader functioning of our society. The caveat, however, is that this general understanding does not extend to our thinking about all Americans; the government was supportive of these policies when most beneficiaries were white. But when people of color started actively utilizing and benefitting from these same programs, they became harder to attain and, in some cases, overtly racialized.

That was particularly true in the 1970s and 80s when conservative and right-wing political candidates vilified Americans on welfare. During his initial presidential run, Ronald Reagan would tell stories and give numerous stump speeches centered on Linda Taylor, a Black Chicago-area welfare recipient, dubbed a welfare queen. To gin up anti-government and anti-poor resentment among his base, the then-future Republican president villainized Taylor, repeating claims that she had used 80 names, 30 addresses, 15 telephone numbers to collect food stamps, Social Security, veterans benefits for four nonexistent deceased veteran husbands, as well as welfare as a way to signal that certain Americans namely those of color were gaming the system in order to attain certain benefits from the federal government. Reagan wasnt alone, however. In fact, his tough stance on alleged welfare fraud and government spending on social programs encapsulated the conservative critique of big-government liberalism at the time.

Democrats, however, werent that different either. Former Democratic President Bill Clintons promise to end welfare as we know it in the 1990s included stipulations like requiring a certain percentage of welfare recipients to be working or participate in job training. This helped foster, in turn, a belief that there were people who played by the rules and those who didnt (namely Black Americans). And once politicians started worrying about (Black) people taking advantage of the system, the requirements needed to acquire certain societal and financial benefits became even harder to obtain.

But all of this implicit rhetoric about reducing government waste by cracking down on marginalized people does not hold up to scrutiny when examining the evidence. The reality is that fraud among social safety net beneficiaries is extremely rare, and much less costly to society than, say, tax evasion among the richest 1 percent. Yet we spend an incredible amount of money trying to catch and penalize the poor instead of helping them.

Moreover, polls show that Americans particularly Democrats overwhelmingly want to expand the social safety net. According to a 2019 survey from the Pew Research Center, a majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaners (59 percent) and 17 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaners said that the government should provide more assistance to people in need. Even this October, around the time when Democrats were negotiating the size of the omnibus Build Back Better Act, a CNN/SSRS poll found that 75 percent of the partys voters (and 6 percent of Republicans) preferred that Congress pass a bill that expanded the social safety net and enacted climate-change policies.

However, despite many Americans wanting an expansion of the social safety net, it is still often hard to sell voters on these programs especially if theyre wrapped up in large policy packages (i.e. Obamacare) or associated with someone voters dislike (i.e. former Democratic President Barack Obama). Consider that a Politico/Morning Consult survey from late last year found that only 39 percent of Americans who received the child tax credit said it had a major impact on their lives. Moreover, only 38 percent of respondents credited Biden for the implementation of the program.

The fact that many expansions of the social safety net arent initially popular makes it all the easier for Democrats to fall back on the stories people tell themselves about different groups of people and whether they deserve help. And sometimes, those portrayals affect the concerns we have about members of those groups and the explanations we generate for why they experience the outcomes they do in life. As earlier expansions of the social safety net show, the U.S. hasnt always been allergic to giving people money, but there now seems to be this unspoken idea that poor people and people of color cant be trusted to spend free money or government assistance well.

This thinking, though, poses a problem for Democrats because, for years, theyve branded themselves as the party that promotes general welfare by advancing racial, economic and social justice. At the same time, they continue to fall short on campaign promises to expand the social safety net despite many poor people, and people of color, having fought long and hard to put them in office. The fact that so many of todays Democrats are still prisoners to antiquated tropes about who gets or is deserving of government benefits is a dangerous one, because it causes people to push members of those groups outside of their moral circles the circle of people that they think they have a moral obligation to help.

Of course, breaking this chain of thought wont be easy because it would require Democrats to break the long-standing mindset that poor people are in their current situation because of a series of unfortunate choices. It would also probably require them to stop worrying about how Republicans might falsely reframe social safety net programs as dangerous, especially given ongoing concerns regarding inflation and the economy during the COVID-19 pandemic. But at the end of the day, that shouldnt matter: While the politics might not be immediately convenient and the effects of these programs not immediately seen, that is not necessarily a reason to defer implementing them. Focusing solely on the short-term effects is not only short-sighted, but dangerous. And Democrats stand to lose more than the support of their base if they refuse to act.

Continued here:
Democrats Helped Build The Social Safety Net. Why Are Many Now Against Expanding It? - FiveThirtyEight

Redistricting is pitting a number of Democratic incumbents against one another in what will likely be a handful of competitive and grueling House primaries.

The decennial process isnt complete yet some states havent finalized their congressional maps or are caught in litigation over the new lines but lawmakers in at least three states have already started the awkward process of battling a colleague.

Here are the districts where Democrats are battling in a primary:

Georgias 7th Congressional District

Democratic Reps. Lucy McBathLucia (Lucy) Kay McBathThe Hill's Morning Report - World poised for war House races where redistricting is pitting Democrats against one another On The Money Economy had post-recession growth in 2021 MORE and Carolyn BourdeauxCarolyn BourdeauxThe Hill's Morning Report - World poised for war House races where redistricting is pitting Democrats against one another Rouda passes on bid for redrawn California seat, avoiding intraparty battle with Porter MORE are gearing up for a fierce primary battle with hopes of representing Georgias newly drawn 7th Congressional District.

The Peach States new congressional map, which was signed into law by Gov. Brian KempBrian KempRepublicans spurned by Trump in primaries still embrace him Raffensperger calls for extra security at Georgia polling sites No 'mass exodus,' but GOP sees Trump grip loosening MORE (R) in December, flipped McBaths 6thCongressional District seat red, handing Republicans a likely victory in Novembers midterm elections and prompting McBath to run in the neighboring district represented by Bourdeaux, which moved even further left.

McBath currently represents 12.1 percent of the new district, while Bourdeaux represents 57 percent in the current 7thdistrict, according toFiveThirtyEight.

Both lawmakers have solid credentials heading into the May primary race. McBath has strong name recognition and a captivating story of how she journeyed to Congress the breast cancer survivor entered the political arena after her 17-year-old son was shot and killed.

Bourdeaux, on the other hand, is in her first term but was the only Democrat to flip a GOP-held seat blue in 2020. She also may receive a boost because she currently represents a larger part of the new district.

The primary in the Atlanta suburbs between the two rising stars is expected to be expensive.

Illinoiss 6th Congressional District

Rep. Marie Newman (D) is taking on Rep. Sean CastenSean CastenThe Hill's Morning Report - World poised for war House races where redistricting is pitting Democrats against one another Sen. Capito tests positive for COVID-19 MORE (D) in Illinoiss 6th Congressional District after the redistricting process moved her hometown into Rep. Jess Garcias (D) 4th Congressional District. She chose to take on Casten rather than Garcia, who is the second Hispanic lawmaker Illinois residents have sent to Congress.

Newman, however, currently represents a larger swath of the new district than Casten, 41.3 percent to 23.4 percent, respectively, according to FiveThirtyEight.

The primary race, set for the end of June, is shaping up to be a faceoff between the progressive and centrist wings of the Democratic Party. Newman is an outspoken progressive who bested incumbent Rep. Daniel LipinskiDaniel William LipinskiHouse races where redistricting is pitting Democrats against one another House votes to condemn alleged hysterectomies on migrant women Five things we learned from this year's primaries MORE (D) in the districts 2020 primary race. Lipinski labeled himself a pro-life Democrat because of his opposition to abortion.

Casten, on the other hand, is more in tune with moderates in the party. He flipped the seat blue in 2018 by ousting Rep. Peter Roskam Peter James RoskamHouse races where redistricting is pitting Democrats against one another Bottom line Postcards become unlikely tool in effort to oust Trump MORE (R-Ill.).

Michigans 11th Congressional District

Democratic Reps. Andy LevinAndrew (Andy) LevinThe Hill's Morning Report - World poised for war House races where redistricting is pitting Democrats against one another Questions loom over how to form congressional staff union MORE and Haley StevensHaley Maria StevensThe Hill's Morning Report - World poised for war House races where redistricting is pitting Democrats against one another Overnight Energy & Environment Biden tries to reverse Trump on power plants MORE are set to face off in a primary battle to represent Michigans 11th Congressional District in the U.S. House.

The states new congressional map, drawn by an independent commission and hailed as a win against partisan gerrymandering, wrapped Levin and Stevens into the same district, pitting the two incumbents against one another in a solid Democrat territory.

Levin, who currently sits in the 9th Congressional District, represents 24.8 percent of the district, while Stevens has 45.1 percent of the terrain, according to FiveThirtyEight. Stevens is currently the representative for the11th Congressional District.

Both lawmakers were sent to Congress in 2018 and secured reelection two years later.

Visit link:
House races where redistricting is pitting Democrats against one another | TheHill - The Hill

I believe that voting Democrat can be an addiction. Democrats continue to vote Democrat for decades while their cities disintegrate into cesspools of drugs, slums, crime, disease and suffocating taxes. For some of them, when they finally cant stand it any longer, they move and vote Democrat in their new location. They are Demoholics!

Todays Democratic Party has been hijacked by the Marxist, socialist, progressive, woke movement. It has proclaimed and is implementing its evil and diabolical agenda to fundamentally transform our country.

I believe that todays Democratic Party has shown its agenda be: the banishing of God, Judeo-Christian values, natural law and patriotism; the atrocity of abortion; the destruction of the nuclear family; BLM and antifa and the burning, looting and destroying of historic statues; the shattering of MLKs dream of a colorblind society by fomenting racial tension; teachers unions indoctrinating and poisoning the minds of our children; the hate-mongering and dividing of us into factions by race, party, and financial and vaccination status, and a house divided cannot stand.

Those who hate this country are living a dream. Those of us who love it are living a nightmare. Traditional Democrats are facing a dilemma: vote to save the country as founded or vote Democrat. Many will try to appease their conscience by defending and justifying what their party has become. But, alas, in the end, like an alcoholic who cant pass by a liquor store without stopping in, far too many Democrats will continue to vote Democrat no matter what. They are hopelessly addicted Demoholics!

Bob McBride

West Deer

More:
Letter to the editor: Voting Democrat an addiction - TribLIVE

WASHINGTON, DC The Democrats are in the doldrums.

Thats how it can feel, anyway. Bidens ambitious Build Back Better legislation is stalled in the Senate. Voting rights legislation is stuck there, too.

I understand the frustration, acknowledged Ro Khanna, a Democratic congressman from California and member of, among others, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, to me over Zoom. But I would say, lets look at the whole record. He goes through the list of Biden-Democrat achievements. They passed the American Recovery Plan, providing relief to families during the pandemic. They passed the infrastructure legislation, which is going to finally provide affordable broadband to every American in this country. That is going to start the process of removing lead pipes. Thats going to start the investment in electric vehicles. Im not saying that this is in any way sufficient, but it is a strong start.

Now, he said, elected officials need to get the climate provisions of the Build Back Better Act passed, and pass voting rights legislation.

Politics is about priority, he said. Protecting voting rights is about the very sanctity of American democracy. And, as no one knows the outcome of this falls midterm elections, the next few months may be the last chance that Democrats have for years to pass legislation that will address the climate crisis.

Khanna was co-chair of Bernie Sanderss 2020 presidential campaign. Hes been a leading voice on rethinking American foreign policy, pushing in particular to end US support for the Saudi-led coalition fighting in Yemen. But he has also repeatedly spoken out in support of President Joe Biden and his administration, offering public assurances that many progressives will support Biden in a 2024 run. I asked him what message progressives should pass on to their more moderate Democrat colleagues.

From progressives to moderates, it should be two things. One, the climate cant wait: this is our moment. We have to act, or we will be judged by history, harshly. And two, we have to deliver for working families.

And from moderates to progressives? Lets take what we can get instead of getting nothing. And lets be pragmatic. We may share your aspirations, but this is whats going to get 51 votes [in the US Senate]. Get on board.

There was, recently, some good news for liberals: the Supreme Court justice, Stephen Breyer, is retiring while Democrats still control the Senate, which means Biden will actually get to pick his replacement, and has said he will nominate a black woman. As a member of the House, Khanna will not take part in the process of voting for the nominee. Still, he offered, I am very excited that President Biden is going to nominate an African-American woman. What a moment of history: [its] unbelievable that an African-American woman hasnt been on the court yet, and theres so many extraordinary candidates.

[See also: Stephen Breyers retirement from the Supreme Court gives hope to liberals]

This week, Khanna published a new book: Dignity in a Digital Age (Simon & Schuster). Why, I asked him, did he choose that as his subject?

I represent a place where theres so much optimism about America, young kids are optimistic and we have over $11trn of market cap, said Khanna, who represents the heart of Silicon Valley in Congress. And I say, how is it that you can have that in my district, and yet across America and communities youve seen deindustrialisation? How do we get more communities a chance for participating in the modern economy?

But the tech sector is also the site of inequality and inequity, I noted, thinking of tech oligarchs and billionaires who have become even more obscenely rich over the course of the pandemic. How can we pass around the optimism and opportunity that tech has to offer while curbing inequality?

I think there are two things that have to happen, he said. First, we have to tax the billionaires. We have to tax corporations. Theres a frustration that some of these corporations just arent paying enough tax and that the billionaires arent paying enough tax, but thats not sufficient What people want is an opportunity to participate, to create value, to contribute. And thats what I talked about. How do we decentralise the innovation economy? How do we democratise it?

Outside of the book and back in Congress, Khanna has introduced the Endless Frontier Act. Its about creating new technology hubs with manufacturing jobs, construction jobs, innovation jobs in communities across this country, he said, adding, Im very optimistic that it will pass.

Before we hung up, I asked him if there was anything he felt he hadnt had the chance to say.

And he ended where he started.

I understand the anxiety and frustration that people feel around the country, he said. Weve had two years of a pandemic We have had hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people die. Weve had an insurrection attempt on 6 January when we were supposed to have a peaceful transfer of power.

But, he said, he was still hopeful: when he looks at the long trajectory of America, when I look at my own life story. He was born in Philadelphia, the son of immigrants and the grandson of someone who was imprisoned with Indias independence leader, Mahatma Gandhi, and now represents a multiracial, multi-ethnic district.

He hoped others can find a way, too. It wasnt losing that he was afraid of, he said, but apathy and disengagement.

That is the real danger for our society.

[See also: Joe Bidens failure on voting rights could cost the Democrats the White House]

Sign up for The New Statesmans newsletters Tick the boxes of the newsletters you would like to receive. Morning Call Quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics from the New Statesman's politics team. World Review The New Statesmans global affairs newsletter, every Monday and Friday. The New Statesman Daily The best of the New Statesman, delivered to your inbox every weekday morning. Green Times The New Statesmans weekly environment email on the politics, business and culture of the climate and nature crises - in your inbox every Thursday. This Week in Business A handy, three-minute glance at the week ahead in companies, markets, regulation and investment, landing in your inbox every Monday morning. The Culture Edit Our weekly culture newsletter from books and art to pop culture and memes sent every Friday. Weekly Highlights A weekly round-up of some of the best articles featured in the most recent issue of the New Statesman, sent each Saturday. Ideas and Letters A newsletter showcasing the finest writing from the ideas section and the NS archive, covering political ideas, philosophy, criticism and intellectual history - sent every Wednesday. Events and Offers Sign up to receive information regarding NS events, subscription offers & product updates.

Continued here:
"We have to tax the billionaires": California Democrat Ro Khanna on seizing the moment for change - The New Statesman