Mediaboss Marketing

Many Americans probably dont know exactly what terms such as anti-racism, cancel culture, racial equity, white privilege and systemic racism mean. And its likely even fewer could explain such concepts as woke ideology, critical race theory or intersectionality.

But these terms are now regularly invoked by activists, pundits and even some elected officials. Why? Largely because of two separate but related trends in American culture and politics. First, American institutions and voters, particularly on the left who have become more attuned and liberal on racial issues amid the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement and increased attention on police killings of African Americans are now making a similar shift on other issues invoking equality and identity. That leftward shift is resulting in new initiatives and policies from corporations, local and state governments and, with President Biden in office, the federal government too. Many of these policies emanated from concepts like anti-racism and systemic racism that originated in academic or activist circles.

Second, many conservatives and Republican officials are now regularly invoking the term woke as an all-encompassing term for liberal ideas they dont like, particularly ones that have emerged recently, and warning that conservatives who object to these ideas are increasingly being canceled.

So its worth unpacking this new language and explaining what policies and values are behind them. This piece will focus on the political left and one later in the week on the right.

Ideas on the left that are ascendant

Here are 10 views, based on polls and public discourse, that are increasingly influential on the left. This is an informal list, but I think it captures some real sentiments on the left and ideas that people on the right are criticizing when they invoke the term woke:

These views are now expressed regularly by left-leaning people and Democrats particularly those who use Twitter, are involved in the Black Lives Matter movement and are under age 40. Books such as Ibram X. Kendis How to Be an Antiracist and Isabel Wilkersons Caste have become bestsellers because they appeal to people with these views and are likely pushing those who read them even further in this direction.

Perhaps most important, these views are powerfully shaping public discourse and policy. Examples include American news outlets describing the treatment by the British monarchy and press of Meghan Markle as part of a deeper structure of racism, with her husband, Prince Harry, portrayed as beginning to fully understand his own white privilege. There is also Goldman Sachs recent announcement of a $10 billion initiative to boost Black women specifically. And it is an increasingly mainstream and uncontroversial idea that America is behind other developed nations by many metrics, such as infrastructure.

The Biden administration has issued an executive order that describes ensuring racial equity and fighting systemic racism as one of its key goals, embraced a federal commission to study reparations and dramatically overhauled ICEs approach. It also enacted a $1.9 trillion economic stimulus package that reflects the concerns of Sen. Bernie Sanders and other liberal Democrats that capitalism as it currently operates in the U.S. isnt working for many Americans. Cities across the country are reducing spending on policing or reallocating police funds to other services. Cities and universities are instituting programs to make up for past discrimination of Black people.

What most stands out to me about the American Rescue Plan is that it points to the ascendancy of certain ideas in the national discussion and the fading of others, progressive author Anand Giridharadas wrote recently. He noted that the newly passed stimulus proposal focuses on the poor (so not just the middle class), gives direct cash benefits to most Americans and reflects little concern about increasing the national debt, three shifts from the Democratic Partys approach during the Clinton and Obama presidencies.

Where these views came from and why theyre ascendant

On the left, we are now seeing the culmination of a number of movements and events that happened over the last decade: Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, Sanderss 2016 campaign, Donald Trumps election, Trumps presidency, the emergence of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and The Squad, Sen. Elizabeth Warrens and Sanderss 2020 campaigns, and the protests after George Floyds death during a police arrest. These events and movements built on one another. For example, it is likely the protests over Floyds death were so large, in part, because many of the people attending them had become more passionate about fighting racism in America because of Trumps presidency (more on this in a moment). Ocasio-Cortez worked on Sanderss 2016 campaign and then was a key endorser of his 2020 run.

The result has been a big shift in public opinion on the left many of the views I noted above were held by few people and even fewer major public figures like politicians as recently as five years ago. These views go beyond the increased number of Americans who said they are more aware of the racial discrimination that Black Americans face after the rise of Black Lives Matter and Trumps election. In some cases, these views were once so out of the mainstream that we cant find much pre-2020 polling on them.

Share of Democratic voters that support each position according to polling

Pre-2016 refers to polling conducted before the 2016 presidential election. Most of these surveys were conducted in 2015-16, but in a few cases, the survey data is from earlier. For example, the cash reparations number is from 2002. We tried to use data from the same pollster, to reflect changes in the results that were not due to questions being phrased differently. Positions with no previous response is the result of a pollster not asking the question pre-2016. That finding suggests an issue is new to the political discourse. For example, Gallups non-polling on the reparations issue from 2002-19 was telling.

Sources: Pew Research Center, PRRI, Gallup, YouGov

The woke trend has impacted the polling field not only in what types of policy questions we ask, but in how we think about core constructs of survey demographics like race and gender, said Natalie Jackson, director of research at PRRI, a nonpartisan organization that focuses on public opinion about questions on cultural and demographic issues.

Such a shift, as you would expect, has a number of causes. First, it is likely the Trump presidency accelerated support for these views, because of his controversial actions and statements on issues of identity and race in particular and the general trend of thermostatic public opinion opinions tend to move against the positions of the incumbent president.

Second, the COVID-19 pandemic validated some of the views I listed above and pushed many Democrats, including President Biden, to support more aggressive policy solutions than they had before. The disproportionate number of Black, Native and Latino Americans who have died of COVID-19 no doubt contributed to Biden putting racial equity at the center of his agenda.

Third, many of these views are evidence-based rooted in a lot of data, history and research. For example, the evidence is strong that Black people are behind white people economically in America today in part because of the lingering effects of slavery and Jim Crow-era policies.

A big part of this is white people learning the things they didnt teach us in U.S. history classes the reality of Reconstruction; the casual, celebratory nature of lynchings; the effectiveness of white terrorism against Black successes, said Lilliana Mason, a government professor at the University of Maryland, College Park who has written extensively about partisan divides in American politics.

We were not taught any of these things, on purpose I assume, she added.

Fourth, many of these views are hard to forcefully disagree with in public. Some of them have a very strong moral force. For example, its likely that people who are transgender will gain more rights in the next few years and decades in the same way that gay and lesbian people did it is easy to make a case in public that people should be treated well no matter their gender or sexual identity and kind of uncomfortable to make the opposite case without sounding prejudiced and mean. Many of these emerging views are about issues of gender, race and sexual identity, so those who are wary of them (particularly cisgender, heterosexual white men) sometimes dont feel comfortable directly stating their objections, leading to more vague criticisms (like saying these ideas are too woke.) But it is hard to blunt growing support for an idea if you arent directly stating your objection to it.

Many of these ideas still arent likely to be enacted anytime soon

At the same time, many of the 10 views I listed above are opposed by a majority of the public, with even a sizable number of Democrats in opposition. This is not surprising. Movements and ideas that challenge the status quo are often unpopular at first. Some of them eventually become popular (gay marriage, for example), some remain unpopular but influence policy nonetheless (the abolition of ICE) and still others remain unpopular and are eventually abandoned (extensive busing programs for school integration).

As long as those poll numbers remain low, its hard to imagine Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer or most Democratic mayors and governors will push many of the ideas forward in their purest form or even strongly support them rhetorically. (And those Democratic leaders, who tend to be more centrist than the partys activist wing, may oppose some of these ideas on the substance too.) So on reparations, Biden is officially supportive of a commission, but its clear that he and congressional Democrats are aware of the unpopularity of reparations and unlikely to push even the commission too hard. In terms of ICE, it seems like Biden will overhaul the agency but never abolish it nor invoke that language. It is unlikely Biden will give a speech suggesting that America is not an exceptional nation or that billionaires should not exist.

So dont expect most Black Americans to get cash reparations or for ICE or any big-city police department to be disbanded anytime soon.

Instead, over the next few years, we are likely to see Biden and other Democrats in elective office carefully negotiate with more left-wing people in his party. They will push Biden publicly and privately on policy, he will push back publicly and privately and its likely that policy will land somewhere between what would have been the Democratic mainstream five to 10 years ago and the lefts demands today.

Early in Warrens presidential campaign, in 2019, I suggested the Massachusetts senator would likely lose the primary but that her ideas and framing of policy might still end up shaping the Democratic Party. I think that dynamic has not only happened in the Democratic Party, but in a lot of other institutions in America: People like Warren, Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and Kendi arent in charge, but those in charge are implementing some of their language and ideas.

This could change perhaps public opinion shifts right with Biden in office or there is a backlash as some of these ideas are implemented. But for now, the woke are winning.

See the original post here:
The Ideas That Are Reshaping The Democratic Party And America - FiveThirtyEight

Democrats on Wednesday passed their $1.9 trillion spending and welfare bill that would have been unimaginable even in the Obama years, and the big news is how easily they did it. The party is united behind the most left-wing agenda in decades, while Republicans are divided and in intellectual disarray. This is only the beginning of the progressive steamroller, and its worth understanding why.

One lesson from the Covid non-fight is that there are no Democratic moderates in Congress. The party base has moved so sharply left that even swing-state Members are more liberal than many liberals in the Clinton years. Democrats lost not a single vote in the Senate and only one in the House. The fear of primary challenges from the left, which took out House war horses in 2018 and 2020, has concentrated incumbent minds.

A second lesson is that President Biden is no moderating political force. Democrats in the House and Senate are setting the agenda, and Mr. Biden is along for the ride. Hes the ideal political front-man for this agenda with his talk of unity and anti-Trump persona, but he isnt shaping legislation. He is signing on to whatever chief of staff Ron Klain tells him he needs to support.

For now at least, there also isnt much of an opposition. With a few exceptions, the media are marching in lockstep support of whatever Democrats want. The substance of the Covid bill was barely covered outside of these pages. Opposition to H.R.1, the federal takeover of state election law, is literally reported as a revival of Jim Crow racism.

The business community has also been co-opted, as it often is at the beginning of a Democratic Presidency. Industries are trying to protect their specific iron rice bowls, but one price is their accommodation with the larger progressive agenda. Small business opposes the $15 minimum wage, but bigger businesses dont mind saddling smaller competitors with higher costs. Big Oil doesnt mind selling out independent frackers on climate rules.

Read this article:
Opinion: The Progressive Democratic Steamroller - The Wall Street Journal

The Lake Research survey produced an unexpected result: Latinos were more sympathetic than either white or Black voters to Republican dog whistle messages.

The dog whistle messages tested by Lake Research included:

Taking a second look at illegal immigration from places overrun with drugs and criminal gangs, is just common sense. And so is fully funding the police, so our communities are not threatened by people who refuse to follow our laws.

And

We need to make sure we take care of our own people first, especially the people who politicians have cast aside for too long to cater to whatever special interest groups yell the loudest or riot in the street.

The receptivity of Hispanics to such messages led Haney-Lpez to conclude that those Latinos most likely to vote Republican do so for racial reasons.

What matters most, Haney-Lpez continued, is susceptibility to Republican dog whistle racial frames that trumpet the threat from illegal aliens, rapists, rioters and terrorists.

Julie Wronski, a political scientist at the University of Mississippi, offered a distinct but similar explanation for the increased Hispanic support for Republicans.

What may be changing is how certain ethnic and nationality groups within Hispanics perceive themselves with regards to their racial and ideological identities, she wrote by email:

If Latinos perceive themselves more as white than as a person of color, then they will react to messages about racial injustice and defunding the police as whites do by using their ideological identity rather than racial identity to shape support.

Wronski reports that

there is also a burgeoning line of research on the role of skin tone among non-Whites. Nonwhites who perceive themselves as having lighter skin tone feel closer to whites and tend to be more conservative than their darker-skinned peers.

Wronski made the case that conservative Hispanics who voted Republican in 2020 are not permanently lost to the Democratic Party:

Identifying as a conservative and supporting conservative policy positions are not the same thing. This is especially true for economic issues, such as unemployment benefits and minimum wage. If you know that a group of Latinos tend to be symbolically conservative and economically liberal, then you can make appeals to them on the shared economic liberalism basis and avoid pointing out diverging views on social issues.

Marc Farinella, a former Democratic consultant who helped run many statewide campaigns in the Midwest and is now at the University of Chicagos Harris School of Public Policy, wrote in response to my inquiry that the fraying of Hispanic support is emblematic of a larger problem confronting Democrats:

American politics in recent decades has become increasingly democratized. Historically-marginalized groups have been brought into the political process, and this, of course, improves representation. But democratization has also, for better or for worse, been highly disruptive to our two-party system.

Traditionally, party leaders tend to support centrist polices and candidates; they are, after all, in the business of winning general elections, he continued:

However, the ability of party leaders to set the partys priorities and define its values has been eroded. They must now compete with activist factions that have been empowered by digital technologies that have greatly amplified their messaging.

As a result, Farinella wrote,

Its now less clear to general election voters precisely what are the Democratic Partys values and priorities. Last year, Republicans succeeded in exploiting this ambiguity by insisting that the messaging of certain leftist activist factions was an accurate reflection of the Partys policy positions and, by and large, the policy positions of most Democratic candidates. As far left activists compete with Democratic Party leaders to define party values and messaging, the centrist voters needed to achieve a durable majority will remain wary about Democratic desires for dominance.

On the other hand, according to Farinella, the lunacy currently underway within the Republican Party could prove to be the Democratic Partys ace in the hole:

A party that demands fealty to a single demagogic politician, condones or even embraces loopy conspiracy theories, recklessly undermines crucial democratic norms and institutions, and believes the best way to improve its electoral prospects is by making it more difficult to vote is not a party destined for long-term success. If the Republican Party continues on its current path, center-right voters might decide that their only real options are to vote Democratic or stay home.

Farinella acknowledged that this might just be wishful thinking.

Ryan Enos, a professor of government at Harvard, is concerned that liberal elites may threaten the vulnerable Democratic coalition:

The question for parties is whether members of their coalition are a liability because they repel other voters from the coalition. For Democrats, this may increasingly be the case with college-educated whites. They are increasingly concentrated into large cities, which mitigates their electoral impact, and they dominate certain institutions, such as universities and the media. The views emanating from these cities and institutions are out of step with a large portion of the electorate.

Many of these well-educated urban whites dont seem to appreciate the urgency of the struggles of middle and low-income Americans, Enos continued:

Most of them support, in theory, economically progressive agendas like minimum wage increases and affordable housing, but they dont approach these issues with any urgency even Covid relief and environmental protection take a back seat to a progressive agenda focused on social issues.

Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster, whose firm, North Star Opinion Research, has studied Hispanic partisan allegiance, wrote in an email that Latinos are far more flexible in their voting than African-Americans:

As a general rule, about 50 percent of Hispanics vote fairly consistently for Democrats, 25 percent vote for Republicans and the remaining 25 percent are up for grabs.

In the Latino electorate, Ayres said, many are sensitive to charges of socialism because of their country of origin. Many are sensitive to law-and-order issues. And many are cultural conservatives, as Reagan argued years ago.

As a result, Ayres continued,

When white liberal Democrats start talking about defunding the police, the Green New Deal and promoting policies that can be described as socialistic, they repel a lot of Hispanic voters. In other words, most Hispanics, like most African-Americans, are not ideological liberals.

The current level of concern has been sharply elevated by a series of widely publicized interviews with David Shor, a 29-year-old Democratic data scientist whose analyses have captured the attention of Democratic elites.

Excerpt from:
Opinion | Democrats Are Anxious About 2022 and 2024 - The New York Times

The former governor of Virginia, four years removed from the end of his first term, is vying for another shot at leading the commonwealth, running as the closest thing to an incumbent in a place that bars governors from serving successive terms. McAuliffe enters the race as the clear frontrunner, buoyed by a significant fundraising advantage, a who's who list of endorsements and near total name recognition.

But both Democratic politics and Virginia have changed since McAuliffe's successful 2013 run, a shift exemplified by the Democratic legislature -- which went blue in 2019 with McAuliffe's help -- moving to abolish the death penalty, tighten gun laws and reckon with the legacy of the Confederacy in a commonwealth closely tied to the Civil War South.

With less than three months until the Democratic gubernatorial primary, McAuliffe -- who faced no primary challenge eight years ago -- is now being pushed by younger, more liberal challengers to explain how a leader synonymous with the political establishment reflects the future of the commonwealth and not the politics of a bygone era.

The anti-McAuliffe charge ahead of the June 8 primary has been led by former Virginia delegate Jennifer Carroll Foy and Del. Lee Carter, two gubernatorial candidates who have been unabashedly critical of the former governor. Two other Democrats -- state Sen. Jennifer McClellan and Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax -- haven't been as pointed in their criticism of McAuliffe, but they have all echoed a similar message: McAuliffe's time has passed.

"He was the right candidate for that moment. He was the right governor for that moment," said McClellan, referring to McAuliffe's 2013 bid, which she supported. "Times have changed. Virginia has changed."

McAuliffe, a figure whose story in the Democratic Party is defined by millions of dollars raised, the Clintons and a tenure as chair of the Democratic National Committee, dismisses any suggestion he isn't the future of the party. He points out that even after his time as governor, Virginia Democrats called on him to lead the effort that eventually won control of the Virginia General Assembly, giving the party full control of the state's government for the first time in more than two decades.

"I don't pay any attention to them," he said of his opponents suggesting his time has come and gone. "I'm laying out my own plan on why I'm running."

McAuliffe has already flooded his Democratic opponents in three things: Money, policy and endorsements.

The prolific fundraiser fired a warning shot early in the campaign when he announced he had raised $6.1 million in 2020, a staggering number that dwarfed his opponents' own efforts. And when he announced in December, his candidacy came along with a long list of endorsements, including a number of high-profile Democrats who serve with some of his primary challengers.

Since then, McAuliffe has rolled out policy after policy, aiming to both burnish his progressive credentials and argue that because Virginia is now in Democratic control, something the governor did not enjoy during his tenure, he will be able to get more done.

"I leaned in (as governor), but I had a Republican legislature. Now, with a Democratic legislature, all the big things that need to be fixed, we can get done," he said. "Heck, I just warming up. You give me a Democratic legislature, there is no stopping me."

'The appetite for career politicians... is long gone'

McAuliffe's desire to run for a second term as governor has long been one of the worst kept secrets in the commonwealth. The former chair of the DNC and CNN political commentator relished the job, often joking about how his election -- after Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson served as Virginia's first and second governors -- was a sign of American exceptionalism.

If McAuliffe were to win in November, however, he would do something neither Henry nor Jefferson ever did: Serve two four-year terms as the commonwealth's chief executive. The Virginia constitution prohibits governors from serving two successive terms and very few Virginia politicians have done so. The last person to do it was Mills Godwin, a segregationist who won as a Democrat in 1966 and as a Republican in 1974.

McAuliffe argues that even though he feels like he accomplished everything he could as governor -- "I don't know if you could find (a regret). I mean, I worked like a dog," he said -- it just makes sense for him to reprise a role that is part Virginia's chief executive, part commonwealth cheerleader.

Virginians "know I can get things done," McAuliffe said. "I did it before and they all know with a Democratic legislature, boy, I feel bad for those other 49 states cause I'm telling you Virginia is going to lead the country."

But his third run at governor (he tried and failed to win the party's nomination in 2009) also means standing in the way of possible history: If either McClellan or Foy were to win, she would become both the first woman to lead Virginia and the first Black woman governor in US history.

The significance of making such history, especially in a state that once housed the Capitol of the South during the Civil War, is powerful to both women.

"I feel the weight of it because... to know what my family has gone through, the fights that my parents and my grandparents and my great grandparents had to fight, to know that I'm still fighting those fights and I need to keep my children from fighting those same fights, I feel the weight of that," said McClellan, growing emotional as she described the potential for history. "I feel the weight of knowing I am running for a position in a system that was never built for me."

To McAuliffe's opponents, the reasoning for his candidacy is deeply flawed. And no candidate is more eager to go after McAuliffe than Foy, who resigned her assembly seat in December to focus on her gubernatorial run.

"I can't allow Terry McAuliffe to run a status quo race, while he romanticizes his time as governor," said Foy, who has argued her experience as one of the first women to every graduate from Virginia Military Institute and a mother of two who still struggles with child care and student loan debt is more representative of the commonwealth.

Foy has attacked McAuliffe on everything from donations he has taken to deals he made as governor to the fact he did little to address Confederate monuments. But her overarching criticism is that she represents Virginia's most progressive future, while McAuliffe represents the past.

"The appetite for career politicians who have continued to maintain the status quo that has hurt so many Virginians is long gone," she said in an interview.

But Foy is not alone in trying to run on McAuliffe's left. Lee Carter, the self-proclaimed democratic socialist state delegate with deep ties to the Bernie Sanders network of supporters and liberal organizations, has begun to lambast the former governor as not progressive enough.

"I see him as the guy that got us here and that's in very, very real ways," Carter told CNN, hammering McAuliffe for his support of pipelines through the state and economic policies that focused more on the rich than the poor. "We've spent the last eight years fighting against some of the worst things from McAuliffe's time as governor."

Neither McClellan nor Fairfax has been as direct in their criticism of McAuliffe as Foy and Carter, but their differences are primarily in tone, not substance.

"The voters decide what they are looking for in their candidates and in their visions for the future. But I do think it is very clear that people want their leaders to be focused on a vision for the future," said Fairfax.

For Fairfax, opposing McAuliffe is personal. During a chaotic period in Virginia government, Fairfax was accused of sexual assault by two women in 2019. Both women still stand by their allegations.

It is apparent that it still bothers the lieutenant governor and people close to him that McAuliffe, by then the former governor, had quickly called for him to step down due to the allegations.

Voters are "totally against the politics of the past and the traditional tactics of personal destruction that we have seen govern for too long," Fairfax said, a not-so-subtle nod to McAuliffe.

'People are looking for tested leadership'

"People are looking for tested leadership," said Louise Lucas, the president pro tempore of the Virginia state Senate and a McAuliffe campaign co-chair. "They need people with experience who can hit the ground running day one, who doesn't have to try to cultivate all those relationships."

Referring to Biden winning in 2020: "That in and of itself tell me people are looking for tested leadership."

Virginia overwhelmingly backed Biden during the 2020 primary, selecting him over liberal leaders like Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. And the state, which was once considered a battleground but has moved towards Democrats in recent years, would later back Biden over Trump by 10 percentage points in November. And McAuliffe is very close, both politically and personally, with the President.

Comparisons to the 2020 presidential election, however, ignore the fact that Democrats were as motivated to vote against Trump as they were to vote for Biden.

"That's so simplistic, I don't even know what to say," said McClellan. "Biden won in large part because he was the candidate who had the most government experience and the most experience solving people's problems. ... I have more state government experience and public service experience addressing the needs of Virginia than all of my opponents combined, including Terry McAuliffe."

Foy was even more pointed, comparing McAuliffe's candidacy to Hillary Clinton's failed 2008 presidential run.

"The comparison I hear about is Barack Obama and Hillary," she said. "How you had people saying that there's a person who is inevitable, who is a money machine, who has been around politics for a very long time and therefore everyone needs to make way."

The issue that these anti-McAuliffe candidates run into is space. People close to McAuliffe cheered when Carter entered the race, believing he will further box out candidates like Foy. And the longer the four challengers stay in, the harder it will be for either candidate to make up for their lack of statewide name recognition or consolidate the anti-McAuliffe support.

"If you believed that was so important, wouldn't you gather together and consolidate your vote?" asked Larry Sabato, the director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

Sabato concluded that, along with Virginia Democrats' desire to win, will help McAuliffe.

"Because Democrats lost for so long in Virginia... Democrats still have a minority mentality even though they are in the majority and because of that, they do tend to make practical decision in primaries," he said. "That may be the best thing McAuliffe has, other than incumbency and money, on his behalf."

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story gave an incorrect first name for Glenn Youngkin.

Go here to read the rest:
Terry McAuliffe wants to be Virginia's governor again. His opponents say it's time to move on. - CNN

WASHINGTONDemocrats are resorting to a well-worn tactic for their plan to expand the child tax credit: Push for a short-term policy, then highlight the consequences of letting it expire as scheduled.

The expansion of the credit would send money to households, increasing the benefit to $3,000 a child from $2,000 while adding a $600 bonus for children under age 6. It is a key piece of the $1.9 trillion pandemic-relief plan that the House passed on Saturday and that the Senate will consider this week.

Advocates say the bill would cut child poverty in half. But that larger credit is scheduled to last only through 2021, and its backers are already warning what will happen if it expires and urging a permanent extension.

Were really confident that Congress is not going to want to double the child poverty rate in this country, Sen. Michael Bennet (D., Colo.) told reporters last week.

Once the larger credit is in place, it wont go away, regardless of the Dec. 31 expiration date, predicted Brian Riedl, a former Senate GOP aide who is now a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank.

Go here to see the original:
Democrats Seek Temporary Expansion of Child Tax Credit, but Making It Permanent Is Real Goal - The Wall Street Journal