Perhaps part of the reason that DeSantis has to overintellectualize his unwokeness in an off-putting way is that he's white, whereas a Vivek Ramaswamy or Tim Scott would have a lot more freedom to be visceral and personal about it.
No - it’s because he has an effeminate voice, lumpy weird frame (dude was a d1 Athlete, how is he in worse shape than Vivek -- who didnt play tennis in college but was a good junior player), and has verbal ticks.
Put it this way, when Tom cotton or Josh Hawley do their anti-woke schtick, people don’t laugh at it in the same way they do when RdS does it.
Think about what makes the latter two different from Rds.
Richard already wrote about this re Desantis and his physiognomy
Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley have a much more receptive audience than Ron DeSantis because they are not running to be President and he is. This stuff is 90% mirroring and halo effect.
DeSantis would beat the pants off of any of the other nominees on policy. His COVID policies are the only reason he initially got the public's attention, and rightly so. The connection to wokeness is through COVID imo, many of the voters who got fed up and left their cities/blue states to move to Florida (or Idaho) were not only concerned about COVID, but also about the education issues. Unfortunately there's much more to Presidential elections than policy. DeSantis does not debate well, he comes across as stiff and robotic and even in his Governor debate with Christie he did not come across well at all. He just doesn't have the ease and entertainment value that Trump has. I think the only way he gains traction with voters is to highlight his main strength: his correct reading on COVD and the wokeness/affirmation action issues. I agree with Inez here.
Morning consult ranking pages are literally years out of date - they are quite clear that they stopped updating them. Governor Matt Bevin left office more than three years ago.
Inez mentioned something about biden redefining sex to include gender identity for title 9 enforcement. But isn’t that redefinition just an application of what sex discrimination means under Bostock? Bostock held that for employers trans discrimination is sex discrimination. Something like, you would be selectively enforcing a (gender) norm on the basis of sex, hence sex discrimination. And Bostock still has 5 votes at the Supreme Court, one of which trump appointed. Maybe justice G is playing the long game by extending civil rights law to its perhaps politically untenable full extent. But still, there seems to be some incoherence on this issue.
This is gonna get a bit technical, so bear with me, but I wanted to answer you because this is a good question/point.
Bostock was IMHO wrongly decided but crucially does NOT stand for the proposition of incorporating gender identity under the word “sex.”
Gorsuch’s holding in Bostock (which explicitly doesn’t apply to Title IX and thus these regulations, but that was always a flimsy firewall so let’s set that aside) is, in fact, completely premised on the existence and immutability of biological sex. Justice G’s Bostock opinion says that it’s an impermissible discrimination on the basis of sex if you, as an employer, e.g. permit female employees to wear a skirt as part of their uniforms, but forbid a male employee from doing the same. If he were a woman, he would be allowed to wear the skirt at work, but *because he is a man* he is not allowed to, so he is being discriminated against because of his sex, not his gender identity, whatever that might be. It’s explicitly not an incorporation of gender identity into the word “sex,” but rather based on a series of dumb 70s cases where Title VII was held to be violated if an employer demanded female employees wear makeup, heels, and so on. Gorsuch’s textual reading of Title VII in Bostock is therefore pretty plausible, and a good example of the madness of inserting sex into the statute to begin with.
I should have added, this contrasts with the Biden regs on Title IX as well as the proposed Equality Act, SOGI laws in the states, etc which envision gender identity as a protected category in itself.
I'm a paid subscriber to this Substack but today I got the choice to pay to follow you (in some respect) on Twitter. Are you serious? Shouldn't those of us who pay for Substack get free access to whatever you're selling on Twitter?
I have trouble thinking the ban really hurts him in the primaries (the general election is a different story, but Trump is doomed there also). It probably helps him less than he hoped for, but he might yet secure some endorsements off it.
I think the Evangelical goober this race is Tim Scott (unless someone else shows up). Maybe his skin helps him, but he's unmarried which is very weird and, in my book, indefensible in a leader. Last time I think the anti-Trump Evangelical candidate was Ted Cruz, who's hard to like, surely a worse candidate than DeSantis.
As for schools, shutting down the Federal Dept. of Education is probably standard Republican policy now. It's what Trump is proposing, and I think DeSantis has to say something similar. I don't see how a Republican can hold that view while also endorsing an expansion of the Federal role in education.
As far as I'm concerned, the role of Republicans at the Federal level is to create breathing room for the states to operate. If you're located in a Blue state and want more conservative local policies, you shouldn't expect too much help from the national GOP, the weaker of the two parties in terms of votes, funds, and institutional power.
Perhaps part of the reason that DeSantis has to overintellectualize his unwokeness in an off-putting way is that he's white, whereas a Vivek Ramaswamy or Tim Scott would have a lot more freedom to be visceral and personal about it.
No - it’s because he has an effeminate voice, lumpy weird frame (dude was a d1 Athlete, how is he in worse shape than Vivek -- who didnt play tennis in college but was a good junior player), and has verbal ticks.
Put it this way, when Tom cotton or Josh Hawley do their anti-woke schtick, people don’t laugh at it in the same way they do when RdS does it.
Think about what makes the latter two different from Rds.
Richard already wrote about this re Desantis and his physiognomy
Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley have a much more receptive audience than Ron DeSantis because they are not running to be President and he is. This stuff is 90% mirroring and halo effect.
Desantis talks like trixie Mattel, nasal and vaguely country. Cigarette vibes.
DeSantis would beat the pants off of any of the other nominees on policy. His COVID policies are the only reason he initially got the public's attention, and rightly so. The connection to wokeness is through COVID imo, many of the voters who got fed up and left their cities/blue states to move to Florida (or Idaho) were not only concerned about COVID, but also about the education issues. Unfortunately there's much more to Presidential elections than policy. DeSantis does not debate well, he comes across as stiff and robotic and even in his Governor debate with Christie he did not come across well at all. He just doesn't have the ease and entertainment value that Trump has. I think the only way he gains traction with voters is to highlight his main strength: his correct reading on COVD and the wokeness/affirmation action issues. I agree with Inez here.
Morning consult ranking pages are literally years out of date - they are quite clear that they stopped updating them. Governor Matt Bevin left office more than three years ago.
Inez mentioned something about biden redefining sex to include gender identity for title 9 enforcement. But isn’t that redefinition just an application of what sex discrimination means under Bostock? Bostock held that for employers trans discrimination is sex discrimination. Something like, you would be selectively enforcing a (gender) norm on the basis of sex, hence sex discrimination. And Bostock still has 5 votes at the Supreme Court, one of which trump appointed. Maybe justice G is playing the long game by extending civil rights law to its perhaps politically untenable full extent. But still, there seems to be some incoherence on this issue.
This is gonna get a bit technical, so bear with me, but I wanted to answer you because this is a good question/point.
Bostock was IMHO wrongly decided but crucially does NOT stand for the proposition of incorporating gender identity under the word “sex.”
Gorsuch’s holding in Bostock (which explicitly doesn’t apply to Title IX and thus these regulations, but that was always a flimsy firewall so let’s set that aside) is, in fact, completely premised on the existence and immutability of biological sex. Justice G’s Bostock opinion says that it’s an impermissible discrimination on the basis of sex if you, as an employer, e.g. permit female employees to wear a skirt as part of their uniforms, but forbid a male employee from doing the same. If he were a woman, he would be allowed to wear the skirt at work, but *because he is a man* he is not allowed to, so he is being discriminated against because of his sex, not his gender identity, whatever that might be. It’s explicitly not an incorporation of gender identity into the word “sex,” but rather based on a series of dumb 70s cases where Title VII was held to be violated if an employer demanded female employees wear makeup, heels, and so on. Gorsuch’s textual reading of Title VII in Bostock is therefore pretty plausible, and a good example of the madness of inserting sex into the statute to begin with.
I should have added, this contrasts with the Biden regs on Title IX as well as the proposed Equality Act, SOGI laws in the states, etc which envision gender identity as a protected category in itself.
Enjoyed it, keep it going
I do not listen to podcasts. I just do not. However, I would pay to read transcripts.
You found a great co-host. I’m looking forward to listening to this over the election season.
I'm a paid subscriber to this Substack but today I got the choice to pay to follow you (in some respect) on Twitter. Are you serious? Shouldn't those of us who pay for Substack get free access to whatever you're selling on Twitter?
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/twitter-subscriptions-and-new-substack
He’s kind of autistic, in the listening to what people say they want instead of intuiting what they’ll like or to what they’ll react positively
I have trouble thinking the ban really hurts him in the primaries (the general election is a different story, but Trump is doomed there also). It probably helps him less than he hoped for, but he might yet secure some endorsements off it.
I think the Evangelical goober this race is Tim Scott (unless someone else shows up). Maybe his skin helps him, but he's unmarried which is very weird and, in my book, indefensible in a leader. Last time I think the anti-Trump Evangelical candidate was Ted Cruz, who's hard to like, surely a worse candidate than DeSantis.
As for schools, shutting down the Federal Dept. of Education is probably standard Republican policy now. It's what Trump is proposing, and I think DeSantis has to say something similar. I don't see how a Republican can hold that view while also endorsing an expansion of the Federal role in education.
As far as I'm concerned, the role of Republicans at the Federal level is to create breathing room for the states to operate. If you're located in a Blue state and want more conservative local policies, you shouldn't expect too much help from the national GOP, the weaker of the two parties in terms of votes, funds, and institutional power.