He says that in the current environment the fear justification is pretty lame and that the Trumpistas are being motivated here purely by hate.
Simple. No fake balance. Informative. That piece was definitely to my taste.
Marshall does not mention that intentionally pissing off
a two billion people might reduce American security. I am definitely not speaking with any authority here, but I get the sense that the riling-up-the-muslims argument is considered unsophisticated. Many of them already hate us. You need to distinguish between terrorists and most muslims. Etc. Etc.
I would like to see the evidence on that. In the meantime, I am sticking with my view that it is not a good idea pointlessly to insult two billion people. That cannot improve our security. And it seems like the odds are good it might reduce it.
It is hard to believe that the Trump guys sat down and asked themselves what changes they might make to immigration policy to improve the safety of Americans and then came up with this.
Update: Jan. 31
Speaking of TPM, I just noticed Josh Marshall bragging about its “iterative” style of reporting. That seems like a cool concept. Their first pass can be suggestive and admit that they are working on the fuller story. Then guys write in and give tips or criticism. And then they return to the theme, and we get another iteration.
They “iterate” towards the truth, just like when the cops or FBI trace the phone call and have it “up on the screen” in the process drama. First you see the city, then the neighborhood, and then the street and then the lead character says, “Got em, let’s go.”
I have no idea if that works. But it is kind of a truthy concept to me. It seems more compelling than the “first layer or history” shtick that arose with print tech, I guess. Among other benefits, it might prevent anchoring?