That is not how the issue is understood by the voting public and I think you know that too.
Obama was in a defensible place, constantly and prominently asking for security the GOP in Congress refused to fund while being careful to champion the cause of only the easiest, most sympathetic cases. Biden was a total disaster. As soon as he took office he ended remain in Mexico and reversed the other Trump EOs that were creating some breathing room. Then he sat for over 3 years while the asylum system was made into a total mockery. It's night and day.
I dunno. Omitting a national abortion ban from the platform for the first time in 40 years is a pretty big deal. Especially if you're looking to give cover to socially moderate women in swing states open to voting for you.
I think there are multiple angles to it. One is 'law and order.' One is the perception of government dysfunction. One is that we have more foreign born people as a proportion of the population than any other time in history, plus fertility decline of the native born citizenry, plus the larger 'late capitalism' malaise and disenfranchisement driving a bunch of cultural panic.
As you note there are lots of ways you can play it that might work but the one thing you probably can't do is occupy the middle of a ven diagram that says 'nothing is happening,' 'we don't care that this is happening' and 'you are a racist.'.
Heh in fairness to my wonderful professor the course was Medieval Europe. UMD's history department had plenty of courses on the Islamic world. My concentration was Europe and there were courses that got into those kinds of topics, including Scandinavian history and Germanic Mythology (for which I got credits both for my major and my German citation).
I don't want to do too much projecting of intelligence but it seems to me that the GOP's slight edge comes from apparent willingness to make trade offs and even take hard lines with their constituencies. The big business wing has gotten a big middle finger on immigration and tariffs. A quieter but still firm 'shut up' seems to have gone out to the pro-life movement. Which doesnt mean they aren't still very off-putting and alienating. There's a reason they're in charge only by a thin margin. We have yet to see the Democrats do anything quite like it, in the sense of picking some sides for the sake of getting/holding power.
My recollection of the survey is that we talked 'fall' of Rome as prologue, spent 5 minutes on Byzantium and Clovis, then Einhard acting as the center of gravity for basically everything else from that (sub) period. A lot of reason to to question whether this is really a distinct era but I'm also not sure there's an obvious alternative approach at the 100 level. Gotta go to the 200 and beyond for the rest.
There are official policies and de facto policies. Chances are way lower that Trump is president if from the beginning Biden had approached the border the way he did in the last 8ish months of the administration. It's also the common thread in every important European country from UKIP to National Rally to AfD to Brothers of Italy.
When I was getting my history BA the distinction they made was low medieval (approximately 410-1066 i.e. Alaric to William) versus high medieval (approximately 1066-1400). The low medieval period is characterized by breakdown of central authority in the early years followed by slow re-establishment of governments based around vassalage and the church. I don't see anything happening now as a parallel.
The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
Oh for sure. Even with my degree I would classify myself as having not mere holes but gaping chasms.
That is not how the issue is understood by the voting public and I think you know that too.
Obama was in a defensible place, constantly and prominently asking for security the GOP in Congress refused to fund while being careful to champion the cause of only the easiest, most sympathetic cases. Biden was a total disaster. As soon as he took office he ended remain in Mexico and reversed the other Trump EOs that were creating some breathing room. Then he sat for over 3 years while the asylum system was made into a total mockery. It's night and day.
I dunno. Omitting a national abortion ban from the platform for the first time in 40 years is a pretty big deal. Especially if you're looking to give cover to socially moderate women in swing states open to voting for you.
I think there are multiple angles to it. One is 'law and order.' One is the perception of government dysfunction. One is that we have more foreign born people as a proportion of the population than any other time in history, plus fertility decline of the native born citizenry, plus the larger 'late capitalism' malaise and disenfranchisement driving a bunch of cultural panic.
As you note there are lots of ways you can play it that might work but the one thing you probably can't do is occupy the middle of a ven diagram that says 'nothing is happening,' 'we don't care that this is happening' and 'you are a racist.'.
Heh in fairness to my wonderful professor the course was Medieval Europe. UMD's history department had plenty of courses on the Islamic world. My concentration was Europe and there were courses that got into those kinds of topics, including Scandinavian history and Germanic Mythology (for which I got credits both for my major and my German citation).
I don't want to do too much projecting of intelligence but it seems to me that the GOP's slight edge comes from apparent willingness to make trade offs and even take hard lines with their constituencies. The big business wing has gotten a big middle finger on immigration and tariffs. A quieter but still firm 'shut up' seems to have gone out to the pro-life movement. Which doesnt mean they aren't still very off-putting and alienating. There's a reason they're in charge only by a thin margin. We have yet to see the Democrats do anything quite like it, in the sense of picking some sides for the sake of getting/holding power.
My recollection of the survey is that we talked 'fall' of Rome as prologue, spent 5 minutes on Byzantium and Clovis, then Einhard acting as the center of gravity for basically everything else from that (sub) period. A lot of reason to to question whether this is really a distinct era but I'm also not sure there's an obvious alternative approach at the 100 level. Gotta go to the 200 and beyond for the rest.
There are official policies and de facto policies. Chances are way lower that Trump is president if from the beginning Biden had approached the border the way he did in the last 8ish months of the administration. It's also the common thread in every important European country from UKIP to National Rally to AfD to Brothers of Italy.
When I was getting my history BA the distinction they made was low medieval (approximately 410-1066 i.e. Alaric to William) versus high medieval (approximately 1066-1400). The low medieval period is characterized by breakdown of central authority in the early years followed by slow re-establishment of governments based around vassalage and the church. I don't see anything happening now as a parallel.