For those not aboard the right-wing theocratic politics that controls the Tennessee General Assembly, the end of the winter brings a very familiar incident of political motor vehicle disease. Democrats collectively shrink to the backseat for three months as Republican lawmakers sprinted the perverse road where Cocammay runs down the twisted road from pointless towns to indifferent counties and occasionally stops along the way. The annual legislative assault on GOP’s decency and rationality is something Blue Tennessee has been tired of, but this year, I feel more concussions than usual given that additional psychic baggage of Trump 2.0 chaos bombs are splattering around us.

Which do you think: What are they thinking? What is the very obvious step-by-step process that is moving forward with Tennessee Republicans confidently and comfortable bills is the reality of living experiences with some of the people most affected by their legislative adventures? I have a theory about this.

My theory is that when it comes to some of their worst ideas, GOP lawmakers are trying to control places that don’t actually exist. This does not mean where it once existed. Cultural conservatism is often surrounded by a bygone American political nostalgia. For example, it restores the traditional (reading: sexist and racist) social structure and values ​​of the mid-20th century. That’s not my angle. My theory is not that they are going back to the past that they longed for and idealized, but rather that they are trying to impose direction rather than non-existent beings. That’s not to remake the present with the invited last year’s mold. It is to navigate the future based on intentional ignorance of the present.

Let me explain some of the less-than-better ideas of the current legislative session.

The first is controversial invoice Public school districts allow children without legal immigration status to refuse admission to children without legal immigration status unless their children’s parents pay tuition fees. If you were starting the country from scratch with literally zero undocumented immigrants within your borders and you were setting rules for educational access at that time, it would probably be ridiculous to put future immigrants in light of illegally moving to the frontline that children may not qualify for free public education.

However, the bill sits within the living real-world context of a substantial economically important, undocumented population, which punishes children absurdly for parental behavior, actively harms settled communities, and threatens the economic stability of the nation. And by showing off the terms of citizenship compliance related to federal education funding, the bill (around that) Financial Notes) could endanger the North North of $1 billion in federal funding for public schools.

But supporters of the bill act as if none of these realities existed. Asked about the outcomes of the committee’s hearing on March 11, House sponsor Rep. William Lamberth, a Portland Republican, pulled his head out of sand long enough to completely reject the premise and declared, “This bill is one thing: allowing locals to confirm immigrant status.” If there is a world where this bill can be imagined as a morally plausible, consequential approach to immigration policy, it is not what we actually live in.

Tennessee public schools can eliminate immigrant children without legal status in the GOP-backed bill

Second, consider Senator Gino Bruso. Solved Telling a revision to the Tennessee Constitution would make it illegal to force treatment, including vaccinations. Vaccine supporter Emily Delicat I wrote it Bulso’s great idea is to prevent illness through school and daycare vaccination requirements, risk changing nations to prevent illness, disability and death leaders, and to prevent illness at Vanguard. Given the current anti-science political winds, the vaccination angle is the most prominent part of Bulso’s revision, but I think there are other troubling consequences.

The revised text defines “treatment” that is not forced to include “interventions aimed at diagnosing, treating, preventing or alleviating physical or mental conditions.” This seems breathtakingly wide. If you cannot be forced to diagnose your physical or mental condition, is it unconstitutional for your assessment (as the department does on a daily basis) to ensure that your police or firefighter trainees are physically or mentally compatible with your role? Can a public hospital claim that it is receiving screenings for infectious diseases from staff or visitors involved in direct patient contact amid an outbreak or outbreak? Rep. Bulso is a world lawmaker whose science seems to give up all foundations of individual choice in any environment. The world we actually occupy is a world in which screening requirements in a particular social context are fundamental and essential tools for public safety.

I acknowledge that screening GOP Folly’s alternative theory in the state legislature is a largely counterproductive company. Are they cruel? Are they biased? Is it a lack of compassion? Are they just stupid? Obviously, all of these often work together and at once. My point here is to add another layer of explanation that may actually explain some of the bills there. dictionary It is defined as “a state of intellectual, moral or social darkness.” They legislate what is unimaginable because they cannot imagine what they are legislative.