You don't have to be nearly as cynical as me to know that except for the occasional thing like, "my wife got breast cancer, that seems bad, let's fund breast cancer research more," where something personally affecting a Republican makes them briefly see the light one very narrow issue, Republicans are not interested in addressing such issues.
More than that, any efforts to do so are transparently not very slick attempts to undermine any genuine efforts. On the occasions when there are actual real policies included, and not just efforts to get pundits to write up how much you care about poor people.
Anyone - pundit or politician - commenting on the latest Supremo case with some version of, "Sure I care about the goals behind affirmative action, BUT" doesn't. They're almost certainly uninterested in those goals, and they're almost certainly unaware of how "affirmative action" operates in practice in higher education.
More than that, any efforts to do so are transparently not very slick attempts to undermine any genuine efforts. On the occasions when there are actual real policies included, and not just efforts to get pundits to write up how much you care about poor people.
Anyone - pundit or politician - commenting on the latest Supremo case with some version of, "Sure I care about the goals behind affirmative action, BUT" doesn't. They're almost certainly uninterested in those goals, and they're almost certainly unaware of how "affirmative action" operates in practice in higher education.
But my general point is, if you can't imagine some pundit or politician even bothering to cross a street to save a life, then it is unlikely that their true policy preferences are much more enlightened than "feed the poor and people of color to the wood chipper."