I'd like to welcome (defender of democracy) Will Saletan to the Bulwark. I've enjoyed listening to past Charlie / Will podcasts, and look forward to Will's upcoming contributions at the Bulwark.
Sarah Longwell is (always) right..."the stakes, you might have noticed, are extremely high". The new-age progressive GOP with its cast of cretins / reality deniers, misfit candidates, pursuit of grift, loyalists in lieu of capable / qualified / experienced personnel, and obedience to one man over duty to country is like a super efficient iv drip of corruption and decay into our system of Government.
After going to hear Jason Riley last night, I was in the dumps....... a Black man telling us Blacks just need to take more personal responsibility. Then I read "Democrats: Change Course Or Get Crushed" and thought 'here it comes, we're doomed." Instead I found clear directions for a party that just can't seem to find itself. But I did not see the usual warnings against 'wokeness' or 'progressives' and other bugaboos of the right. So let me toss that in. Most White voters are still shackled in our caste system; without being overtly racist they still see this as a White country and wonder what is going on when Democrats not only put Blacks front and center constantly - something my wife and I see as normal given the makeup of the population - but seem to ignore Hispanics. My wife and I have struggled for decades to bring the Black experience in this country to the fore in a personal way but the truth to tell, we know most White people, those independents and others, are really not looking for a victory by BLM or more recognition for the Black contribution to America (try doing your DNA and see what pops up). Any minority voting Republican is unrecoverable, just go for the White suburban vote that will win elections,; otherwise, I'm moving to Italy right after I work against Sinema's reelection.
I remain stumped by how bad Democrat messaging is. It is truly a mystery to me. Really.
I have a graduate degree in rhetoric. My doctoral advisor was a speechwriter for JFK. I used to teach public speaking, argumentation, reasoning and critical thinking at university. I taught HS English for around 10 years. I look at Democratic rhetoric and SMH.
They supposedly have professionals working on this. Big firms that they are likely paying lots of money to for advice and expertise. I can only figure that they have:
1) hired total idiots; or
2) Ignore everything the experts are telling them.
The Democratic inability to clearly articulate in a non-wacko fashion (and in an inspirational way) a clear set of principles that inform and guide general policy (creating a clear link between the two) TAILORED to particular audiences is absolutely baffling.
You could do this in a fashion that is infused with the correct constitutional language, that makes clear your dedication to basic American principles that inform classical liberal government.
You could speak in moral terms that have clear antecedents in western civilization and avoid a lot of the crap language that the far left uses.
Stop talking about the details of policy, nobody necessarily cares or understands.
Stop trying to do everything with one piece of legislation. Be clear and direct, be moral, be principled--and don't undercut those things with your behavior and little things written into the laws that undercut your principles or purpose.
Seize the moral high ground, given the current GoP that should be ludicrously easy.
There is plenty of data out there to inform how you shape your message and to tell you what people (at least think) they want. USE IT.
I could write better stuff than these people are currently using, which is sad.
I read Sarah's points and they are so simple and straightforward, that it calms me to know that sane people and solutions do exist. Then there are the extremists on both sides yelling in my ears.
Please be sure this column is sent directly to Joe or Jill. They appear to be flanked by the liberal left and need to hear from other Democrats and Independents. Yes! Sound out about the wins of Infrastructure & Covid Relief. Stop beating bloated dead horses! Rewrite your polls to actually obtain the trade offs voters want rather than all the “pie in the sky.”
The people Sarah wants to court are the same people who fear CRT, deny white privilege exists, and think Jim Crow/redlining/de facto segregation had no long term impact on society.
A political coalition that has no idiots in it is a losing coalition.
Charlie recently reminded us of Bill Clinton's Sister Souljah moment. In that campaign, Clinton famously returned to Arkansas to execute an African-American prisoner who was so mentally incapacitated that he didn't eat the dessert from his last meal because he was saving it for later. And just days before Super Tuesday, Clinton had himself photographed along with three other white politicians in business suits lording it over black prisoners in prison jumpsuits at a prison at Stone Mountain, Georgia, the spiritual home of the KKK. Was Clinton wrong that he needed some idiot vote?
He was an awful president who allowed Gorelick to erect the wall between The FBI and CIA, who refused to get OBL, who gutted welfare, who helped craft a racist crime bill, he sexually harassed an intern, and who illegally launched missiles at The Sudan. He's hardly an exemplar of what a president should be.
Also, 70% of GOP voters believe 2020 was rigged. Did 70% of Dem voters in 1992 think The KKK was aces?
Worth recalling that Clinton went to the Stone Mountain prison during the Democratic primary season. Recall also that Clinton defeated Bush the First who gave us Lee Atwater. Where was the winning political coalition of Arcadian purity to be found in 1992? Where is it today?
Asking people not to be openly anti-Black is hardly asking for purity. The fact that you think it's fine and good to have openly anti-Black elected officials is the problem
Observing the reality of the 1992 election is not the same as endorsing any type of elected official. Let's argue in good faith.
Trump won the 2016 election. For Biden to win in 2020, he needed to win over some voters who voted for Trump. (I'm assuming the change in the electorate by death, etc. won't do the trick.) If he adopted the attitude that doing what is necessary to win some of these voters is too distasteful to do, he loses.
"For Biden to win in 2020, he needed to win over some voters who voted for Trump."
Not really; he seems to have won mostly by spiking turnout in a handful of areas. Keep in mind; the election ultimately came down to 300,000 votes across five states. In fact, with the current polarization, there's a strong argument that reaching across in a Presidential election is a sucker bet. Stacy Abrams turning Georgia purple by mobilizing voters would seem to provide support to that idea.
So people will vote for a party that tried to overturn a legal election because unemployment is low, crime is still much lower than it was under Reagan or HW Bush, and because Biden cannot magically make inflation and C19 go away? If that's all it takes to get you to vote for authoritarianism, then you're a truly awful person
Awful. Ignorant. Gullible. Stupid. Bigoted. Racist. Narcissistic. Delusional. Demented....how many negative human characteristics are there, anyway? Just hit APPLY ALL.
Voting is not rational or logical it is based primarily on identity and on the voter's PERCEPTION of how things are going, particularly for themselves or family.
And, it is NOT always the economy, it is often the PERCEPTION of the economy.
Exactly. If the news keeps talking about how bad things are, then things are bad (even if they actually aren't).
Or something as simple as I wanted to buy X, only I can't buy one because the price went too high because they are in short supply because (chip shortage, supply chain problems). That is immediate and personal. That carries far more weight than any abstract argument. That is why anecdotes work as persuasive devices, it becomes personal.
We have low unemployment, high home values, and a raging stock market, so how are they perceiving the economy is not gangbusters? We also have lower inflation w=than we did for a large chunk of Reagan's admin.
Considering that so many who would cast their vote for authoritarianism truly believe the 2020 election was stolen because the politicians they identify with told them it was, how many are likely to see the economy as good in any way, despite their own personal experience, if those same politicians aren't confirming that fact for them? Heard any Republicans of note speaking about how good the economy actually is of late?
Yes, people will. I can't recall the details, but when Trump was running in 2016, some people that were interviewed felt that, since they were struggling, it was OK for others to struggle, and that they liked to see the disruption. It was fun.
100% true, many if not the majority of voters care less about democracy than cheaper gas and shorter check out lines. Not all of them are awful people. Many have daily struggles and cannot see beyond the next day. Also, we have not experienced living in an authoritarian state and take things for granted.
I am a center-left Democrat, and I agree with Sarah. I get really upset when my party shoots itself in the foot every time, as in the State of New York allowing non-citizens to vote in New York local elections, and that is total madness.
I said this the other day, and I will stand by this statement that Democrats are not facing a red wave in November; instead, the Democrats will be crushed by the Red tsunami in November.
I am just amazed how my party The Democrats be so bad in basic politics.
I personally thing the progressive wing of the Democrats need a reality check.
Yes, because one of those issues is abstract and distant and the other is in their face. People suck at dealing with the abstract and will always prefer present comfort over dealing with future troubles.
Yes. Sadly. And as the article stated very clearly, people don't hear what the bills passed actually will do for them. Heck, Manchin and Sim (don't remember the spelling, but you know who) aren't interested either, and are enjoying their more than 15 minutes of fame. And the media is also to blame. Fox keeps touting their ratings BUT their ratings are still lower than the combined so-called fake media ratings (CNN, etc.). And those media aren't touting what Biden has accomplished either. And those MEGA bills <shudder> - how about bite-sized pieces that people can understand when the Reps vote against them?
I hope Sarah's prescription is right. But I am fearful that tribe allegiance and ideological identification can override economic concerns. I also believe that is a blindspot particular to pundits who, it seems to me, often miss the underlying, visceral, dislike of many R's for the "democrat party". Plenty of the R's I know will vote straight ticket because they simply won't be affected by a change in administration. They are insulated by their wealth or their ignorance.....and sometimes by both.
So basically what Sarah says is Dems can do all the stuff she said and still get blown out in the '22 mid terms because what they really want and said with their votes in '20 is NO TO TRUMP and NO TO DEMS (other than Biden). They don't want Dems in charge or like their priorities but don't like Trump more. So if Dems and Biden do everything you say, they will still want the check on him. This is purely about '24 and not '22 - '22 is in the bag. This is the same thing we see with approval ratings: people don't like the job Biden is doing but if it came to it and it was him vs. Trump they will vote him and R's down ballot. Honestly, this further proves that he should tilt leftward because the Progressives are children waiting and willing to burn it down if they don't get what they want. I don't care about the battle of '22, I care about the war of '24.
Sarah's piece is necessary and correct, but the Democrats (whose federal candidates I've supported since 1988) are likely incapable of executing all of it. Perhaps after they've completed their virtue-signaling ritual to please certain fat-cat (and clueless) donors, they can pivot to doing what's needed, but experience suggests application of gunpowder to foot instead. I'd add to Sarah's topics a strong pitch for community that includes recognition of and respect for local institutions and resources (including religious charities). The "rugged individualism" cult of today's Republicans (no longer their brother's keeper) is the opposite, so the community support lane is wide open.
The rugged individualists today are the I's & the D's and any and all that stand up against authoritarianism and for democracy. The GOP is no longer a tribe as much as it is a herd.
As usual Sarah is right
Could Dems at least take a beat and correct a questioner or speechifier referring to the 'Democrat' Party?
I'd like to welcome (defender of democracy) Will Saletan to the Bulwark. I've enjoyed listening to past Charlie / Will podcasts, and look forward to Will's upcoming contributions at the Bulwark.
Sarah Longwell is (always) right..."the stakes, you might have noticed, are extremely high". The new-age progressive GOP with its cast of cretins / reality deniers, misfit candidates, pursuit of grift, loyalists in lieu of capable / qualified / experienced personnel, and obedience to one man over duty to country is like a super efficient iv drip of corruption and decay into our system of Government.
After going to hear Jason Riley last night, I was in the dumps....... a Black man telling us Blacks just need to take more personal responsibility. Then I read "Democrats: Change Course Or Get Crushed" and thought 'here it comes, we're doomed." Instead I found clear directions for a party that just can't seem to find itself. But I did not see the usual warnings against 'wokeness' or 'progressives' and other bugaboos of the right. So let me toss that in. Most White voters are still shackled in our caste system; without being overtly racist they still see this as a White country and wonder what is going on when Democrats not only put Blacks front and center constantly - something my wife and I see as normal given the makeup of the population - but seem to ignore Hispanics. My wife and I have struggled for decades to bring the Black experience in this country to the fore in a personal way but the truth to tell, we know most White people, those independents and others, are really not looking for a victory by BLM or more recognition for the Black contribution to America (try doing your DNA and see what pops up). Any minority voting Republican is unrecoverable, just go for the White suburban vote that will win elections,; otherwise, I'm moving to Italy right after I work against Sinema's reelection.
Where's the Bulwark World announcement?
I remain stumped by how bad Democrat messaging is. It is truly a mystery to me. Really.
I have a graduate degree in rhetoric. My doctoral advisor was a speechwriter for JFK. I used to teach public speaking, argumentation, reasoning and critical thinking at university. I taught HS English for around 10 years. I look at Democratic rhetoric and SMH.
They supposedly have professionals working on this. Big firms that they are likely paying lots of money to for advice and expertise. I can only figure that they have:
1) hired total idiots; or
2) Ignore everything the experts are telling them.
The Democratic inability to clearly articulate in a non-wacko fashion (and in an inspirational way) a clear set of principles that inform and guide general policy (creating a clear link between the two) TAILORED to particular audiences is absolutely baffling.
You could do this in a fashion that is infused with the correct constitutional language, that makes clear your dedication to basic American principles that inform classical liberal government.
You could speak in moral terms that have clear antecedents in western civilization and avoid a lot of the crap language that the far left uses.
Stop talking about the details of policy, nobody necessarily cares or understands.
Stop trying to do everything with one piece of legislation. Be clear and direct, be moral, be principled--and don't undercut those things with your behavior and little things written into the laws that undercut your principles or purpose.
Seize the moral high ground, given the current GoP that should be ludicrously easy.
There is plenty of data out there to inform how you shape your message and to tell you what people (at least think) they want. USE IT.
I could write better stuff than these people are currently using, which is sad.
I read Sarah's points and they are so simple and straightforward, that it calms me to know that sane people and solutions do exist. Then there are the extremists on both sides yelling in my ears.
Please be sure this column is sent directly to Joe or Jill. They appear to be flanked by the liberal left and need to hear from other Democrats and Independents. Yes! Sound out about the wins of Infrastructure & Covid Relief. Stop beating bloated dead horses! Rewrite your polls to actually obtain the trade offs voters want rather than all the “pie in the sky.”
The people Sarah wants to court are the same people who fear CRT, deny white privilege exists, and think Jim Crow/redlining/de facto segregation had no long term impact on society.
A political coalition that has no idiots in it is a losing coalition.
Charlie recently reminded us of Bill Clinton's Sister Souljah moment. In that campaign, Clinton famously returned to Arkansas to execute an African-American prisoner who was so mentally incapacitated that he didn't eat the dessert from his last meal because he was saving it for later. And just days before Super Tuesday, Clinton had himself photographed along with three other white politicians in business suits lording it over black prisoners in prison jumpsuits at a prison at Stone Mountain, Georgia, the spiritual home of the KKK. Was Clinton wrong that he needed some idiot vote?
He was an awful president who allowed Gorelick to erect the wall between The FBI and CIA, who refused to get OBL, who gutted welfare, who helped craft a racist crime bill, he sexually harassed an intern, and who illegally launched missiles at The Sudan. He's hardly an exemplar of what a president should be.
Also, 70% of GOP voters believe 2020 was rigged. Did 70% of Dem voters in 1992 think The KKK was aces?
Worth recalling that Clinton went to the Stone Mountain prison during the Democratic primary season. Recall also that Clinton defeated Bush the First who gave us Lee Atwater. Where was the winning political coalition of Arcadian purity to be found in 1992? Where is it today?
Asking people not to be openly anti-Black is hardly asking for purity. The fact that you think it's fine and good to have openly anti-Black elected officials is the problem
Observing the reality of the 1992 election is not the same as endorsing any type of elected official. Let's argue in good faith.
Trump won the 2016 election. For Biden to win in 2020, he needed to win over some voters who voted for Trump. (I'm assuming the change in the electorate by death, etc. won't do the trick.) If he adopted the attitude that doing what is necessary to win some of these voters is too distasteful to do, he loses.
"For Biden to win in 2020, he needed to win over some voters who voted for Trump."
Not really; he seems to have won mostly by spiking turnout in a handful of areas. Keep in mind; the election ultimately came down to 300,000 votes across five states. In fact, with the current polarization, there's a strong argument that reaching across in a Presidential election is a sucker bet. Stacy Abrams turning Georgia purple by mobilizing voters would seem to provide support to that idea.
I'm arguing in good faith. You cited Clinton's embrace of anti-Black racism as a positive. I disagreed
So people will vote for a party that tried to overturn a legal election because unemployment is low, crime is still much lower than it was under Reagan or HW Bush, and because Biden cannot magically make inflation and C19 go away? If that's all it takes to get you to vote for authoritarianism, then you're a truly awful person
Awful. Ignorant. Gullible. Stupid. Bigoted. Racist. Narcissistic. Delusional. Demented....how many negative human characteristics are there, anyway? Just hit APPLY ALL.
Voting is not rational or logical it is based primarily on identity and on the voter's PERCEPTION of how things are going, particularly for themselves or family.
And, it is NOT always the economy, it is often the PERCEPTION of the economy.
And perception is driven by the message they hear.
Exactly. If the news keeps talking about how bad things are, then things are bad (even if they actually aren't).
Or something as simple as I wanted to buy X, only I can't buy one because the price went too high because they are in short supply because (chip shortage, supply chain problems). That is immediate and personal. That carries far more weight than any abstract argument. That is why anecdotes work as persuasive devices, it becomes personal.
We have low unemployment, high home values, and a raging stock market, so how are they perceiving the economy is not gangbusters? We also have lower inflation w=than we did for a large chunk of Reagan's admin.
Considering that so many who would cast their vote for authoritarianism truly believe the 2020 election was stolen because the politicians they identify with told them it was, how many are likely to see the economy as good in any way, despite their own personal experience, if those same politicians aren't confirming that fact for them? Heard any Republicans of note speaking about how good the economy actually is of late?
Yes, people will. I can't recall the details, but when Trump was running in 2016, some people that were interviewed felt that, since they were struggling, it was OK for others to struggle, and that they liked to see the disruption. It was fun.
100% true, many if not the majority of voters care less about democracy than cheaper gas and shorter check out lines. Not all of them are awful people. Many have daily struggles and cannot see beyond the next day. Also, we have not experienced living in an authoritarian state and take things for granted.
I am a center-left Democrat, and I agree with Sarah. I get really upset when my party shoots itself in the foot every time, as in the State of New York allowing non-citizens to vote in New York local elections, and that is total madness.
I said this the other day, and I will stand by this statement that Democrats are not facing a red wave in November; instead, the Democrats will be crushed by the Red tsunami in November.
I am just amazed how my party The Democrats be so bad in basic politics.
I personally thing the progressive wing of the Democrats need a reality check.
So, people will be so angry over a miniscule issue like that that they'll vote for a party that tried to overturn a legal election?
Yes. Yes. Yes. It's maddening, but YESSSSSSS!!!!! That is the reality.
Yes, because one of those issues is abstract and distant and the other is in their face. People suck at dealing with the abstract and will always prefer present comfort over dealing with future troubles.
Yes. Sadly. And as the article stated very clearly, people don't hear what the bills passed actually will do for them. Heck, Manchin and Sim (don't remember the spelling, but you know who) aren't interested either, and are enjoying their more than 15 minutes of fame. And the media is also to blame. Fox keeps touting their ratings BUT their ratings are still lower than the combined so-called fake media ratings (CNN, etc.). And those media aren't touting what Biden has accomplished either. And those MEGA bills <shudder> - how about bite-sized pieces that people can understand when the Reps vote against them?
Bravo! Charlie on the Best is yet to come ending. Pure greatness.
Trump-Jesus? I'm sure Trump would willingly put on a crown of thorns and be nailed to a cross. Seems really on brand.
I hope Sarah's prescription is right. But I am fearful that tribe allegiance and ideological identification can override economic concerns. I also believe that is a blindspot particular to pundits who, it seems to me, often miss the underlying, visceral, dislike of many R's for the "democrat party". Plenty of the R's I know will vote straight ticket because they simply won't be affected by a change in administration. They are insulated by their wealth or their ignorance.....and sometimes by both.
So basically what Sarah says is Dems can do all the stuff she said and still get blown out in the '22 mid terms because what they really want and said with their votes in '20 is NO TO TRUMP and NO TO DEMS (other than Biden). They don't want Dems in charge or like their priorities but don't like Trump more. So if Dems and Biden do everything you say, they will still want the check on him. This is purely about '24 and not '22 - '22 is in the bag. This is the same thing we see with approval ratings: people don't like the job Biden is doing but if it came to it and it was him vs. Trump they will vote him and R's down ballot. Honestly, this further proves that he should tilt leftward because the Progressives are children waiting and willing to burn it down if they don't get what they want. I don't care about the battle of '22, I care about the war of '24.
Biden is to the right of next on many domestic policies
Then how did they win both Senate seats in GA?
Trump sacrificed them to prolong the election lies on top pretty lucky circumstances of GA election laws making it 50%+ to win.
Sarah's piece is necessary and correct, but the Democrats (whose federal candidates I've supported since 1988) are likely incapable of executing all of it. Perhaps after they've completed their virtue-signaling ritual to please certain fat-cat (and clueless) donors, they can pivot to doing what's needed, but experience suggests application of gunpowder to foot instead. I'd add to Sarah's topics a strong pitch for community that includes recognition of and respect for local institutions and resources (including religious charities). The "rugged individualism" cult of today's Republicans (no longer their brother's keeper) is the opposite, so the community support lane is wide open.
The rugged individualists today are the I's & the D's and any and all that stand up against authoritarianism and for democracy. The GOP is no longer a tribe as much as it is a herd.