The Democratic Party can both win in "Middle America" *and* be the party of progress . . . but it just needs to agree on what "progress" actually means. And specifically, what issues are *NATIONAL*-level issues it will fight for, regardless if that means softly & incrementally or going to the mat.
The Democratic Party can both win in "Middle America" *and* be the party of progress . . . but it just needs to agree on what "progress" actually means. And specifically, what issues are *NATIONAL*-level issues it will fight for, regardless if that means softly & incrementally or going to the mat.
Liberals are hopefully going to learn to appreciate our nation's concept of federalism these days, as it allows blue states to shield themselves (to a certain degree) from Trump's insanity. The flipside of that is Dems need to appreciate that certain issues or positions are going to have to be left at the state level. "Politics" is not only what happens in D.C. Last time I checked, it was considered important what happens in Michigan, PA, OH, Virginia, and FL.
Yes, Dems can & should stand up to Trump's outrages. Tim is quite right to point out that doing so may (or may not) make a difference *NOW* but is unlikely to be on most voters' minds come 2028--for better or worse. (And unless a Democrat takes a radical position, he also noted . . . if idiots start blabbering once again about defunding the police, for example, *that* will come back to haunt them).
All that said, you can't fight on everything (at least not guns blazing and/or at the federal level) and you do have to be strategic. The very first step is determining what you even mean--what are you actually saying. What does "protecting trans kids" actually mean as a federal issue? Using the federal gov't to punish parents who won't treat their pre-pubescent child as if "they" were the opposite sex? Refusing surgery? What does DEI really mean? Will Democrats be the party of 1990s Bill Clinton style equal *opportunity* or the party of the Critical Theory-loving academic Left demanding equal *outcomes*? (That's the difference, in stark terms, between equal *opportunity* and *equity*). In standing up to Trump's outrageous & illegal deportation policies, will Democrats nonetheless acknowledge that there genuinely was a border problem and that do nothing about illegal immigration is not an option? A "grand bargain" on comprehensive immigration reform should be the goal, but remember--that means there is an enforcement piece as well. Someone here illegally does not have a *right* to stay here--period. We need to acknowledge that as precursor for a comprehensive--but humane--immigration reform policy.
The Democratic Party can both win in "Middle America" *and* be the party of progress . . . but it just needs to agree on what "progress" actually means. And specifically, what issues are *NATIONAL*-level issues it will fight for, regardless if that means softly & incrementally or going to the mat.
Liberals are hopefully going to learn to appreciate our nation's concept of federalism these days, as it allows blue states to shield themselves (to a certain degree) from Trump's insanity. The flipside of that is Dems need to appreciate that certain issues or positions are going to have to be left at the state level. "Politics" is not only what happens in D.C. Last time I checked, it was considered important what happens in Michigan, PA, OH, Virginia, and FL.
Yes, Dems can & should stand up to Trump's outrages. Tim is quite right to point out that doing so may (or may not) make a difference *NOW* but is unlikely to be on most voters' minds come 2028--for better or worse. (And unless a Democrat takes a radical position, he also noted . . . if idiots start blabbering once again about defunding the police, for example, *that* will come back to haunt them).
All that said, you can't fight on everything (at least not guns blazing and/or at the federal level) and you do have to be strategic. The very first step is determining what you even mean--what are you actually saying. What does "protecting trans kids" actually mean as a federal issue? Using the federal gov't to punish parents who won't treat their pre-pubescent child as if "they" were the opposite sex? Refusing surgery? What does DEI really mean? Will Democrats be the party of 1990s Bill Clinton style equal *opportunity* or the party of the Critical Theory-loving academic Left demanding equal *outcomes*? (That's the difference, in stark terms, between equal *opportunity* and *equity*). In standing up to Trump's outrageous & illegal deportation policies, will Democrats nonetheless acknowledge that there genuinely was a border problem and that do nothing about illegal immigration is not an option? A "grand bargain" on comprehensive immigration reform should be the goal, but remember--that means there is an enforcement piece as well. Someone here illegally does not have a *right* to stay here--period. We need to acknowledge that as precursor for a comprehensive--but humane--immigration reform policy.
And so on.