21 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Liberal Cynic's avatar

This newsletter could easily have been written in a way to show that Democrats are taking action against their own pols that have gone too far. It could have been written in a positive voice that acknowledged Democratic leaders and voters are taking concrete steps to fix our perception problem. That they are taking the advice the Bulwark has been giving them for months now.

Instead the focus is "Boy, are these people crazy or what?" With the implication being that the people voted out and making out there comments on twitter represent the Democratic party. The new mayor of San Francisco is only mentioned once, and that by her last name without acknowledgment that she's the mayor, in a pulled quote from the NY Post,

This is illustrative of the "communication problem" people complain that the Democrats have. Even a site that says it wants them to succeed, The Bulwark, when it has a chance to tell a story about how Democrats are turning it around on culture war issues instead focuses on "look how crazy these people are" by finding the most far out there people and saying the represent the Democratic party.

I totally get JVL's nihilism and am on board with it.

Expand full comment
Eric73's avatar

Kevin, the question was never whether or not Democratic voters are willing to express their disapproval to politicians and leaders. They've been doing that for some time now. The question is whether their politicians and leaders are listening and are ready to make a hard correction on both their messaging and the direction of their governance. We're seeing some hope and green shoots, but not nearly enough results to justify any kind of rosy outlook. The messaging part is the most frustrating, because it would be the easiest to address, but we need more key Democrats to take more explicit and emphatic positions against the far left flank of the party. Mike Bloomberg and a couple of Democratic allies aren't going to cut it.

There is no point in polishing a turd while the public can still smell it. The people on the San Francisco school board, while clearly out of touch with their constituencies, do *literally represent* the Democratic party, as do London Breed, Gavin Newsome, and everyone other Democratic pol and leader that people are unhappy with. Yes, in some places, the problem is the Democrats doing a bad job of selling their actual accomplishments, but in other places the problem is Democrats simply doing a bad job, period. The way things are framed in the media can certainly have some effect on perception, but the press exists to hold public figures accountable, not to do the job of their P.R. departments. If Democrats want good press, they need to start fighting for it where they've earned it, and working for it where they haven't.

Expand full comment
rlritt's avatar

I'm sorry. Newsome is doing a good job. I think CA was the only state that had a budget surplus last year. And a tax rebate was sent out.

Millions of dollars were uselessly spent on a recall election where Newsome won by 67%. I higher percentage than when he was elected a few years before.

What a waste of time and money.

Expand full comment
Charlie Sykes's avatar

Good points... which I'll address in Friday's newsletter. thanks! C

Expand full comment
Liberal Cynic's avatar

Charlie, I appreciate this very much. This isn't something you have to do. That you are choosing to do so reaffirms my feeling that you are doing your best and your writing is done in complete good-faith. <3

Expand full comment
R Mercer's avatar

It is hard to abandon the habits and rhetoric that you have had/used for a lifetime. Your commentary here is perceptive.

If you want to effect change you have to create the right narrative. This story is an example of setting the wrong narrative. It could have been written by the PR arm of the RNC.

It is important to point out the stupidity of the Democratic party when they are stupid. It is even MORE important to point out when they are smart or sane... and there is more smart and sane than stupid (even if you do not necessarily agree with their policies). There is a whole ton of smart and sane in comparison to the GoP.

THAT is your narrative--or, at least, it should be you narrative if you want to save the Republic.

Remember which party is actually driven by it's lunatics.... let's see how many adherents of the Big Lie get voted out of office by the GoP... and how many opponets of the Big Lie in the GoP get primaried out or just retire.

Expand full comment
SETH HALPERN's avatar

I don't believe most San Franciscans were consciously trying to rehabilitate their image. I think they were just being liberals instead of loons. I doubt the results would have been different were Biden's favorables in the 60s.

There are also plenty of folks who talk woke until woke hits them where they live. See, eg, the NIMBY phenomenon.

Expand full comment
TomD's avatar

It's more than a perception problem.

Expand full comment
Mary's avatar

I think Charlie tries hard, but often times the partisan stuff from his past comes through, loud and clear.

I think many of the Never Trump people struggle with just how fucking crazy their previous colleagues have "become" and so in an effort to avoid staring into the abyss of Republican insanity, they take a little too much pleasure in pointing out a Democratic issue.

JVL is, without question, the clearest thinker among the whole crew!

Expand full comment
Samantha's avatar

JVL IS ALWAYS RIGHT!

Expand full comment
Color Me Skeptical's avatar

I think Charlie and most of the Bulwark crew dwell on the “most far out people” from the left because they themselves are mostly former Republican right-wingers. And as such, they are still stung by the fact that they have been so wrong about so much for so long that they want to comfort themselves with a little “both-sides do it” self-talk.

EDITED - moved quotations.

Expand full comment
SETH HALPERN's avatar

Well, you must admit they *were* pretty far out.

Personally, as an ex Republican, I think I was wrong about some things, right about others.

I vastly underestimated the strength of the Pat Buchanan wing of the party and, even more so, the willingness of party elites to truckle to it.

But it's worth noting that Dixiecrats and "hardhats" were once half of the New Deal Coalition. And a fair number of Trumpists voted for Obama twice.

I still firmly believe that free markets and a hands off gov't policy are the best engine of economic growth, but I'm much more open to arguments about inequality and its dangers than I used to be.

Remember that plenty of Republicans (Hawley, Rubio, JD Vance, the "national conservatives," etc) have now endorsed Big Government. Is that because they were "stung" by how wrong they were before embracing leftism with a soc con face?

Expand full comment
Color Me Skeptical's avatar

They have endorsed more spending, as long as it is on "their" people. But they haven't endorsed the higher taxes to pay for it because of their donor class. The Dems mostly want to spend more for everyone and want the top 10% - 30% to pay for it. (And that actually works pretty well in some Western European countries.)

Your point about Dixiecrats is 100% right. This is where the two parties have basically switched places. Civil Rights basically started that realignment. And it is these former Dixiecrats who Buchanan animated and Trump activated.

Expand full comment
CW Stanford's avatar

You will get quite a bit of resistance from those between 70-80% -- they do not feel wealthy at all, they feel squeezed, and when they send their kids to college they get no breaks on the cost.

Expand full comment
R Mercer's avatar

I am not convinced that a free market and hands off government are the best engine of economic growth--particularly widespread economic growth that serves the majority of the population.

First off there has never really been a free market.

Second of all, I am not sure economic growth is the right metric... especially when the benefits that economic growth isn't shared well with the population.

Third, there are actual national/merchantilistic considerations (like having certain capabilities in-country and things like not depending upon strategic enemies for your energy supply, those kinds of things).

I believe that regulated markets are good... if the regulation is sound and not corrupt.

Expand full comment
SETH HALPERN's avatar

Okay, per your last point, here's a question I have trouble answering:

Right now a company in Taiwan produces almost the entire global supply of computer chips. (If only it were merely potato chips.) Taiwan is, of course, threatened by China, which would love to get its hands on those chips (and I bet it couldn't eat just one).

Should the US gov't (a) call China's bluff on Taiwan even if it risks war, (b) subsidize a US chip mfr even if it means spending loads more money and/or burdening Americans with higher prices on electronics while shutting Taiwan out, (c) scour the global landscape for chip start ups and pursue trade deals with the respective host countries, (d) all of the above, (e) none of the above, or (f) ?????

Expand full comment
R Mercer's avatar

A combination of these things (so D). In the real world you are not limited to doing one thing.

It is important to support Taiwan, for a number of reasons--not just chips;

It might be a REALLY good idea to have some chip manufacturing capability in-house and a government subsidy would be useful--the US could actually just build the factory, itself, and lease it to a manufacturer;

Work with or even create start ups in various locales to create more capacity in a variety of locations, again an overall good.

Expand full comment
SETH HALPERN's avatar

I agree that pure laissez-faire is an abstraction; worse, in practice, it would probably resemble something out of of Thomas Hobbes.

Nonetheless, the answer to inequality caused by (relatively) free markets is a degree of redistribution, not killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Right now, borrowing stands in for taxation, but the US will have to face that choice eventually.

The problem with "buy American" or like-minded industrial policies is that (a) the principle is susceptible to politically motivated abuse, and (b) favoring your favorite industries entails tariffs and artificial pricing which exclude beneficial imports and hurt both consumers and most producers without guaranteeing adequate supplies of the favored product. The better answer to that is to build alliances with like minded countries as sources of necessary imports.

Expand full comment
R Mercer's avatar

Who is killing the goose that laid the golden egg? I haven't been seeing that happen.

There is always politically motivated abuse. If we didn't do things for fear of politically motivated abuse, we would do nothing. Most of current tax and industrial policy is a result of various corrupt practices (even if legal, they are still corrupt).

You can do a mixture of things to meet your desired goals--provided your desired goals are more than making money as quickly and in as large a quantity as possible.

Expand full comment
Color Me Skeptical's avatar

Agree. It is the combination of good government and regulated and competitive market that produces the most good for the most people. Industrial policy works.

Expand full comment
DICK ISHAM's avatar

Great piece!

Expand full comment