I'm less concerned about the "why we fight" aspect than I am with the "*how* we fight" aspect. Since 2016, dems have consistently failed to realize 2 things: 1) they keep trying to go back to a bygone era of bipartisanship and have failed to embrace a wartime footing against the GOP and the oligarchy that entails going into scorched-eart…
I'm less concerned about the "why we fight" aspect than I am with the "*how* we fight" aspect. Since 2016, dems have consistently failed to realize 2 things: 1) they keep trying to go back to a bygone era of bipartisanship and have failed to embrace a wartime footing against the GOP and the oligarchy that entails going into scorched-earth political tactics instead of worrying about the "optics" of doing so, and 2) they continuously fail to embrace anti-establishment populism politics, instead opting for the defense of institutions rather than seeking to change them.
Trump got his start not by going after the dems, but by going after the leaders of the GOP. For Trump and MAGA, dems were the "far enemy," but the bipartisanship softies within their party were the "near enemy" that needed to either go away or be brought to heal first. Dems need to do this kind of thing within their own party over the next two years and start replacing their softies with fighters. They need to sideline anyone who still lives in this fantasy of a world where we go back to bipartisanship and start promoting the people within their party who understand that those days are long gone and the only way forward is to fight the MAGAfied GOP with scorched earth tactics that include firebreathing message campaigns that don't give a fuck about "optics", highlighting of the corruption/incompetence/illegality of the Trump administration at every turn, and a messaging focus on economic populism that centers around the American oligarchy hollowing out the middle class with corruption and crony capitalism and the need to take the country back from the rich via economic populism.
The old ways the dems have embraced are not working. They need to move away from "hope" and "joy" and start embracing *anger* and *fighting*. The American public is not in the mood for hope/joy, and they want angry fighters that are going to do something instead of just propose civility and niceties. Dems need to get out of their decency comfort zone and get into the arena and start throwing a whole lot of low blows, or they're going to be continuously rejected by a pissed off working class who are looking for some scapegoats to dish out punishments against. If dems don't turn the American public against the oligarchy and fight to remake the institutions on their own terms, they will continue to lose a critical mass of the American public whom they need to put them into power and they will watch the other side change these institutions in a way they won't like.
Absolutely NOT, what needs to happen is mandatory civics for all Americans, even voting age adults, people are too stupid to realize, ackshuwally the president doesn't get to unilaterally set the price of gas and bacon, yet that's exactly what they seem to think happens... the magic godking will come fix everything for everyone dontchaknow!!! CANT FIX STUPID BUT THATS EXACTLY WHAT AMERICANS NEED!
Aer they attached to a bygone era or are they facing the reality that Democrats do not have a majority in the House and a tie in the Senate (until January anyway)? It's get a few Republican votes or have every piece of legislation introduced by Democrats fail in committee and floor votes. Seems like bipartisanship is necessity to me if the Dems want to pass something of their program.
The GOP faced the reality of not having the WH or either half of congress when 2021 started. They took back one half of congress come 2023 and will now have the hat trick come 2025.
The point is for dems to make sure *nothing* passes between now and when they can potentially win back one half of congress--or at the very least as little as possible. Give the GOP as few legislative victories as possible, make a shitload of noise in the attention economy to show how corrupt/incompetent/illegal the GOP is while the GOP is in power, and then when they take back the house in '26 start holding some fucking televised committee hearings whose video bites make the rounds on social media so they can further control the initiative in the attention economy until they win back the rest in '28. Until '26 the goal of the dems in congress should be to make the GOP a highlighted clown show and to pull as many attention-grabbing stunts as possible along the way. See those reporters in the halls of congress looking for on the spot interviews? Start giving them. Start calling out the GOP at every chance given, and for god's sake get some messaging discipline into the party such that they can leverage those hallways interviews to create an echo chamber in the attention economy. Get onto podcasts--including conservative outlets. Go onto Fox News. Start fucking yelling and putting the GOP on the spot and making them feel uncomfortable in their own backyards. Act like a god-damned insurgent party.
They didn't actually care about passing anything. They just wanted to get on Fox to yell...as you pointed out...and then have it go viral on Twitter and other social platforms. The fatal flaw in Democrats is that they seem to want to get something done besides "fight" loudly on tv and in social media.
Yup. Level of effort put forward in *preventing* things from happening is in itself "doing something" when you can't actually do anything.
In warfare if you don't have the manpower or position to put forward a strong offense, you put up enough landmines, obstacles, and fixed kill zones to make the other side's offense as difficult and troublesome as possible. That's exactly what the Ukrainians are doing to the Russians right now. That's exactly what the Taliban did to us in Afghanistan. Dems could learn a thing or two about political warfare from *actual* warfare.
I guess I'm wired strangely. Fighting for the sake of fighting just turns me off. The point is to accomplish something tangible otherwise it isn't worth fighting for.
As Travis points out, stopping things or slowing things down IS accomplishing something tangible. It just isn't as sexy as "doing" things and is less noticeable--which means you need to draw attention to doing it.
The major problem Travis is that it is the identarian differences between the Democrats and the GoP that kind of disable the Democrats from doing what you suggest.
I see these differences in play all the time. I have seen these differences in play since at least the Reagan era. They have actually been going on longer than that, for most of human history, in fact.
There are two keys:
1) Everything revolves around identity--which in this case breaks down to two important factors: How the world works (particularly, in politics, the moral framework), and who US and them are; and
2) Lived experience (which includes trusted anecdotes and narratives).
TRUST is a function of who is US and who is Them. The narratives, ideas, practices, anecdotes of Them are not to be trusted, They are not to be trusted. Trust is necessary for society to work, without trust there is no society.
Identity is the filter through which lived experience is interpreted. This interpretation leads to decisions which are based upon that understanding of the world that is rooted in identity. This is not necessarily truth based (actually, it rarely is).
In simplistic and general terms, "liberal" identity s based upon a particular view of humanity that is rooted in a morality of compassion and nurturing (essentially "feminine" by the standards of Western society). In many cases this entails a belief in the "perfectability" of humans. It also prioritizes rationality over emotion. It respects expertise. It believes in the rule of law and of the authority of institutions. It will work within the rules and within the bounds of what is seen as "decent" behavior.
This basically renders "liberals" largely incapable of engaging "conservatives" on equal terms.
Conservatives value authority (not experise). They have a paternal/patriarchical moral structure that is focused on punishment and "tough love." It is stereotypicalyl male. Good and bad happen to you largely because you get what you deserve. It prioritizes emotion.
More people are (IIRC) "conservative" than "liberal."
To be honest Travis, I do not think that the Democratic party is actually capable of doing what needs to be done. It would require breaking the (unstated) rules/norms, it would require abdicating rationality to emotion.
One of the points made WRT elections is that the Democrats are "out of touch." The reality is that they ARE out of touch with a significant portion of the electorate, because the electorate sees the world working differently than they do, sees the boundaries of Us/Them differently, sees the moral structure differently.
It is a VERY hard gap to bridge.
Plus there are the myriad details that means that the Democrats cannot usefully oppose the oligarchs, because they depend upon those oligarchs.
This is all VERY oversimplified, but it is the root of the whole thing. Others have talked about this at length over the past few decades, particularly George Lakoff.
I agree with most of what you say here, if not all of it. I particularly agree with the authority vs expertise, masculine vs feminine angles as it relates to identity--and lived experience as it relates through the filter of identity. You've put a pin on a lot of things I've found difficult to articulate about the differences in aspects of American culture and how dems are losing that battle. I think it will be difficult to shift that culture within the dem coalition, but I don't think it is *impossible*. I'd point to several character examples that I think break the contemporary dem mold of politician: Anthony Weiner, Bernie Sanders, AOC, and John Fetterman (Jasmine Crockett is another one who can potentially fall into this kind of group). Each of these 4 have their own flaws, but each also broke from the contemporary mold of dem politician who tended to be a non-aggressive softie that represented good faith bipartisan outreach in a political environment defined by an opposition party (the GOP) who had long since moved past that sort of notion. I think each of those 4 represent a sort of political knife fighter on the blue side of the aisle that needs to spread to their softer/tamer associates.
By embracing an angry fighting spirit, I do see a path for the dems to move into the "identity lane" of where a lot of the working class is by embodying the kind of pissed off vibes that the working class currently feels. Perhaps the third leg beyond identity and lived experience is "vibes," which is drawn from lived experience which itself is downstream of identity. So if the working and middle classes are pissed off, have become populist, and are anti-establishment, then it would behoove the dems to also start becoming pissed off, populist, and anti-establishment so as to fit into the identity and vibes lane that the public they need to win over are. It won't happen overnight of course, but neither did the MAGAfication of the GOP. It starts with calling forward angry, populist, anti-establishment dems and putting them into the spotlight via the attention economy, and continues via either pushing the rest of the traditional squishes out of the attention economy/leadership and either getting them to change character or replacing them with candidates who *can* act the part and get with the program. Is this a path that the dems are likely to take? I don't know, probably not. But do I think this is a path that would bring them more success than they're currently having? Definitely.
The important thing in order to make any of this work is creating a popular media outlet that attracts the attention the working and class and defines and promotes the new fighting Democrats who stand for the people against crony, out of control capitalism presented by the oligarchs. (Mesk, Bezos, et, al)
I agree with you. The Democrats need a wholesale replacement of leadership and they need to basically do what you are saying here.
I see it as a low probability path, however, because identity usually wins out.
It is also a slow path, because you need to build a roster of politicians in that mold at the national level and you need a lot of work in the attention economy/narrative creation that people really do not have the patience for these days. It took the GoP basically a generation to get there.
Absolutely I've been hugely disappointed in our leadership's lack of planning and ability to take up battle and read the political landscape. I saw a clip from John Stewart yesterday about how Democrats are worried about "decorum" while Republicans show up to fight and win. We can't wait 2 yrs. We need leadership change NOW. If we wait to wrap it up in two or four years it's too late it's another two or four years after that then. We've got stop letting politicians like Jayapal leading the party down losing rabbit holes. We're either a party of the big tent and the majority of we'll permanently become a fringe party for the minority. Let's be clear that we can help bring respect to all voters without abandoning our principles.
Not that I consider him a national leader in the waiting, but Governor Newsome is fighting in California. He has recalled the Legislature into a special session to vote in California Constitutional and other California specific laws to protect those things OCF could try to take, e.g., abortion protection, clean air (California has experience in fighting that battle) to name but two. Other states should follow that idea, if they have the D strength, will and moxie to try.
Just what it will accomplish remains to be seen. I think the primary reason for the special session is to appropriate money for whatever legal battles will ensue. The first Trump Admin wanted to end California's more strict auto emissions standards. I'm sure that will be the target as will any climate related goals that exceed what Trump Admin wants (which are zero). Plus there will aggressive challenges by the CA Atty Gen to anything coming down from the federal government. The CA Constitution can't be changed by the legislature alone; that has to go before the voters.
That presents a problem. Musk may want it. Trump has made an effort to denigrate EVs. I guess they'll have to compromise somewhere. I think Musk is more concerned about getting his cryptocurrency going strong than he is about vehicles. By the way his EV sales are going down. There are many other EVs available now and the cool factor of his Teslas has fallen off.
Clearly the California Constitution can not be changed by the Legislature or the Governor, but it can be cited as a basis for laws enacted to protect rights and privileges to protect their being "cored" by Federal edicts, as an example. What specifically is being planned I do not know, but planning for foreseeable expenditures makes sense.
Re corruption and crony capitalism - those things are perrenial and features of the system. What killed the middle class was much more than that: Three decades of neoliberal policies.
"We can thank former President Ronald Reagan and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher for our current state of affairs. The neoliberal reforms of the 1980s were based on the idea that unfettered markets would bring shared prosperity through a mystical trickle-down process.
"We were told that lowering tax rates on the rich, financialization, and globalization would result in higher standards of living for everybody. Instead, the U.S. growth rate fell to around two-thirds of its level in the post-war era — a period of tight financial regulations and a top marginal tax rate consistently above 70% — and a greater share of the wealth and income from this limited growth was funneled to the top 1%.
This echoes one of the other replies I left here: "This all goes back to Reaganism, Milton Freedman's supply-side economic theories, and blessing the rich with enough tax cuts to give them the economic power to poison the wells of politics, the economy, and our meritocracy. The GOP through Reagan's economic policies grew the oligarchy that consumed both their party and our economy, and Trump and Musk are direct products of that original sin of low taxes for the rich."
Corruption and crony capitalism don't need to be perennial feature of our system. They are allowed to be because we refuse to highlight the problem and push to do something about it. We'd rather do (checks notes) infrastructure spending, student loan forgiveness, green energy spending, etc., etc. Maybe if dems put this kind of thing at the forefront of their agenda instead of their little pet issues the working class would take them more seriously. End the possibility of corruption by liquidating the wealth that the oligarchy uses to corrupt the system with and then Citizens United becomes meaningless. You can't make corruption happen in nobody has gigantic piles of money to do corrupting with.
The low taxes for the rich didn't just come out of thin air. The economy in the 7Os was stagnant from the oil shock which was triggered by the Yom Kippur War. The theory of supply-side economics - freeing the rich and reducing regulation - would produce economic activity that would help everyone. It didn't. This failure is the economic platform the Dems need to run on.
Maybe it's time for them to grow the kind of spines they wish to see in their former colleagues. If the never-Trumpers can't give their own balls a tug and get over their decency fetishes, how can they expect more GOP pols to do the same against the Trump faithful? It takes balls to muster balls (or spine to muster spine), and right now I see people holding feather dusters to call for their fellow feather-duster-holders who are still members of the party to draw pistols. Maybe they should be bringing out their metaphorical pistols themselves if they expect others to do so as well. It takes balls to muster balls, and right now all I see when I look around at the elected/pundit classes are mostly just decency fetishes.
Decency has always been my go to, but when it isn’t working on a long enough timeline in an environment where indecency does win out then you have to start going that other way or you’re going to continue condemning yourself to failure. To quote the great warrior poet Tupac: “I was given this world, I didn’t make it.”
Oh I don’t disagree. I’m a never trumper and I got to your pov with respect to power politics about a year ago. It is pretty clear Jvl and Tim have gotten there too. It’s shocking to me that sarah, ab, Mona, bill, etc haven’t gotten there as well. They have this view that somehow Dems can be for the institutions, that everyone agrees doesn’t work and yet win. It’s maddening.
JVL and Charlie Sykes were the first to get to that place of understanding within the Bulwark bunch, which is a big part of why they drew me into this thing of ours in the first place. Decency fetishes have become a set of handcuffs for a lot of anti-Trumpers. What once began as institutional guardrails have now become ankle weights for the only side that still abides by them.
As Bill and Andrew point out, Trump is now below 50% in the popular vote. I don't think we can generalize that the American public is opposed to "hope" and "joy". Did you attend a Harris/Walz rally? Hope and Joy on steroids before overflowing crowds. I do agree that Dems need to be more forceful in their messaging. More of MAKE THE RICH PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE a la Elizabeth Warren and more discussion of CEO salaries and utilization of the GreedFlation idea that Bob Casey was deploying in his ads for a campaign that may yet be a winner despite the Trump headwinds in Pennsylvania. Counter immediately the transphobic ads that the Trump camp was using to agitate the bros while they were watching football, making it clearer that they were being duped. Despite the burdens of incumbency and our American penchant for sexist misogyny, Kamala Harris made this a very close election with her beautiful smile, contagious laughter, hope and joy. Not to mention a kick ass debate performance and her steel trap deliveries of her major speeches and her strong interviews (apart from The View, of course).
Yes. We are done with the Biden approach. It doesn’t work and hasn’t at least since Obama’s second term. I love Bill and find him clear eyed about most things, but this hope that Republican senators are going to develop spines all of a sudden is failing to account for reality.
Those who would trade Big Government for Big Oligarchy deserve both, and usually get them. This all goes back to Reaganism, Milton Freedman's supply-side economic theories, and blessing the rich with enough tax cuts to give them the economic power to poison the wells of politics, the economy, and our meritocracy. The GOP through Reagan's economic policies grew the oligarchy that consumed both their party and our economy, and Trump and Musk are direct products of that original sin of low taxes for the rich.
You're talking neoliberalism, Travis - economic liberalization policies designed to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society. These include privatization, deregulation, consumer choice, globalization, free trade, monetarism, austerity, and reductions in government spending. As economist Steiglitz puts it, these policies were supposed to "result in higher standards of living for everybody. Instead, the U.S. growth rate fell to around two-thirds of its level in the post-war era — a period of tight financial regulations and a top marginal tax rate consistently above 70% — and a greater share of the wealth and income from this limited growth was funneled to the top 1% . . . instead of the promised prosperity, we got deindustrialization, polarization, and a shrinking middle class" [https://www.marketwatch.com/story/three-decades-of-neoliberal-policies-have-decimated-the-middle-class-our-economy-and-our-democracy-2019-05-13].
I don't think you were around in the 7Os and the stagflation brought about by the oil crisis, among other things. Thatcher's and Reagan's economic policies were the response to stagflation.
You might take a look at Steiglitz' alternative, what he calls progressive capitalism.
I do not disagree with your advice, but I also suggest one other approach, on a more individual level. The best way to undermine an opponent is to hit them where they are most vulnerable, and in ways that they both respect and understand innately. That is an economic approach in this case. It also is a form of passive resistance against which there is no defense. Beginning on January 20 limit personal spending only to what is necessary, due to the massive uncertainty that the far right is foisting upon everyone. Boost personal savings to pay down things like existing credit card debt, budget for likely future economic downturns, and make them own the economic fallout when businesses say that their revenues and profits are shrinking and they cannot continue down that pathway.
The incoming powers will not listen to us, but they will listen to business owners and executives who are concerned about their own bottom line. That is our best hope in the short term, and the one over which we collectively have the most control. We have power when we opt to exercise the value of our wallets and purses. It is time to turn that theory into practice and let the political right own the consequences of their choices.
Going to think hard about this idea as I plan for 2025. I’m a lousy fighter, but can totally see going limply passive when the powers that be are trying to boost profits for corporations. I’m old enough to remember passive resistance in the ‘60s. Being white, I didn’t think I’d need to use it, but here we are.
FWIW, the nonprofit I worked for before I retired once asked for input from clients about what would now be labeled as DEI. They returned a judgment that the issue was not so much race as class. And again, here we are.
I like limiting personal spending to necessities as of Jan. 20. The right is anticipating a glorious explosion in the economy due to the election of their glorious leader. It would be lovely if that did not come to pass.
Here's an economic policy I've been thinking about: "profit tariffs"
Whenever a company makes use of overseas labor markets, their shareholders get taxed 90% on earnings every quarter until the company abandons the overseas labor market and moves production to the states. Instead of taxing their products at the point of importation where they can simply pass that onto consumers, you tax their shareholder's profits. In theory, this forces a divestment from said company as investors look to put their investments in companies that use American labor so as to maximize their ROIs that way. You apply this "profit tariff" only on shares of the company specifically and *managed* portfolios that hold them while leaving index funds alone since a lot of 401ks are mostly pooled into index funds. This reduces any inflationary impacts the way a normal tariff would because the company would be a lot less likely to pass the levied tax onto consumers by raising the price of their end-product, and if they did it still wouldn't make their shareholders whole who would still flee the holdings of said company to avoid the "profit tariff" tax hit.
Just an idea I had that could bypass congress as it would be a targeted "tariff" rather than a revision to tax policy and it would be directed at the shareholder class in order to bring labor back to the US. Would love to see the GOP oppose that one. It would be a wedge issue that pits their anti-NAFTA/MAGA desires to onshore manufacturing against their desire to enrich the shareholder class. Put that shit on display for the working class to see.
I love this. It's like parallel construction to the immigration issue. If Republicans wanted to solve it, they wouldn't be deporting people's grandparents, they'd fine businesses who exploit immigrant labor. If the Republicans wanted to solve offshoring manufacturing, they'd go to the businesses they incentivized to offshore and change the incentives. But they'd rather raise consumer prices.
Can we start after next summer? A lot of people's plans are already locked in through July.
Asking for a friend.
To be fair, that discussion in our household has started. Current news makes me believe economic chaos will hit in the next three to twenty-four months and linger well beyond.
Yep. And it's okay to carve out exceptions for those sympathetic small business owners whom you would like to help. We should take care of our own no less than the incoming regime does so for its kind.
Fundamentally the issue has become that, on the political far right, the dog finally has caught the mail truck. But now it has to deliver the mail. Let's see how well they can do that with their economic plan when giving so many of us incentives to become risk aversive and conservative in our own approach to spending discretionary income. If it's as much about the economy as they claimed it to be, they will have to respect our need to look out for our financial bottom line and personal priorities, just as they have been doing for themselves, with their own.
Are there any "laws of warfare" in this fight? Should VP Harris be soliciting alternative slates of electors for her own Jan6 and leave constitutional niceties to Mike Pence in his retirement? "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim." Speaking for myself, my aim is decency itself.
Merrick Garland followed the same rule you're following here, and by following it he came to a place where the thing he most feared will be happening anyway as he is replaced by Matt Gaetz--or at the very least someone more confirmable who is just as motivated to carry out the aims of Project 2025 within a politicized DOJ. He knew that if Trump won in the future that a politicized DOJ was in the works. The choice was his to either take the risk of looking politicized or take the risk of not going full steam ahead against a guy determined to politicize the DOJ once he returned to power. He took the wrong risk, and now we're all going to pay for it. It's a lot like if FDR had foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor happening but chose not to attack the Japanese fleet first because the optics of doing so would make him look like he was starting a war.
"If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?" - Anton Chigurh
So true. It's not The Bulwark comments section without a movie or song reference. The Dems' old school weapon of bipartisanship is best described by Obi-Wan Kenobi when telling Luke about his father's lightsaber, "An elegant weapon for a more civilized age”. It's time to pull out the blasters!
As long as he keeps up the marathon sessions to approve judges, he can stick around through the holidays. But yes, wrong man for the position these days.
Look that up. Democrats have a very deep and excellent bench which is probably one of the many reasons Rs are so determined to kill democracy while they have a chance.
I'm less concerned about the "why we fight" aspect than I am with the "*how* we fight" aspect. Since 2016, dems have consistently failed to realize 2 things: 1) they keep trying to go back to a bygone era of bipartisanship and have failed to embrace a wartime footing against the GOP and the oligarchy that entails going into scorched-earth political tactics instead of worrying about the "optics" of doing so, and 2) they continuously fail to embrace anti-establishment populism politics, instead opting for the defense of institutions rather than seeking to change them.
Trump got his start not by going after the dems, but by going after the leaders of the GOP. For Trump and MAGA, dems were the "far enemy," but the bipartisanship softies within their party were the "near enemy" that needed to either go away or be brought to heal first. Dems need to do this kind of thing within their own party over the next two years and start replacing their softies with fighters. They need to sideline anyone who still lives in this fantasy of a world where we go back to bipartisanship and start promoting the people within their party who understand that those days are long gone and the only way forward is to fight the MAGAfied GOP with scorched earth tactics that include firebreathing message campaigns that don't give a fuck about "optics", highlighting of the corruption/incompetence/illegality of the Trump administration at every turn, and a messaging focus on economic populism that centers around the American oligarchy hollowing out the middle class with corruption and crony capitalism and the need to take the country back from the rich via economic populism.
The old ways the dems have embraced are not working. They need to move away from "hope" and "joy" and start embracing *anger* and *fighting*. The American public is not in the mood for hope/joy, and they want angry fighters that are going to do something instead of just propose civility and niceties. Dems need to get out of their decency comfort zone and get into the arena and start throwing a whole lot of low blows, or they're going to be continuously rejected by a pissed off working class who are looking for some scapegoats to dish out punishments against. If dems don't turn the American public against the oligarchy and fight to remake the institutions on their own terms, they will continue to lose a critical mass of the American public whom they need to put them into power and they will watch the other side change these institutions in a way they won't like.
Absolutely NOT, what needs to happen is mandatory civics for all Americans, even voting age adults, people are too stupid to realize, ackshuwally the president doesn't get to unilaterally set the price of gas and bacon, yet that's exactly what they seem to think happens... the magic godking will come fix everything for everyone dontchaknow!!! CANT FIX STUPID BUT THATS EXACTLY WHAT AMERICANS NEED!
Aer they attached to a bygone era or are they facing the reality that Democrats do not have a majority in the House and a tie in the Senate (until January anyway)? It's get a few Republican votes or have every piece of legislation introduced by Democrats fail in committee and floor votes. Seems like bipartisanship is necessity to me if the Dems want to pass something of their program.
The GOP faced the reality of not having the WH or either half of congress when 2021 started. They took back one half of congress come 2023 and will now have the hat trick come 2025.
The point is for dems to make sure *nothing* passes between now and when they can potentially win back one half of congress--or at the very least as little as possible. Give the GOP as few legislative victories as possible, make a shitload of noise in the attention economy to show how corrupt/incompetent/illegal the GOP is while the GOP is in power, and then when they take back the house in '26 start holding some fucking televised committee hearings whose video bites make the rounds on social media so they can further control the initiative in the attention economy until they win back the rest in '28. Until '26 the goal of the dems in congress should be to make the GOP a highlighted clown show and to pull as many attention-grabbing stunts as possible along the way. See those reporters in the halls of congress looking for on the spot interviews? Start giving them. Start calling out the GOP at every chance given, and for god's sake get some messaging discipline into the party such that they can leverage those hallways interviews to create an echo chamber in the attention economy. Get onto podcasts--including conservative outlets. Go onto Fox News. Start fucking yelling and putting the GOP on the spot and making them feel uncomfortable in their own backyards. Act like a god-damned insurgent party.
They didn't actually care about passing anything. They just wanted to get on Fox to yell...as you pointed out...and then have it go viral on Twitter and other social platforms. The fatal flaw in Democrats is that they seem to want to get something done besides "fight" loudly on tv and in social media.
That is a fatal flaw indeed.
Performance politics actually works. It even sometimes looks like you are actually doing something, even if you aren't.
You are at least visibly fighting. Which counts for more than most people realize.
Yup. Level of effort put forward in *preventing* things from happening is in itself "doing something" when you can't actually do anything.
In warfare if you don't have the manpower or position to put forward a strong offense, you put up enough landmines, obstacles, and fixed kill zones to make the other side's offense as difficult and troublesome as possible. That's exactly what the Ukrainians are doing to the Russians right now. That's exactly what the Taliban did to us in Afghanistan. Dems could learn a thing or two about political warfare from *actual* warfare.
I guess I'm wired strangely. Fighting for the sake of fighting just turns me off. The point is to accomplish something tangible otherwise it isn't worth fighting for.
As Travis points out, stopping things or slowing things down IS accomplishing something tangible. It just isn't as sexy as "doing" things and is less noticeable--which means you need to draw attention to doing it.
The major problem Travis is that it is the identarian differences between the Democrats and the GoP that kind of disable the Democrats from doing what you suggest.
I see these differences in play all the time. I have seen these differences in play since at least the Reagan era. They have actually been going on longer than that, for most of human history, in fact.
There are two keys:
1) Everything revolves around identity--which in this case breaks down to two important factors: How the world works (particularly, in politics, the moral framework), and who US and them are; and
2) Lived experience (which includes trusted anecdotes and narratives).
TRUST is a function of who is US and who is Them. The narratives, ideas, practices, anecdotes of Them are not to be trusted, They are not to be trusted. Trust is necessary for society to work, without trust there is no society.
Identity is the filter through which lived experience is interpreted. This interpretation leads to decisions which are based upon that understanding of the world that is rooted in identity. This is not necessarily truth based (actually, it rarely is).
In simplistic and general terms, "liberal" identity s based upon a particular view of humanity that is rooted in a morality of compassion and nurturing (essentially "feminine" by the standards of Western society). In many cases this entails a belief in the "perfectability" of humans. It also prioritizes rationality over emotion. It respects expertise. It believes in the rule of law and of the authority of institutions. It will work within the rules and within the bounds of what is seen as "decent" behavior.
This basically renders "liberals" largely incapable of engaging "conservatives" on equal terms.
Conservatives value authority (not experise). They have a paternal/patriarchical moral structure that is focused on punishment and "tough love." It is stereotypicalyl male. Good and bad happen to you largely because you get what you deserve. It prioritizes emotion.
More people are (IIRC) "conservative" than "liberal."
To be honest Travis, I do not think that the Democratic party is actually capable of doing what needs to be done. It would require breaking the (unstated) rules/norms, it would require abdicating rationality to emotion.
One of the points made WRT elections is that the Democrats are "out of touch." The reality is that they ARE out of touch with a significant portion of the electorate, because the electorate sees the world working differently than they do, sees the boundaries of Us/Them differently, sees the moral structure differently.
It is a VERY hard gap to bridge.
Plus there are the myriad details that means that the Democrats cannot usefully oppose the oligarchs, because they depend upon those oligarchs.
This is all VERY oversimplified, but it is the root of the whole thing. Others have talked about this at length over the past few decades, particularly George Lakoff.
I agree with most of what you say here, if not all of it. I particularly agree with the authority vs expertise, masculine vs feminine angles as it relates to identity--and lived experience as it relates through the filter of identity. You've put a pin on a lot of things I've found difficult to articulate about the differences in aspects of American culture and how dems are losing that battle. I think it will be difficult to shift that culture within the dem coalition, but I don't think it is *impossible*. I'd point to several character examples that I think break the contemporary dem mold of politician: Anthony Weiner, Bernie Sanders, AOC, and John Fetterman (Jasmine Crockett is another one who can potentially fall into this kind of group). Each of these 4 have their own flaws, but each also broke from the contemporary mold of dem politician who tended to be a non-aggressive softie that represented good faith bipartisan outreach in a political environment defined by an opposition party (the GOP) who had long since moved past that sort of notion. I think each of those 4 represent a sort of political knife fighter on the blue side of the aisle that needs to spread to their softer/tamer associates.
By embracing an angry fighting spirit, I do see a path for the dems to move into the "identity lane" of where a lot of the working class is by embodying the kind of pissed off vibes that the working class currently feels. Perhaps the third leg beyond identity and lived experience is "vibes," which is drawn from lived experience which itself is downstream of identity. So if the working and middle classes are pissed off, have become populist, and are anti-establishment, then it would behoove the dems to also start becoming pissed off, populist, and anti-establishment so as to fit into the identity and vibes lane that the public they need to win over are. It won't happen overnight of course, but neither did the MAGAfication of the GOP. It starts with calling forward angry, populist, anti-establishment dems and putting them into the spotlight via the attention economy, and continues via either pushing the rest of the traditional squishes out of the attention economy/leadership and either getting them to change character or replacing them with candidates who *can* act the part and get with the program. Is this a path that the dems are likely to take? I don't know, probably not. But do I think this is a path that would bring them more success than they're currently having? Definitely.
The important thing in order to make any of this work is creating a popular media outlet that attracts the attention the working and class and defines and promotes the new fighting Democrats who stand for the people against crony, out of control capitalism presented by the oligarchs. (Mesk, Bezos, et, al)
I agree with you. The Democrats need a wholesale replacement of leadership and they need to basically do what you are saying here.
I see it as a low probability path, however, because identity usually wins out.
It is also a slow path, because you need to build a roster of politicians in that mold at the national level and you need a lot of work in the attention economy/narrative creation that people really do not have the patience for these days. It took the GoP basically a generation to get there.
"Rome wasn't built in a day"
Nor did it fall overnight.
Absolutely I've been hugely disappointed in our leadership's lack of planning and ability to take up battle and read the political landscape. I saw a clip from John Stewart yesterday about how Democrats are worried about "decorum" while Republicans show up to fight and win. We can't wait 2 yrs. We need leadership change NOW. If we wait to wrap it up in two or four years it's too late it's another two or four years after that then. We've got stop letting politicians like Jayapal leading the party down losing rabbit holes. We're either a party of the big tent and the majority of we'll permanently become a fringe party for the minority. Let's be clear that we can help bring respect to all voters without abandoning our principles.
Harvey:
Guns or knives?
Butch:
Neither.
Harvey:
Pick!
Butch:
I don't wanna shoot with ya, Harvey.
Harvey:
[pulling out a large Bowie knife] Anything you say, Butch.
Butch:
[low voice, to Sundance] Maybe there's a way to make a profit in this. Bet on Logan.
Sundance:
I would, but who'd bet on you?
Harvey:
Sundance, when we're done and he's dead, you're welcome to stay.
Butch:
[low voice, to Sundance] Listen, I don't mean to be a sore loser, but when it's done, if I'm dead, kill him.
Sundance Kid:
[low voice to Butch] Love to.
[waves to Harvey and smiles]
Butch:
No, no, not yet, not until me and Harvey get the rules straightened out.
Harvey:
Rules? In a knife fight? No rules! [Butch kicks Harvey in the groin]
Butch:
Well, if there aint' going to be any rules, let's get the fight started. Someone count. 1,2,3 go.
Sundance:
1,2,3, go! '['Butch knocks Harvey out]
Flat Nose:
I was really rooting for you, Butch.
Butch:
Well, thank you, Flatnose. That's what sustained me in my time of trouble.
Not that I consider him a national leader in the waiting, but Governor Newsome is fighting in California. He has recalled the Legislature into a special session to vote in California Constitutional and other California specific laws to protect those things OCF could try to take, e.g., abortion protection, clean air (California has experience in fighting that battle) to name but two. Other states should follow that idea, if they have the D strength, will and moxie to try.
Just what it will accomplish remains to be seen. I think the primary reason for the special session is to appropriate money for whatever legal battles will ensue. The first Trump Admin wanted to end California's more strict auto emissions standards. I'm sure that will be the target as will any climate related goals that exceed what Trump Admin wants (which are zero). Plus there will aggressive challenges by the CA Atty Gen to anything coming down from the federal government. The CA Constitution can't be changed by the legislature alone; that has to go before the voters.
Since Musk is a shadow President, wouldn't he want clean air initiatives in order to push his clean air vehicles?
That presents a problem. Musk may want it. Trump has made an effort to denigrate EVs. I guess they'll have to compromise somewhere. I think Musk is more concerned about getting his cryptocurrency going strong than he is about vehicles. By the way his EV sales are going down. There are many other EVs available now and the cool factor of his Teslas has fallen off.
Clearly the California Constitution can not be changed by the Legislature or the Governor, but it can be cited as a basis for laws enacted to protect rights and privileges to protect their being "cored" by Federal edicts, as an example. What specifically is being planned I do not know, but planning for foreseeable expenditures makes sense.
Re corruption and crony capitalism - those things are perrenial and features of the system. What killed the middle class was much more than that: Three decades of neoliberal policies.
"We can thank former President Ronald Reagan and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher for our current state of affairs. The neoliberal reforms of the 1980s were based on the idea that unfettered markets would bring shared prosperity through a mystical trickle-down process.
"We were told that lowering tax rates on the rich, financialization, and globalization would result in higher standards of living for everybody. Instead, the U.S. growth rate fell to around two-thirds of its level in the post-war era — a period of tight financial regulations and a top marginal tax rate consistently above 70% — and a greater share of the wealth and income from this limited growth was funneled to the top 1%.
"Instead of the promised prosperity, we got deindustrialization, polarization, and a shrinking middle class" [https://www.marketwatch.com/story/three-decades-of-neoliberal-policies-have-decimated-the-middle-class-our-economy-and-our-democracy-2019-05-13].
This echoes one of the other replies I left here: "This all goes back to Reaganism, Milton Freedman's supply-side economic theories, and blessing the rich with enough tax cuts to give them the economic power to poison the wells of politics, the economy, and our meritocracy. The GOP through Reagan's economic policies grew the oligarchy that consumed both their party and our economy, and Trump and Musk are direct products of that original sin of low taxes for the rich."
Corruption and crony capitalism don't need to be perennial feature of our system. They are allowed to be because we refuse to highlight the problem and push to do something about it. We'd rather do (checks notes) infrastructure spending, student loan forgiveness, green energy spending, etc., etc. Maybe if dems put this kind of thing at the forefront of their agenda instead of their little pet issues the working class would take them more seriously. End the possibility of corruption by liquidating the wealth that the oligarchy uses to corrupt the system with and then Citizens United becomes meaningless. You can't make corruption happen in nobody has gigantic piles of money to do corrupting with.
The low taxes for the rich didn't just come out of thin air. The economy in the 7Os was stagnant from the oil shock which was triggered by the Yom Kippur War. The theory of supply-side economics - freeing the rich and reducing regulation - would produce economic activity that would help everyone. It didn't. This failure is the economic platform the Dems need to run on.
A high tide lifts all boats. Wealth from the top will trickle down. The postcards from David Stockman. This big lie is the Reagan legacy.
The rush of wealth to the top causes Dickensian conditions at the bottom.
Unfortunately you are right. Also unfortunately this is not what the never trumpers want.
Maybe it's time for them to grow the kind of spines they wish to see in their former colleagues. If the never-Trumpers can't give their own balls a tug and get over their decency fetishes, how can they expect more GOP pols to do the same against the Trump faithful? It takes balls to muster balls (or spine to muster spine), and right now I see people holding feather dusters to call for their fellow feather-duster-holders who are still members of the party to draw pistols. Maybe they should be bringing out their metaphorical pistols themselves if they expect others to do so as well. It takes balls to muster balls, and right now all I see when I look around at the elected/pundit classes are mostly just decency fetishes.
“decency fetishes”
Decency isn’t a fetish, it’s a goddamn prerequisite to having a life that’s worth living.
Travis, I like you, please don’t tell me you’re one of those guys who equates “strength” (or “spine” or “balls”) with “being an angry asshole.”
Decency has always been my go to, but when it isn’t working on a long enough timeline in an environment where indecency does win out then you have to start going that other way or you’re going to continue condemning yourself to failure. To quote the great warrior poet Tupac: “I was given this world, I didn’t make it.”
Oh I don’t disagree. I’m a never trumper and I got to your pov with respect to power politics about a year ago. It is pretty clear Jvl and Tim have gotten there too. It’s shocking to me that sarah, ab, Mona, bill, etc haven’t gotten there as well. They have this view that somehow Dems can be for the institutions, that everyone agrees doesn’t work and yet win. It’s maddening.
JVL and Charlie Sykes were the first to get to that place of understanding within the Bulwark bunch, which is a big part of why they drew me into this thing of ours in the first place. Decency fetishes have become a set of handcuffs for a lot of anti-Trumpers. What once began as institutional guardrails have now become ankle weights for the only side that still abides by them.
Absolutely. They have become handcuffs.
As Bill and Andrew point out, Trump is now below 50% in the popular vote. I don't think we can generalize that the American public is opposed to "hope" and "joy". Did you attend a Harris/Walz rally? Hope and Joy on steroids before overflowing crowds. I do agree that Dems need to be more forceful in their messaging. More of MAKE THE RICH PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE a la Elizabeth Warren and more discussion of CEO salaries and utilization of the GreedFlation idea that Bob Casey was deploying in his ads for a campaign that may yet be a winner despite the Trump headwinds in Pennsylvania. Counter immediately the transphobic ads that the Trump camp was using to agitate the bros while they were watching football, making it clearer that they were being duped. Despite the burdens of incumbency and our American penchant for sexist misogyny, Kamala Harris made this a very close election with her beautiful smile, contagious laughter, hope and joy. Not to mention a kick ass debate performance and her steel trap deliveries of her major speeches and her strong interviews (apart from The View, of course).
Yes. We are done with the Biden approach. It doesn’t work and hasn’t at least since Obama’s second term. I love Bill and find him clear eyed about most things, but this hope that Republican senators are going to develop spines all of a sudden is failing to account for reality.
#NoWarButClassWar
Oligarchic populism is not a thing.
Those who would trade Big Government for Big Oligarchy deserve both, and usually get them. This all goes back to Reaganism, Milton Freedman's supply-side economic theories, and blessing the rich with enough tax cuts to give them the economic power to poison the wells of politics, the economy, and our meritocracy. The GOP through Reagan's economic policies grew the oligarchy that consumed both their party and our economy, and Trump and Musk are direct products of that original sin of low taxes for the rich.
You're talking neoliberalism, Travis - economic liberalization policies designed to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society. These include privatization, deregulation, consumer choice, globalization, free trade, monetarism, austerity, and reductions in government spending. As economist Steiglitz puts it, these policies were supposed to "result in higher standards of living for everybody. Instead, the U.S. growth rate fell to around two-thirds of its level in the post-war era — a period of tight financial regulations and a top marginal tax rate consistently above 70% — and a greater share of the wealth and income from this limited growth was funneled to the top 1% . . . instead of the promised prosperity, we got deindustrialization, polarization, and a shrinking middle class" [https://www.marketwatch.com/story/three-decades-of-neoliberal-policies-have-decimated-the-middle-class-our-economy-and-our-democracy-2019-05-13].
I don't think you were around in the 7Os and the stagflation brought about by the oil crisis, among other things. Thatcher's and Reagan's economic policies were the response to stagflation.
You might take a look at Steiglitz' alternative, what he calls progressive capitalism.
I love you, man.
<3
I do not disagree with your advice, but I also suggest one other approach, on a more individual level. The best way to undermine an opponent is to hit them where they are most vulnerable, and in ways that they both respect and understand innately. That is an economic approach in this case. It also is a form of passive resistance against which there is no defense. Beginning on January 20 limit personal spending only to what is necessary, due to the massive uncertainty that the far right is foisting upon everyone. Boost personal savings to pay down things like existing credit card debt, budget for likely future economic downturns, and make them own the economic fallout when businesses say that their revenues and profits are shrinking and they cannot continue down that pathway.
The incoming powers will not listen to us, but they will listen to business owners and executives who are concerned about their own bottom line. That is our best hope in the short term, and the one over which we collectively have the most control. We have power when we opt to exercise the value of our wallets and purses. It is time to turn that theory into practice and let the political right own the consequences of their choices.
Going to think hard about this idea as I plan for 2025. I’m a lousy fighter, but can totally see going limply passive when the powers that be are trying to boost profits for corporations. I’m old enough to remember passive resistance in the ‘60s. Being white, I didn’t think I’d need to use it, but here we are.
FWIW, the nonprofit I worked for before I retired once asked for input from clients about what would now be labeled as DEI. They returned a judgment that the issue was not so much race as class. And again, here we are.
I like limiting personal spending to necessities as of Jan. 20. The right is anticipating a glorious explosion in the economy due to the election of their glorious leader. It would be lovely if that did not come to pass.
Here's an economic policy I've been thinking about: "profit tariffs"
Whenever a company makes use of overseas labor markets, their shareholders get taxed 90% on earnings every quarter until the company abandons the overseas labor market and moves production to the states. Instead of taxing their products at the point of importation where they can simply pass that onto consumers, you tax their shareholder's profits. In theory, this forces a divestment from said company as investors look to put their investments in companies that use American labor so as to maximize their ROIs that way. You apply this "profit tariff" only on shares of the company specifically and *managed* portfolios that hold them while leaving index funds alone since a lot of 401ks are mostly pooled into index funds. This reduces any inflationary impacts the way a normal tariff would because the company would be a lot less likely to pass the levied tax onto consumers by raising the price of their end-product, and if they did it still wouldn't make their shareholders whole who would still flee the holdings of said company to avoid the "profit tariff" tax hit.
Just an idea I had that could bypass congress as it would be a targeted "tariff" rather than a revision to tax policy and it would be directed at the shareholder class in order to bring labor back to the US. Would love to see the GOP oppose that one. It would be a wedge issue that pits their anti-NAFTA/MAGA desires to onshore manufacturing against their desire to enrich the shareholder class. Put that shit on display for the working class to see.
I love this. It's like parallel construction to the immigration issue. If Republicans wanted to solve it, they wouldn't be deporting people's grandparents, they'd fine businesses who exploit immigrant labor. If the Republicans wanted to solve offshoring manufacturing, they'd go to the businesses they incentivized to offshore and change the incentives. But they'd rather raise consumer prices.
Can we start after next summer? A lot of people's plans are already locked in through July.
Asking for a friend.
To be fair, that discussion in our household has started. Current news makes me believe economic chaos will hit in the next three to twenty-four months and linger well beyond.
Yep. And it's okay to carve out exceptions for those sympathetic small business owners whom you would like to help. We should take care of our own no less than the incoming regime does so for its kind.
Fundamentally the issue has become that, on the political far right, the dog finally has caught the mail truck. But now it has to deliver the mail. Let's see how well they can do that with their economic plan when giving so many of us incentives to become risk aversive and conservative in our own approach to spending discretionary income. If it's as much about the economy as they claimed it to be, they will have to respect our need to look out for our financial bottom line and personal priorities, just as they have been doing for themselves, with their own.
Are there any "laws of warfare" in this fight? Should VP Harris be soliciting alternative slates of electors for her own Jan6 and leave constitutional niceties to Mike Pence in his retirement? "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim." Speaking for myself, my aim is decency itself.
Merrick Garland followed the same rule you're following here, and by following it he came to a place where the thing he most feared will be happening anyway as he is replaced by Matt Gaetz--or at the very least someone more confirmable who is just as motivated to carry out the aims of Project 2025 within a politicized DOJ. He knew that if Trump won in the future that a politicized DOJ was in the works. The choice was his to either take the risk of looking politicized or take the risk of not going full steam ahead against a guy determined to politicize the DOJ once he returned to power. He took the wrong risk, and now we're all going to pay for it. It's a lot like if FDR had foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor happening but chose not to attack the Japanese fleet first because the optics of doing so would make him look like he was starting a war.
"If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?" - Anton Chigurh
So true. It's not The Bulwark comments section without a movie or song reference. The Dems' old school weapon of bipartisanship is best described by Obi-Wan Kenobi when telling Luke about his father's lightsaber, "An elegant weapon for a more civilized age”. It's time to pull out the blasters!
"It's not The Bulwark comments section without a movie or song reference" - ❤️
Travis ... exactly. This is excatly what ive been thinkng as well. However you expressed it much better then i could have. The Dems need fighters now.
They have many young ones in the House but none I fear in the Senate.
Schumer needs to go.
As long as he keeps up the marathon sessions to approve judges, he can stick around through the holidays. But yes, wrong man for the position these days.
Look that up. Democrats have a very deep and excellent bench which is probably one of the many reasons Rs are so determined to kill democracy while they have a chance.
You are so right Travis, the Dems (and the rest of us) need to go on a "wartime footing." We are fighting for all the marbles now.
I hope it's Class Warfare. This so-called "culture war" is just civil rights, for everyone, a requirement of democracy. We're in it together.