Got two issues for on this one, Charlie. First, Matt Lewis, while a smart guy, is not someone who has any sense in terms of what anyone wants. He's perpetually wrong, not because he's not smart, but because what he wants always guides what he sees. 'America First' isn't dead, not by a long shot. What it's going to pivot to, mark my words…
Got two issues for on this one, Charlie. First, Matt Lewis, while a smart guy, is not someone who has any sense in terms of what anyone wants. He's perpetually wrong, not because he's not smart, but because what he wants always guides what he sees. 'America First' isn't dead, not by a long shot. What it's going to pivot to, mark my words, is that the rest of the world perpetually draws in the US to fight their battles and their wars. They might not talk up Putin as much, but as lockdowns in China increase inflation, expect them to increasingly describe the world as an anchor around America's neck. America First isn't dead, because America First is just a name we give a general sensibility about things; it's neither a coherent political movement nor a coherent ideology.
The second one is bigger. What exactly do you want Democrats to do? I ask this, because you say that democrats need to put aside their pet projects. You know what "put aside other legislative desires to rebuild trust on the national economy and household costs" looks like? It looks like passing something like Build Back Better, something you opposed! In fact, you spend the majority of it cheerleading Sinema and Manchin, who torpedoed the entire thing.
I've said this before, but there's really only two sides now, the Trumpist GOP and the Democratic Party. Because if you want the former to fail, you have to want the latter to succeed, since the latter failing results in the former succeeding. I know this is hard for a lot of conservatives, but that's the state of play we're currently in. There's no outcome where the Democrats fail and the old GOP returns. We know this, because despite Romney and Cheney crowing about how much they hated Trump, they voted and supported all his initiatives. In other words, they were more than happy to let him succeed.
The core challenge for the Democratic party is that voters don't seem to have any clear idea about what they want or what causes what. They seem to trust the GOP on the economy, despite the past two presidents of the GOP left their terms with the country in a downward spiral. Bush gave us the Great Recession, and Trump gave us the covid recession, because he refused to take it seriously. Obama and Biden, whatever their personal quirks you dislike, ended their presidencies with great economies.
But for some reason, people think that we're in a recession when the economy is great right now. If you want a job, there are more jobs than workers. Inflation is growing, but this is because of Covid, and it's going to be the new normal. The only way to actually handle this problem is either to raise the minimum wage to like $15 an hour, something which would obviously have lots of down stream effects, or you have to ride it out until demand decreases. But there's no way to actually combat these problems without either letting the economy implode or asking for more direct action in the market by government.
Which, if you're a conservative, you're going to have to ask if you're okay with that. Which brings me back around again to asking: do you actually want democrats to succeed? Because their success is directly linked to Trumpism failing. If you don't want them to succeed, then you want the GOP to succeed, because those are the only two options. And if you want the democrats to succeed, you need to stop cheerleading people like Manchin and Sinema, two people who have done more to torpedo the democratic agenda, which would do things like stabilize the economy, than anyone else.
I'm not calling you out for being a conservative, Charlie. I'm calling you out for being incoherent. You can't be like 'Democrats have a problem! they need to succeed!' and then turn around and argue against everything they try to do, because they don't match the GOP's desires. If you truly believe, as I do, that the only way to stop Trumpism is for Democrats to succeed so that Trumpism fails, then you have to actually want them to succeed. You can't both want Trumpism to fail and for Democrats to fail, because that's not an option. That leaves you with Trumpism succeeding.
Shawn, my dude. You write: "because you say that democrats need to put aside their pet projects. You know what "put aside other legislative desires to rebuild trust on the national economy and household costs" looks like? That's not me. That is Jim Halpin, a Democrat writing in The Liberal Patriot.
Also: I don't necessarily agree with everything everyone I link to has to say. We include wide range of viewpoints -- and some of them disagree with one another.
That's entirely fair. However, you quoted it and bolded it, which seems to indicate that you believe it. If you don't, then I'll retract my critique. However if you do, then I would say most of what I said stands.
Shawn, your comment ideas are very important. Lester Holt’s recent interview with Bill Barr on the occasion of his book release is a relevant example. Barr was adamant that Trump should not be the Republican nominee, but then admitted he’d vote for him if he was the nominee, because the Democratic option would be worse, in his view.
Barr’s not alone in that puzzling world view. Basically, a whole lot of Republicans reflect the T-shirts seen at Trump rallies; “Better Russian Than Democrat”.
Definitely, Democrats need to adopt the Republican ability to create repeatable three to four word sound bites that cut to the chase of voters’ concerns - but definitely without the hate tinged undertones. Referring to the GOP as “the party of Putin” is worth a try. There’s plenty of sound bites to back it up! But just now while listening to Pod Save America podcast, they assert that positive messaging is more influential to voters; maybe “Biden protecting democracy against authoritarianism”.
American voters are a disappointment. I’m remembering some early Greek philosopher writing that he didn’t believe democracy was a viable form of governance because “the people” are mostly ignorant and not to be trusted with important decisions. In our modern example, the people are too busy watching The Bachelor and Fox News, to take their voting responsibility seriously.
One final thought, with our current backdrop of war in Europe. I’m accustomed, at age 70, to fearing the various international bullies the U.S. has faced during that time. What’s new to me, and much more demoralizing, is the fear I feel because of my fellow Americans, who have decided Democrats are the enemy above all other enemies.
Shawn - For me, your very response to Charlie is a perfect example of one of the problem with the Dems. How many paragraphs do you need in response?
Remember the 2020 Democratic debates where: 1) 30 minutes was devoted during one debate to arguing about the very intricate details of health care...a real snooze-fest 2) When asked a direct question about if illegals should get health care after crossing the border...ALL the candidates answered "yes" likely out of fear of pixxing off their constituents.
Let's face it...the vast majority of our country are not history majors and don't have the time, energy or interest in reading a multi-paragraph response to just about anything that doesn't influence them directly. Heck...very few people read all of the details when making our biggest financial decision of our lives in buying a house.
Health care is certainly an important issue, but if Dem politicians want to get up in front of the nation and say that an illegal who crossed into the country deserves exactly what all of the tax paying and law abiding citizens receive for health care...good luck with that.
Perhaps at the 2020 debate, a Dem candidate could have responded with : "No....I don't think they deserve health insurance....but they do deserve to receive the appropriate medical care in order for them to complete their immigration process.
There could be much grander and better words than I chose...but the bottom line is that the Dems get caught up in the details and lose the narrative A LOT.
Do you want a Dem to get elected or not? It's not about me...it's about the rest of the country which the Dems tend to forget about.
Do you really think that lengthy detailed discussion about health care was pulling in Republican voters? NO WAY.
If you want to insult me...fine...but you are also insulting probably 60% of the country who think similarly.
There are great points to be made about national health care but they were NOT making them...and the points they were making were far too geeky for the average American. Might be a sad state of affairs....but it is the state of affairs.
Indeed, one thing Democrats overestimate is how much americans actually care about facts. Most of them want things done, they don't care how it's actually done. Unfortunately we have a 24/7 press that makes its living covering how the sausage is made rather than actually discussing where it's going.
Civil rights were not won through disciplined messaging and attack ads. They were won from millions of TVs showing Bull Connor turning fire hoses on protestors.
Again...please don't interpret my negativity over what was a National Presidential debate discussion vs. whether or not the Dems should be passionate about health care.
It was the message and timing that sucked...not the subject.
Perhaps it's better stated this way...the candidate who can persuasively communicate how important national health care is...will beat the candidate who knows the most about national health care but can't effectively express why it's so important and tends to think that "everyone" should agree with them (without a compelling argument).
Perhaps that's too simply put...but it is the point I'm trying to make.
No I think they're right on that. Most people find talking about economics to be boring. And given that economics is so wide ranging in scope and can go from theory to in-the-weeds hyperfocused, it's safe to say that lots of people find actual economic talk boring.
I think one thing is a better example of the problems the Dems face: Obamacare.
Passing it was extremely unpopular. Then they got it. And removing it became extremely unpopular.
The problem is that talking points are often extremely bad at informing people. The 'giving illegals health insurance' thing comes out of having 'universal health insurance.' You obviously cannot have 'universal' without it being everyone, because the very nature of insurance is for good people to pay for bad people. Good drivers pay for the accidents of bad drivers. That's how it works. And costs are lowered because everyone pays for it. You can't just cut people out of it and expect it to work.
But that's the challenge of being a Democratic politician and actually want to do things that benefit people rather than appealing to a short sighted nativism. There are drawbacks to all things, and it's hard to deal with people arguing in bad faith.
Spot on. The seat belt mandate is another good example of something that made sense, saved lives and still came up against a healthy resistance. Then it became law and most people accept putting on their seat belt like it's breathing the air...simply a habit we don't really think about.
Agreed...that the bad faith arguing is destroying our ability to have decent public discussions. Add in that it is now profitable to argue in bad faith because of all the clicks it garners...and we REALLY have a problem.
Great post Shawn. IMO, Charlie can't help himself with the incoherence, 40 years of pulling for one team is hard to let go of.
I think a whole bunch of blame has to fall to voters as well. We have a whole lot of ignorant/less than informed/ideological/partisan......call them what you will, but they vote for their "team". They will not be moved by logic, reason, facts or any of that fancy liberal elite talk. I think the R's have played that about as well as it could be played and now the whole country is paying for it. I respect Cheyney's choice in this current Jan 6 situation, but the notion that NONE of these people saw what Trump was doing to this country prior, well it strains credulity in the very least.
The "incoherence" may result from the fact that we include a range of opinions and that some of the quotes Shawn attributes to me, were, in fact, written by other people. including democrats.
I do however feel that a lot of the Never Trump folk really struggle to call out their own in the same way they can easily point to how the D’s should do things.
Possibly or it could be that you are more aware/sensitive to the one vs the other. I personally feel that the Bulwark absolutely pummels the GOP every single day...that's why I like it...because the GOP totally deserves it!
Possible for sure but I was a registered Independent for most of my voting life. Jeff, my deal is the same as Shawn’s. The next 2-4 are binary, it is Trumpism or it is Democrats. I just don’t see any world where Republicans actually a viable alternative, and pretending they are is harming the country. IMHO.
If that is the case, then I think it would really behoove you to note which parts you agree with and which parts you disagree with. Because when you merely post a wall of quoted text, it comes with your implicit endorsement and agreement with the message. To put it another way, on those much less frequent times you quote someone from the more progressive Left (and certainly when you quote the Trumpy right), you are *explicit* in noting areas or the completeness of your disagreement.
I mean that's the weakness of democracy. When only 2/5 people have a college education, and when most people are only knowledgeable about a few things, which is entirely normal and reasonable, it becomes hard to manage a democracy. Most people only know a lot about a few things. And that's fine! that's why we elect people.
But in general, our politics tends to be the sort where you start with cultural beliefs and then backfill the rest. Ergo, if you're a liberal, chances are you have some sense of the world, and your beliefs flow from that. If you're a conservative, you have a sense of what that means, and then you fill in the rest.
The problem is that what you fill in the blanks with matters when the conditions change. So if you're someone who's highest calling is defeating Trump, that means you're pulling for democrats, because that's the only win condition. But that might mean that you have to support policies you hate. Much like to defeat Trump, lots of democrats had to pull for Biden.
Got two issues for on this one, Charlie. First, Matt Lewis, while a smart guy, is not someone who has any sense in terms of what anyone wants. He's perpetually wrong, not because he's not smart, but because what he wants always guides what he sees. 'America First' isn't dead, not by a long shot. What it's going to pivot to, mark my words, is that the rest of the world perpetually draws in the US to fight their battles and their wars. They might not talk up Putin as much, but as lockdowns in China increase inflation, expect them to increasingly describe the world as an anchor around America's neck. America First isn't dead, because America First is just a name we give a general sensibility about things; it's neither a coherent political movement nor a coherent ideology.
The second one is bigger. What exactly do you want Democrats to do? I ask this, because you say that democrats need to put aside their pet projects. You know what "put aside other legislative desires to rebuild trust on the national economy and household costs" looks like? It looks like passing something like Build Back Better, something you opposed! In fact, you spend the majority of it cheerleading Sinema and Manchin, who torpedoed the entire thing.
I've said this before, but there's really only two sides now, the Trumpist GOP and the Democratic Party. Because if you want the former to fail, you have to want the latter to succeed, since the latter failing results in the former succeeding. I know this is hard for a lot of conservatives, but that's the state of play we're currently in. There's no outcome where the Democrats fail and the old GOP returns. We know this, because despite Romney and Cheney crowing about how much they hated Trump, they voted and supported all his initiatives. In other words, they were more than happy to let him succeed.
The core challenge for the Democratic party is that voters don't seem to have any clear idea about what they want or what causes what. They seem to trust the GOP on the economy, despite the past two presidents of the GOP left their terms with the country in a downward spiral. Bush gave us the Great Recession, and Trump gave us the covid recession, because he refused to take it seriously. Obama and Biden, whatever their personal quirks you dislike, ended their presidencies with great economies.
But for some reason, people think that we're in a recession when the economy is great right now. If you want a job, there are more jobs than workers. Inflation is growing, but this is because of Covid, and it's going to be the new normal. The only way to actually handle this problem is either to raise the minimum wage to like $15 an hour, something which would obviously have lots of down stream effects, or you have to ride it out until demand decreases. But there's no way to actually combat these problems without either letting the economy implode or asking for more direct action in the market by government.
Which, if you're a conservative, you're going to have to ask if you're okay with that. Which brings me back around again to asking: do you actually want democrats to succeed? Because their success is directly linked to Trumpism failing. If you don't want them to succeed, then you want the GOP to succeed, because those are the only two options. And if you want the democrats to succeed, you need to stop cheerleading people like Manchin and Sinema, two people who have done more to torpedo the democratic agenda, which would do things like stabilize the economy, than anyone else.
I'm not calling you out for being a conservative, Charlie. I'm calling you out for being incoherent. You can't be like 'Democrats have a problem! they need to succeed!' and then turn around and argue against everything they try to do, because they don't match the GOP's desires. If you truly believe, as I do, that the only way to stop Trumpism is for Democrats to succeed so that Trumpism fails, then you have to actually want them to succeed. You can't both want Trumpism to fail and for Democrats to fail, because that's not an option. That leaves you with Trumpism succeeding.
Shawn, my dude. You write: "because you say that democrats need to put aside their pet projects. You know what "put aside other legislative desires to rebuild trust on the national economy and household costs" looks like? That's not me. That is Jim Halpin, a Democrat writing in The Liberal Patriot.
Also: I don't necessarily agree with everything everyone I link to has to say. We include wide range of viewpoints -- and some of them disagree with one another.
That's entirely fair. However, you quoted it and bolded it, which seems to indicate that you believe it. If you don't, then I'll retract my critique. However if you do, then I would say most of what I said stands.
Shawn, your comment ideas are very important. Lester Holt’s recent interview with Bill Barr on the occasion of his book release is a relevant example. Barr was adamant that Trump should not be the Republican nominee, but then admitted he’d vote for him if he was the nominee, because the Democratic option would be worse, in his view.
Barr’s not alone in that puzzling world view. Basically, a whole lot of Republicans reflect the T-shirts seen at Trump rallies; “Better Russian Than Democrat”.
Definitely, Democrats need to adopt the Republican ability to create repeatable three to four word sound bites that cut to the chase of voters’ concerns - but definitely without the hate tinged undertones. Referring to the GOP as “the party of Putin” is worth a try. There’s plenty of sound bites to back it up! But just now while listening to Pod Save America podcast, they assert that positive messaging is more influential to voters; maybe “Biden protecting democracy against authoritarianism”.
American voters are a disappointment. I’m remembering some early Greek philosopher writing that he didn’t believe democracy was a viable form of governance because “the people” are mostly ignorant and not to be trusted with important decisions. In our modern example, the people are too busy watching The Bachelor and Fox News, to take their voting responsibility seriously.
One final thought, with our current backdrop of war in Europe. I’m accustomed, at age 70, to fearing the various international bullies the U.S. has faced during that time. What’s new to me, and much more demoralizing, is the fear I feel because of my fellow Americans, who have decided Democrats are the enemy above all other enemies.
Never said it. https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-141/red-herrings-famous-quotes-churchill-never-said/
Ah, good one! Churchill had a well deserved reputation as a master wordsmith.
America First is and has always been a pro-authoritarian front group.
Shawn - For me, your very response to Charlie is a perfect example of one of the problem with the Dems. How many paragraphs do you need in response?
Remember the 2020 Democratic debates where: 1) 30 minutes was devoted during one debate to arguing about the very intricate details of health care...a real snooze-fest 2) When asked a direct question about if illegals should get health care after crossing the border...ALL the candidates answered "yes" likely out of fear of pixxing off their constituents.
Let's face it...the vast majority of our country are not history majors and don't have the time, energy or interest in reading a multi-paragraph response to just about anything that doesn't influence them directly. Heck...very few people read all of the details when making our biggest financial decision of our lives in buying a house.
Health care is certainly an important issue, but if Dem politicians want to get up in front of the nation and say that an illegal who crossed into the country deserves exactly what all of the tax paying and law abiding citizens receive for health care...good luck with that.
Perhaps at the 2020 debate, a Dem candidate could have responded with : "No....I don't think they deserve health insurance....but they do deserve to receive the appropriate medical care in order for them to complete their immigration process.
There could be much grander and better words than I chose...but the bottom line is that the Dems get caught up in the details and lose the narrative A LOT.
Discussing a major economic sector is a "snoozefest?" Are you 11 years-old?
Do you want a Dem to get elected or not? It's not about me...it's about the rest of the country which the Dems tend to forget about.
Do you really think that lengthy detailed discussion about health care was pulling in Republican voters? NO WAY.
If you want to insult me...fine...but you are also insulting probably 60% of the country who think similarly.
There are great points to be made about national health care but they were NOT making them...and the points they were making were far too geeky for the average American. Might be a sad state of affairs....but it is the state of affairs.
Indeed, one thing Democrats overestimate is how much americans actually care about facts. Most of them want things done, they don't care how it's actually done. Unfortunately we have a 24/7 press that makes its living covering how the sausage is made rather than actually discussing where it's going.
By that rationale, liberals never should have pushed for civil rights
Civil rights were not won through disciplined messaging and attack ads. They were won from millions of TVs showing Bull Connor turning fire hoses on protestors.
Again...please don't interpret my negativity over what was a National Presidential debate discussion vs. whether or not the Dems should be passionate about health care.
It was the message and timing that sucked...not the subject.
Perhaps it's better stated this way...the candidate who can persuasively communicate how important national health care is...will beat the candidate who knows the most about national health care but can't effectively express why it's so important and tends to think that "everyone" should agree with them (without a compelling argument).
Perhaps that's too simply put...but it is the point I'm trying to make.
No I think they're right on that. Most people find talking about economics to be boring. And given that economics is so wide ranging in scope and can go from theory to in-the-weeds hyperfocused, it's safe to say that lots of people find actual economic talk boring.
Yeah, that and foreign policy always loses me
Lots of people believe angels are real too, that doesn't make it so
You have to win the electorate you have, not the electorate you want.
I think one thing is a better example of the problems the Dems face: Obamacare.
Passing it was extremely unpopular. Then they got it. And removing it became extremely unpopular.
The problem is that talking points are often extremely bad at informing people. The 'giving illegals health insurance' thing comes out of having 'universal health insurance.' You obviously cannot have 'universal' without it being everyone, because the very nature of insurance is for good people to pay for bad people. Good drivers pay for the accidents of bad drivers. That's how it works. And costs are lowered because everyone pays for it. You can't just cut people out of it and expect it to work.
But that's the challenge of being a Democratic politician and actually want to do things that benefit people rather than appealing to a short sighted nativism. There are drawbacks to all things, and it's hard to deal with people arguing in bad faith.
Spot on. The seat belt mandate is another good example of something that made sense, saved lives and still came up against a healthy resistance. Then it became law and most people accept putting on their seat belt like it's breathing the air...simply a habit we don't really think about.
Agreed...that the bad faith arguing is destroying our ability to have decent public discussions. Add in that it is now profitable to argue in bad faith because of all the clicks it garners...and we REALLY have a problem.
Great post Shawn. IMO, Charlie can't help himself with the incoherence, 40 years of pulling for one team is hard to let go of.
I think a whole bunch of blame has to fall to voters as well. We have a whole lot of ignorant/less than informed/ideological/partisan......call them what you will, but they vote for their "team". They will not be moved by logic, reason, facts or any of that fancy liberal elite talk. I think the R's have played that about as well as it could be played and now the whole country is paying for it. I respect Cheyney's choice in this current Jan 6 situation, but the notion that NONE of these people saw what Trump was doing to this country prior, well it strains credulity in the very least.
The "incoherence" may result from the fact that we include a range of opinions and that some of the quotes Shawn attributes to me, were, in fact, written by other people. including democrats.
The range of opinions is why I subscribe 😉
I do however feel that a lot of the Never Trump folk really struggle to call out their own in the same way they can easily point to how the D’s should do things.
Possibly or it could be that you are more aware/sensitive to the one vs the other. I personally feel that the Bulwark absolutely pummels the GOP every single day...that's why I like it...because the GOP totally deserves it!
Possible for sure but I was a registered Independent for most of my voting life. Jeff, my deal is the same as Shawn’s. The next 2-4 are binary, it is Trumpism or it is Democrats. I just don’t see any world where Republicans actually a viable alternative, and pretending they are is harming the country. IMHO.
If that is the case, then I think it would really behoove you to note which parts you agree with and which parts you disagree with. Because when you merely post a wall of quoted text, it comes with your implicit endorsement and agreement with the message. To put it another way, on those much less frequent times you quote someone from the more progressive Left (and certainly when you quote the Trumpy right), you are *explicit* in noting areas or the completeness of your disagreement.
I mean that's the weakness of democracy. When only 2/5 people have a college education, and when most people are only knowledgeable about a few things, which is entirely normal and reasonable, it becomes hard to manage a democracy. Most people only know a lot about a few things. And that's fine! that's why we elect people.
But in general, our politics tends to be the sort where you start with cultural beliefs and then backfill the rest. Ergo, if you're a liberal, chances are you have some sense of the world, and your beliefs flow from that. If you're a conservative, you have a sense of what that means, and then you fill in the rest.
The problem is that what you fill in the blanks with matters when the conditions change. So if you're someone who's highest calling is defeating Trump, that means you're pulling for democrats, because that's the only win condition. But that might mean that you have to support policies you hate. Much like to defeat Trump, lots of democrats had to pull for Biden.
I'd rather my neighbor have no college degree than one from Liberty or Hillsdale