The notion that "everything Biden did" presumes, spectacularly, that the cognitively compromised Biden presidency did anything; demanding answers for who, precisely, held the gears, wheel and autopen of power during his presidency. Until we get clear and unequivocal answers and accountability for that hijacked presidency, there probably can be no going forward.
If and when this out-of-control behemoth of today's American government is ever to regain even a modicum of sustained popular support, trust and respect, it will only be through constitutional amendments limiting its size and reach on congressional terms of office and spending demanding balance. Ironically, about the only thing today's political class can seem to agree upon is its shared contempt for both popular and critically needed propositions.
I agree with you in many ways, but I must disagree with term limits. Before the last round of redistricting, I was quite happy with my longtime congresscritter. However, while I do not like Nancy Pelosi, I do not feel entitled enough to tell San Franciscans who they can and cannot vote for. It is undemocratic and unAmerican.
Well, I have heard legitimate arguments against term limits, but never that they are "undemocratic and unAmerican."
Shall we repeal them then for the presidency?
I say not, and for the same reason I think they should be imposed upon Congress; to discourage creation of an entrenched, imperial political class the Framers could never have imagined.
Yes. The only term limits I approve of are called elections. No one is forced to vote for the incumbent and no one stays in office against the collective will of their constituents.
Here is why I disagree. The incumbent in an election holds an overwhelming advantage especially in access to media and in fund-raising. The advantages of incumbents are the reason the rate of re-election of Congressmen exceeds 90% even though as noted in this article Congress is one of the least-trusted of American institutions.
I noted elsewhere that the Framers almost certainly would have abhored a more permanent political class. I believe they also possessed the wisdom, and vision, to recognize that limited government is the greatest guarantor for protecting and expanding freedoms.
John, you are perfectly free to vote for someone else. Maybe I'm wrong, but I like to think that I look beyond the ads and the money spent.
I can possibly see some limits if the incumbent is repeatedly running unopposed in multiple general elections, but otherwise, I see limits as thwarting the will of the people.
Who knows, maybe the people really are too stupid to learn who they are voting for and against, but in this democratic republic, I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt rather than deciding what's best for them.
Just remember FDR served four terms (and died in office) and when Europeans were becoming authoritarian dictators. And progressives like Walter Lippman (founder of The New Republic) wanted FDR to become a dictator.
FDR interned Japanese who were American citizens by executive order and siezed thr nation’s private gold supply by executive order.
Even if you oppose term limits elsewhere, I think it’s a good idea for Presidents.
I was going to vote for Jimmy Carter in '76, but deployed to Norway for Exercise Teamwork and the military made little effort to make us aware of absentee voting. By 1980, Carter's failures drove me into Reagan's arms and I voted Republican from 1980 through 2000. After promising "No Nation Building," GWB then took us into two wars of choice and I've been an independent ever since.
I am a gettable vote for anyone who comes across as reasonable with sound economic and foreign policy ideas, but so far, that hasn't happened, so I default to voting for whoever the LP nominates. If Democrats could resurrect Robert Kennedy, you would have my vote, but the the swing to the hard left and the condescension towards anyone who disagrees with any policy of the far left repels me.
We desperately want to cling to the idea that if only we could find the right people to lead, we could solve all the problems of society. The ideas are great, we just have the wrong leaders.
This has been proven untrue time and again. Welfare programs are not working as intended. Let’s give government money to private non-profits. They are better suited to work directly with the people in need than large government agencies. I thought it was a good idea at the time.
25 years later, we see the result. Fraud on a massive scale, NGO’s more powerful than the government. We put out an engraved invitation to every potential fraudster that there were piles of cash free for the taking. And they piled in to take advantage.
It’s not just the leaders. The concepts have proven to be bankrupt.
Our system offers power and control of massive public funds to charismatic people who can persuade people to vote for them. Sure, some might be genuinely interested in the common good.
But it’s also a neon sign screaming “Sociopaths apply within”. My bet is that the sociopaths will win most of the time.
Bravo . Comment of the day. Unfortunately, the problems of lousy policy are exponentially worsened, when married with incompetence, that is never punished. On the year anniversary of the Palisades fire, the lack of consequence, even for mass, lethal failure is stunning.
As a former near quarter century Californian, I have read reams regarding the fire. The one piece of information never included is how many people lost their jobs after 32 lives lost, and nearly incalculable monetary damages. I suspect very few, if any.
Walz dropped out of the race, probably because Dems, fearing down ballot carnage, cut off his reelection Party funding. Tim is not resigning. He will keep his generous pension and perks. The problem is certainly bipartisan. The Ohio Rep Governor seems to have committed the same sins, albeit on a smaller scale.
The Securities and Exchange Commission allowed Bernard Madoff to conduct history's largest Ponzi scheme right under their noses, disregarding repeated warnings. It was Madoff himself who exposed the scheme when he confessed. How many SEC officials were fired over this? Not a single one.
The current state of government is a textbook example of what PJ O’Rourke meant when he wrote: “Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenaged boys”
Now rather than giving money to NGOs to disperse as they see best, let’s just let people keep more of their own money. That is a great way to incentivize earning money and eliminate some players with sticky fingers.
I might suggest you examine the transition from the Era of Good Feeling to Jacksonian America. You may find many similarities. Perhaps, distrust of elites may have a longer history in our country than politics.
It does, and while Jackson was a racist, the Democrats at the time were ahead of the Republicans in advocating for universal manhood suffrage.
Historians will realize that one of the great civil rights struggles in our nation is handing the real levers of power from the educated elites to the people.
I will call you stupid, but for calling me a "progressive." As a libertarian-leaning independent, I am routinely accused of being a leftist by Republicans and a rightwinger by Democrats. Sadly, mindless partisanship is a disease that has spread like wildfire.
Jackson owned 150 slaves at the time of his death and is thought to have owned over 350 over the course of his life. To say that Democrats in general, and Jackson in particular were ahead of the Republicans in advocating for universal manhood suffrage is preposterous.
If you had bothered to study history, you might have recognized that I was arguing in favor of your side on that point.
I think you’re exactly right that we’re in an era of cynicism. Where I’d tighten the prescription is this: the missing ingredient isn’t only moral leadership. It’s competent leadership, and competence has recognizable parts.
We don’t just need leaders who are decent people. We need leaders who can do a few hard things that our current leadership class (in both parties) routinely avoids:
• Set national objectives for the whole country, not just the faction that nominated them. Right now too many “objectives” are really a to-do list for the base. That guarantees the pendulum swing, because the other half experiences governance as hostile rather than shared.
• Have the courage to disappoint their own side. If you can’t say no to your loudest allies, you’re not leading. You’re being pulled.
• Build strategy around real constraints and future capability. Good leaders don’t just announce goals. They connect goals to what we can actually execute, what we must rebuild, and what we’ll need relative to competitors. When we set major priorities (energy is an obvious example), we too often skip the hard work of linking objectives to capability and tradeoffs.
• Make accountability visible and fair. Credit what works even when the other team did it. Own what fails even when your team did it. People can tolerate mistakes. They can’t tolerate evasions.
• Treat breakdowns as problems to diagnose and fix, not props for denial or pile-ons. Too often, one side minimizes and the other weaponizes. Almost nobody leads by saying: what went wrong, what’s the corrective action, and how do we prevent repeat failures?
And this can’t be a “one savior” theory of change. The leadership deficit is distributed: Congress, executive agencies, statehouses, media, universities, and civic institutions. Cynicism won’t ease until a critical mass of leaders acts like stewards of a shared country, with the competence to translate values into durable results.
So yes: patriots and ethical leaders. But specifically, leaders with the courage and competence to govern for the whole, make tradeoffs honestly, and rebuild capability instead of living off the permanent campaign.
This was an excellent piece, but change cannot arrive until both political parties, once again, govern under the same rules. Trump's most political disruptive act, has been to end "rules for thee, but not for we" governance. Presidential powers do not vary by Party or popularity. They are set by the Constitution, law and precedent. Trump's true Superpower or sin, depending on one's view, has been to recycle past Presidential actions, to fit his own agenda.
Grabbing Maduro was a near carbon copy of the Noriega case. Federal Courts upheld those actions. For decades, Dems had ample opportunity to pass a law forbidding such actions, but they did not.
Likewise, blowing up drug runners is simply a twist on Obama droning hundreds of people all over the Middle East. Obama droned a US citizen. Dozens of innocents perished as collateral damage. Dems said nothing. Yet now, Trump vaporizing drug running boats is suddenly an act of war or murder?
Obama and Biden both deported millions of people who were never driven by an Immigration Courthouse, let alone allowed to enter one. Does anyone recall "due process" concerns ?
We are cynical, because we no longer recognize our country. Once we all played by the same rules. No one turned a blind eye to corruption, because the people committing it wore the right jersey color. Our elected leaders, did not face perpetual political persecution, because of policy disagreement or personality.
Imagine the Biden Secret Service, on official business, having their hotel reservations cancelled by a MAGA hotel owner? It is unfathomable. Things are very unlikely to change, because Dems will never acknowledge Trump as a legitimate US President. The day after Jan 6, that fact is more than a bit ironic.
"Playing by the same rules" is definitely an important concept for trying to address why people might be (justifiably) cynical. Applies to a number of areas from government to business to sports to education. Thanks.
Let’s also remember classified documents. The President has the power to d classify all documents so it’s essentially impossible for a president to have illegal classified documents. But vice-Presidents can only declassify documents they themselves classified. Biden has classified documents in his garage. And yet the government went after Trump with the authorization to use lethal force but for Biden it was treated as a nothingburger.
John - A clear-eyed diagnosis, as per usual. My quibbles are minor. I support the prescription you put forth ("different politics based on personal honesty and the common good") and intend to add my voice to yours soon with a proposal for the Dems consistent with what you seek. Rick Taft
Until the size and role of the Federal government is reduced to something approaching that envisioned in the Constitution, it won't matter what kind of politicians we get. The lure of power and money will continue to be too great for all but legitimate saints (which are in short supply).
Why does virtually Everyone - across the political spectrum - avoid the structural Elephant in the room? The United States (and most advanced nations) has run bipartisan chronic budget deficits for decades. To put it bluntly, the richest countries in the world have been unable or unwilling to pay up front for government programs. So we borrow more money, rain or shine. Now it's 38 trillion in national debt and there is NO PLAN to even reduce new borrowing. Annual interest payments on the national debt now costs more than US defence expenditures. We now need to borrow more money simply to pay the interest on the existing debt.
Here is the core political challenge. An honest and responsible national leader has to level with the American people. How is this for a winning campaign slogan? Vote for me and we will begin the decades long process of raising taxes AND cutting government programs. The balance of tax increases or program cutbacks can be influenced by ideology. But the fundamental issue is not ideology. It's basic math that we refuse to acknowledge, let alone to address. Republicans are devoted to a quasi-religious faith in tax cuts. Democrats are devoted to a quasi-religious faith in more government spending. Both parties are addicted to DEBT. The true costs for reckless public borrowing are only now coming into view. Politicians, pundits, and mainstream media choose - for understandable reasons - to look the other way. Where does the Liberal Patriot stand on this challenge?
I actually think it is policies aimed at technological regulation and adaptation that would be most effective in restoring trust in government. In many things, actually. The dominance of the attention economy and the pervasive influence of the algorithms that go with it in all forms of media--but social media worst of all--incentivizes cynicism, nihilism, and contrarianism to such a degree that it has destroyed people's trust in literally *every* institution, not just government. How do you rebuild trust in something when the technological lens through which people view the world is naturally biased towards paranoia and anger, and rewards paranoid and angry behavior? Those are all arrayed *against* feelings of trust and optimism.
To the extent we can do anything about it, the best thing we can do is try to correct the shape of that lens, and the technologies it is composed of.
1) Because of both parties ineptness (Rs cuz they were perpetually fearful of the media when they were in power, Ds because they kept engaging in obstruction and stalling when Rs were in power), we must face the reality that Congress is nearly irrelevant. Right now its power is that of the British House of Lords. Occasionally they can muster a 2/3 vote on something, but otherwise, gerrymandering has produced too many safe pockets where people like Hakeem Jeffries on the one hand or Thomas Massie on the other can screw things up at no consequence. From here on out, it's largely going to be government by president, but particularly a smart and innovative president like Trump who knows how to, well, as the public says, "get things done."
2) I keep cautioning particularly Ds but both sides to completely ignore polls. They simply are meaningless. In OH in 2016, for ex, the Trump polls were off by 9; in WI, an average of 6---but many by 11 (!!!). In 2024 they were off by 4 on average. With J.D. Vance in OH? Off by 5. Pollsters STILL (even the good ones like Rasmussen and Baris) are STILL missing huge, huge swaths of Trump support.
There is no way on earth that Trump is "losing support" and yet the GOP absolutely ROLLICKING in voter registration #S when I harp on. For ex., last week, North Carolina WENT RED for the first time ever. 2,000 +R gain in a single week, topping 4 years of steady movement to the right. IA likewise again, and again, and again saw another gain and is now R+11%. PA, after a couple of brief primary spurts, saw ZERO gains in the Trump counties, which continue strong, and last week in what was apparently a purge, Rs gained ANOTHER net 13,000 (!!!) This brings the D lead in PA down to 171,000 after being 1.1 MILLION in 2016.
If people are going to understand this---and I think your comment about incumbents always suffer a lot of "Yeah, this is great but WHADDABOUT?" (which is particularly true on the right as people are really upset no evil diddlepicker fraudsters from 2020 have been arrested yet). However, when actual elections come, the "WHADDABOUTS" have to choose. My recurring theme---and I know you guys don't want to hear this---is that the Democrat Party is following the Whigs to extinction. The absurd radicals are running the party: Zohran (listen to me!) WILL BE the nominee in 2028 (I don't care what the Constitution says---Democrats will ignore and weak Rs and the courts will likewise not have the courage to stop him). Vance will be the GOP nominee and I can call this right now as I CALLED BOTH 2016 AND 2024 RIGHT DOWN TO THE ELECTORAL VOTE AND POP VOTE % and that is . . . Vance starts at 320 EVs and works his way up from there depending on how kooky the Amazing Zohran gets.
John, I'm quite serious when this historian sees the Democrats looking very much like the Whigs in the 1850s, unable to confront the major problem of the day, or even acknowledge it. The DNC took immigration/immigration reform entirely off the website, so I guess it's not an issue. I think the only way forward for patriotic Democrats is to form a new party---because this one is unsustainable.
In the 1850s, parties printed their own ballots and funded themselves through patronage; if they lost, their entire financial and operational structure could vanish almost overnight. They were fragile things. The Democratic party is a multi-billion-dollar institution with permanent legal standing, sophisticated data operations, and a "first-past-the-post" system that heavily penalizes third parties. It has negative polarization working in its favor, and the sitting president is sending that into overdrive. It's not going anywhere.
If your argument boils down to "the party has internal divisions, therefore it must disintegrate", you're not thinking with the rigor of a historian. Internal divisions weren't the primary reason why the Whigs died. (And in case you haven't noticed, the GOP has growing internal divisions as well--the divide between 'MAGA' and 'America First' being the most prominent, to go with the subtler divide between 'Country Club Republicans' and 'Populist-right' Republicans)
I don’t know Carter was an exceptionally moral man and an awful president. Clinton has the morals of an alley cat and did a solid job running the country.
Maybe the government should stick to doing the basics and stop trying fix social issues.
The amount of money involved in our politics corrupts! Elected representatives in office too long develop strong ties with lobbyists and monied interests that can corrupt them further.
Some good points but way too much “both sideism” when talking about Trump. Trump is on several measures the worst and most dangerous president we’ve ever had, combined with congressional Republicans abandoning any constitutional role. Of course Democrats should be seeking middle ground and contact whenever possible, but analyses suggesting it’s everybody’s fault equally are factually wrong and won’t serve the basis for appropriate responses and strategies. If you misdiagnose the problem, you won’t come up with the right solution.
Every man regards his own opinions as incontrovertible facts. Hence, he finds it tempting to accuse anyone who disagrees with his opinions of "both-sideism", disregarding incontrovertible facts for the sake of a bogus objectivity. E.g., "Trump is the worst President we've ever had and if you disagree, you're guilty of both-sideism."
Journos in particular are anxious to avoid "both-sideism" so they publish their opinions as facts. E.g, "Trump is a fascist. There is no question about it." Few people trust them anymore, but they have managed to avoid "both-sideism."
The notion that "everything Biden did" presumes, spectacularly, that the cognitively compromised Biden presidency did anything; demanding answers for who, precisely, held the gears, wheel and autopen of power during his presidency. Until we get clear and unequivocal answers and accountability for that hijacked presidency, there probably can be no going forward.
If and when this out-of-control behemoth of today's American government is ever to regain even a modicum of sustained popular support, trust and respect, it will only be through constitutional amendments limiting its size and reach on congressional terms of office and spending demanding balance. Ironically, about the only thing today's political class can seem to agree upon is its shared contempt for both popular and critically needed propositions.
Dale: "Until we get clear and unequivocal answers and accountability for that hijacked presidency, there probably can be no going forward."
Yes, ignoring this is and not dealing with it will not win back many Democrats. The autopen overseers are yet to be explained.
I agree with you in many ways, but I must disagree with term limits. Before the last round of redistricting, I was quite happy with my longtime congresscritter. However, while I do not like Nancy Pelosi, I do not feel entitled enough to tell San Franciscans who they can and cannot vote for. It is undemocratic and unAmerican.
Well, I have heard legitimate arguments against term limits, but never that they are "undemocratic and unAmerican."
Shall we repeal them then for the presidency?
I say not, and for the same reason I think they should be imposed upon Congress; to discourage creation of an entrenched, imperial political class the Framers could never have imagined.
"Shall we repeal them then for the presidency?"
Yes. The only term limits I approve of are called elections. No one is forced to vote for the incumbent and no one stays in office against the collective will of their constituents.
Here is why I disagree. The incumbent in an election holds an overwhelming advantage especially in access to media and in fund-raising. The advantages of incumbents are the reason the rate of re-election of Congressmen exceeds 90% even though as noted in this article Congress is one of the least-trusted of American institutions.
I noted elsewhere that the Framers almost certainly would have abhored a more permanent political class. I believe they also possessed the wisdom, and vision, to recognize that limited government is the greatest guarantor for protecting and expanding freedoms.
John, you are perfectly free to vote for someone else. Maybe I'm wrong, but I like to think that I look beyond the ads and the money spent.
I can possibly see some limits if the incumbent is repeatedly running unopposed in multiple general elections, but otherwise, I see limits as thwarting the will of the people.
Who knows, maybe the people really are too stupid to learn who they are voting for and against, but in this democratic republic, I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt rather than deciding what's best for them.
Just remember FDR served four terms (and died in office) and when Europeans were becoming authoritarian dictators. And progressives like Walter Lippman (founder of The New Republic) wanted FDR to become a dictator.
FDR interned Japanese who were American citizens by executive order and siezed thr nation’s private gold supply by executive order.
Even if you oppose term limits elsewhere, I think it’s a good idea for Presidents.
I was going to vote for Jimmy Carter in '76, but deployed to Norway for Exercise Teamwork and the military made little effort to make us aware of absentee voting. By 1980, Carter's failures drove me into Reagan's arms and I voted Republican from 1980 through 2000. After promising "No Nation Building," GWB then took us into two wars of choice and I've been an independent ever since.
I am a gettable vote for anyone who comes across as reasonable with sound economic and foreign policy ideas, but so far, that hasn't happened, so I default to voting for whoever the LP nominates. If Democrats could resurrect Robert Kennedy, you would have my vote, but the the swing to the hard left and the condescension towards anyone who disagrees with any policy of the far left repels me.
If you want my vote, you have to earn it.
We desperately want to cling to the idea that if only we could find the right people to lead, we could solve all the problems of society. The ideas are great, we just have the wrong leaders.
This has been proven untrue time and again. Welfare programs are not working as intended. Let’s give government money to private non-profits. They are better suited to work directly with the people in need than large government agencies. I thought it was a good idea at the time.
25 years later, we see the result. Fraud on a massive scale, NGO’s more powerful than the government. We put out an engraved invitation to every potential fraudster that there were piles of cash free for the taking. And they piled in to take advantage.
It’s not just the leaders. The concepts have proven to be bankrupt.
Good point, probably true in many areas of governance.
Our system offers power and control of massive public funds to charismatic people who can persuade people to vote for them. Sure, some might be genuinely interested in the common good.
But it’s also a neon sign screaming “Sociopaths apply within”. My bet is that the sociopaths will win most of the time.
Bravo . Comment of the day. Unfortunately, the problems of lousy policy are exponentially worsened, when married with incompetence, that is never punished. On the year anniversary of the Palisades fire, the lack of consequence, even for mass, lethal failure is stunning.
As a former near quarter century Californian, I have read reams regarding the fire. The one piece of information never included is how many people lost their jobs after 32 lives lost, and nearly incalculable monetary damages. I suspect very few, if any.
Walz dropped out of the race, probably because Dems, fearing down ballot carnage, cut off his reelection Party funding. Tim is not resigning. He will keep his generous pension and perks. The problem is certainly bipartisan. The Ohio Rep Governor seems to have committed the same sins, albeit on a smaller scale.
The Securities and Exchange Commission allowed Bernard Madoff to conduct history's largest Ponzi scheme right under their noses, disregarding repeated warnings. It was Madoff himself who exposed the scheme when he confessed. How many SEC officials were fired over this? Not a single one.
The current state of government is a textbook example of what PJ O’Rourke meant when he wrote: “Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenaged boys”
Now rather than giving money to NGOs to disperse as they see best, let’s just let people keep more of their own money. That is a great way to incentivize earning money and eliminate some players with sticky fingers.
I might suggest you examine the transition from the Era of Good Feeling to Jacksonian America. You may find many similarities. Perhaps, distrust of elites may have a longer history in our country than politics.
It does, and while Jackson was a racist, the Democrats at the time were ahead of the Republicans in advocating for universal manhood suffrage.
Historians will realize that one of the great civil rights struggles in our nation is handing the real levers of power from the educated elites to the people.
How many slaves did Jackson own?
Your point?
"...the Democrats at the time were ahead of the Republicans in advocating for universal manhood suffrage."
You figure it out.
I can't. Now, since you're a "progressive," you will call me stupid. LOL
I will call you stupid, but for calling me a "progressive." As a libertarian-leaning independent, I am routinely accused of being a leftist by Republicans and a rightwinger by Democrats. Sadly, mindless partisanship is a disease that has spread like wildfire.
Jackson owned 150 slaves at the time of his death and is thought to have owned over 350 over the course of his life. To say that Democrats in general, and Jackson in particular were ahead of the Republicans in advocating for universal manhood suffrage is preposterous.
If you had bothered to study history, you might have recognized that I was arguing in favor of your side on that point.
I think you’re exactly right that we’re in an era of cynicism. Where I’d tighten the prescription is this: the missing ingredient isn’t only moral leadership. It’s competent leadership, and competence has recognizable parts.
We don’t just need leaders who are decent people. We need leaders who can do a few hard things that our current leadership class (in both parties) routinely avoids:
• Set national objectives for the whole country, not just the faction that nominated them. Right now too many “objectives” are really a to-do list for the base. That guarantees the pendulum swing, because the other half experiences governance as hostile rather than shared.
• Have the courage to disappoint their own side. If you can’t say no to your loudest allies, you’re not leading. You’re being pulled.
• Build strategy around real constraints and future capability. Good leaders don’t just announce goals. They connect goals to what we can actually execute, what we must rebuild, and what we’ll need relative to competitors. When we set major priorities (energy is an obvious example), we too often skip the hard work of linking objectives to capability and tradeoffs.
• Make accountability visible and fair. Credit what works even when the other team did it. Own what fails even when your team did it. People can tolerate mistakes. They can’t tolerate evasions.
• Treat breakdowns as problems to diagnose and fix, not props for denial or pile-ons. Too often, one side minimizes and the other weaponizes. Almost nobody leads by saying: what went wrong, what’s the corrective action, and how do we prevent repeat failures?
And this can’t be a “one savior” theory of change. The leadership deficit is distributed: Congress, executive agencies, statehouses, media, universities, and civic institutions. Cynicism won’t ease until a critical mass of leaders acts like stewards of a shared country, with the competence to translate values into durable results.
So yes: patriots and ethical leaders. But specifically, leaders with the courage and competence to govern for the whole, make tradeoffs honestly, and rebuild capability instead of living off the permanent campaign.
Excellent list, thanks!
This was an excellent piece, but change cannot arrive until both political parties, once again, govern under the same rules. Trump's most political disruptive act, has been to end "rules for thee, but not for we" governance. Presidential powers do not vary by Party or popularity. They are set by the Constitution, law and precedent. Trump's true Superpower or sin, depending on one's view, has been to recycle past Presidential actions, to fit his own agenda.
Grabbing Maduro was a near carbon copy of the Noriega case. Federal Courts upheld those actions. For decades, Dems had ample opportunity to pass a law forbidding such actions, but they did not.
Likewise, blowing up drug runners is simply a twist on Obama droning hundreds of people all over the Middle East. Obama droned a US citizen. Dozens of innocents perished as collateral damage. Dems said nothing. Yet now, Trump vaporizing drug running boats is suddenly an act of war or murder?
Obama and Biden both deported millions of people who were never driven by an Immigration Courthouse, let alone allowed to enter one. Does anyone recall "due process" concerns ?
We are cynical, because we no longer recognize our country. Once we all played by the same rules. No one turned a blind eye to corruption, because the people committing it wore the right jersey color. Our elected leaders, did not face perpetual political persecution, because of policy disagreement or personality.
Imagine the Biden Secret Service, on official business, having their hotel reservations cancelled by a MAGA hotel owner? It is unfathomable. Things are very unlikely to change, because Dems will never acknowledge Trump as a legitimate US President. The day after Jan 6, that fact is more than a bit ironic.
"Playing by the same rules" is definitely an important concept for trying to address why people might be (justifiably) cynical. Applies to a number of areas from government to business to sports to education. Thanks.
Let’s also remember classified documents. The President has the power to d classify all documents so it’s essentially impossible for a president to have illegal classified documents. But vice-Presidents can only declassify documents they themselves classified. Biden has classified documents in his garage. And yet the government went after Trump with the authorization to use lethal force but for Biden it was treated as a nothingburger.
John - A clear-eyed diagnosis, as per usual. My quibbles are minor. I support the prescription you put forth ("different politics based on personal honesty and the common good") and intend to add my voice to yours soon with a proposal for the Dems consistent with what you seek. Rick Taft
Until the size and role of the Federal government is reduced to something approaching that envisioned in the Constitution, it won't matter what kind of politicians we get. The lure of power and money will continue to be too great for all but legitimate saints (which are in short supply).
Why does virtually Everyone - across the political spectrum - avoid the structural Elephant in the room? The United States (and most advanced nations) has run bipartisan chronic budget deficits for decades. To put it bluntly, the richest countries in the world have been unable or unwilling to pay up front for government programs. So we borrow more money, rain or shine. Now it's 38 trillion in national debt and there is NO PLAN to even reduce new borrowing. Annual interest payments on the national debt now costs more than US defence expenditures. We now need to borrow more money simply to pay the interest on the existing debt.
Here is the core political challenge. An honest and responsible national leader has to level with the American people. How is this for a winning campaign slogan? Vote for me and we will begin the decades long process of raising taxes AND cutting government programs. The balance of tax increases or program cutbacks can be influenced by ideology. But the fundamental issue is not ideology. It's basic math that we refuse to acknowledge, let alone to address. Republicans are devoted to a quasi-religious faith in tax cuts. Democrats are devoted to a quasi-religious faith in more government spending. Both parties are addicted to DEBT. The true costs for reckless public borrowing are only now coming into view. Politicians, pundits, and mainstream media choose - for understandable reasons - to look the other way. Where does the Liberal Patriot stand on this challenge?
I actually think it is policies aimed at technological regulation and adaptation that would be most effective in restoring trust in government. In many things, actually. The dominance of the attention economy and the pervasive influence of the algorithms that go with it in all forms of media--but social media worst of all--incentivizes cynicism, nihilism, and contrarianism to such a degree that it has destroyed people's trust in literally *every* institution, not just government. How do you rebuild trust in something when the technological lens through which people view the world is naturally biased towards paranoia and anger, and rewards paranoid and angry behavior? Those are all arrayed *against* feelings of trust and optimism.
To the extent we can do anything about it, the best thing we can do is try to correct the shape of that lens, and the technologies it is composed of.
Two important realities;
1) Because of both parties ineptness (Rs cuz they were perpetually fearful of the media when they were in power, Ds because they kept engaging in obstruction and stalling when Rs were in power), we must face the reality that Congress is nearly irrelevant. Right now its power is that of the British House of Lords. Occasionally they can muster a 2/3 vote on something, but otherwise, gerrymandering has produced too many safe pockets where people like Hakeem Jeffries on the one hand or Thomas Massie on the other can screw things up at no consequence. From here on out, it's largely going to be government by president, but particularly a smart and innovative president like Trump who knows how to, well, as the public says, "get things done."
2) I keep cautioning particularly Ds but both sides to completely ignore polls. They simply are meaningless. In OH in 2016, for ex, the Trump polls were off by 9; in WI, an average of 6---but many by 11 (!!!). In 2024 they were off by 4 on average. With J.D. Vance in OH? Off by 5. Pollsters STILL (even the good ones like Rasmussen and Baris) are STILL missing huge, huge swaths of Trump support.
There is no way on earth that Trump is "losing support" and yet the GOP absolutely ROLLICKING in voter registration #S when I harp on. For ex., last week, North Carolina WENT RED for the first time ever. 2,000 +R gain in a single week, topping 4 years of steady movement to the right. IA likewise again, and again, and again saw another gain and is now R+11%. PA, after a couple of brief primary spurts, saw ZERO gains in the Trump counties, which continue strong, and last week in what was apparently a purge, Rs gained ANOTHER net 13,000 (!!!) This brings the D lead in PA down to 171,000 after being 1.1 MILLION in 2016.
If people are going to understand this---and I think your comment about incumbents always suffer a lot of "Yeah, this is great but WHADDABOUT?" (which is particularly true on the right as people are really upset no evil diddlepicker fraudsters from 2020 have been arrested yet). However, when actual elections come, the "WHADDABOUTS" have to choose. My recurring theme---and I know you guys don't want to hear this---is that the Democrat Party is following the Whigs to extinction. The absurd radicals are running the party: Zohran (listen to me!) WILL BE the nominee in 2028 (I don't care what the Constitution says---Democrats will ignore and weak Rs and the courts will likewise not have the courage to stop him). Vance will be the GOP nominee and I can call this right now as I CALLED BOTH 2016 AND 2024 RIGHT DOWN TO THE ELECTORAL VOTE AND POP VOTE % and that is . . . Vance starts at 320 EVs and works his way up from there depending on how kooky the Amazing Zohran gets.
Your two points are solid if probably not how I would phrase it! Thanks, Larry.
John, I'm quite serious when this historian sees the Democrats looking very much like the Whigs in the 1850s, unable to confront the major problem of the day, or even acknowledge it. The DNC took immigration/immigration reform entirely off the website, so I guess it's not an issue. I think the only way forward for patriotic Democrats is to form a new party---because this one is unsustainable.
Larry my friend, the comparison makes no sense.
In the 1850s, parties printed their own ballots and funded themselves through patronage; if they lost, their entire financial and operational structure could vanish almost overnight. They were fragile things. The Democratic party is a multi-billion-dollar institution with permanent legal standing, sophisticated data operations, and a "first-past-the-post" system that heavily penalizes third parties. It has negative polarization working in its favor, and the sitting president is sending that into overdrive. It's not going anywhere.
If your argument boils down to "the party has internal divisions, therefore it must disintegrate", you're not thinking with the rigor of a historian. Internal divisions weren't the primary reason why the Whigs died. (And in case you haven't noticed, the GOP has growing internal divisions as well--the divide between 'MAGA' and 'America First' being the most prominent, to go with the subtler divide between 'Country Club Republicans' and 'Populist-right' Republicans)
I don’t know Carter was an exceptionally moral man and an awful president. Clinton has the morals of an alley cat and did a solid job running the country.
Maybe the government should stick to doing the basics and stop trying fix social issues.
The amount of money involved in our politics corrupts! Elected representatives in office too long develop strong ties with lobbyists and monied interests that can corrupt them further.
Some good points but way too much “both sideism” when talking about Trump. Trump is on several measures the worst and most dangerous president we’ve ever had, combined with congressional Republicans abandoning any constitutional role. Of course Democrats should be seeking middle ground and contact whenever possible, but analyses suggesting it’s everybody’s fault equally are factually wrong and won’t serve the basis for appropriate responses and strategies. If you misdiagnose the problem, you won’t come up with the right solution.
Ah yes, there's only one side, the "progressive" bleated.
Every man regards his own opinions as incontrovertible facts. Hence, he finds it tempting to accuse anyone who disagrees with his opinions of "both-sideism", disregarding incontrovertible facts for the sake of a bogus objectivity. E.g., "Trump is the worst President we've ever had and if you disagree, you're guilty of both-sideism."
Journos in particular are anxious to avoid "both-sideism" so they publish their opinions as facts. E.g, "Trump is a fascist. There is no question about it." Few people trust them anymore, but they have managed to avoid "both-sideism."
Remember the goodle days when "progressives" were for "nuance," freedom of speech, and "critical thinking?" Pepperidge Farm remembers.