How about just not being crazy? How about a true leader with courage to speak hard truths and to stand up when the party is off the rails? Watching Democrats circle the wagons around Jay Jones in Virginia - someone who spoke about killing his political opponent's children - I mean how low can the bar possibly be? This is a man worthy of being the attorney general of a state - the top law enforcement officer in Virginia - just because he has a "D" after his name?
I was perpetually amused by the Democrats’ repeated statements that they were willing to do “whatever it takes to defeat Trump” while refusing to do the one thing that would have easily done it: Stop doubling down on policies normie voters think are bat guano crazy.
I don't know. . when I see a President, on day 1, make it clear that there are only 2 sexes, that you can't change your sex, that men shouldn't be occupying women's spaces, that gender affirming care for minors is wrong (I believe it's straight up evil), and that secure borders, which obviously reduce the massive sex slave and drug trades, will be obtained, all positions in opposition of progressives, I see sanity returning.
When I see so many of the President's cabinet get up at a giant public event and Boldy declare the saving grace of the gospel (while doing an excellent job of conveying the gospel), I see sanity returning.
When I see Google admit it was heavily censoring folks at the behest of the last administration, saying they won't do that again (we'll see), I see sanity returning.
When I see a President getting this much cooperation/enthusiasm/capitulation in his efforts to broker peace in the middle east even if it's probably naive to think there will ever be a lasting peace there, as opposed to bribing the Mullahs in hopes they will pause their nuclear efforts, I see sanity returning.
When I see so many examples of the cold heartless discourse MG describes so well (illustrated also with the Kirk reactions, the health care CEO murder reactions, etc) from so many on the left, I thank God that through Trump HE has given us a window. A chance to repent and return to the wisdom of HIS word.
It is always bizarre to watch the god-fearing making a savior out of a godless man.
Nonetheless, when a fellow whose views you *don’t* like gets elected and grabs ahold of all the authoritarian precedents Trump has set, and this ‘insane’ person has stationed the military at your door for the sin of not being one of his supporters, and has no checks left on his power over you, perhaps you’ll see the error of thinking godless men have the moral compass to truly do the lord’s work. The reckoning always comes, you know—that much the good book tells us.
Out of curiosity, how do you rank Tump on an authoritarian scale compared to the following:
* Biden
* Woodrow Wilson
* FDR
"It is always bizarre to watch the god-fearing making a savior out of a godless man."
Secular people seem to work from a mental understanding that the Bible is a book of virtuous people who do virtuous deeds to advance God's kingdom--that there is a hero's journey embedded in the Bible, such that the heroes are made of better stuff than the villains. But that's not how it works. The Bible is a book of a holy God using sinful people. Some of them are believers, like King David, and some are not, like King Cyrus.
I can only speak for myself, but I'd gone underground as a Christian and a conservative. I was making peace with what it meant to be a Christian in a world where secular leftism had all the power and hated my beliefs. There were two men who stand out as being particularly bold in fighting back and not conceding any ground. One was Charlie Kirk and the other was Trump. One was assassinated and the other turned his head just as his would-be assassin pulled the trigger. They both had far more courage than me--I was too afraid of getting fired to be bold.
"The Bible is a book of a holy God using sinful people."
You don't possess the knowledge of God, though, yes? Theologically, He has foresight to see that a sinful person may be put to a virtuous purpose; you do not. You can only judge according to people's behavior--this would make appointing godless men as saviors of the faith and rewarding their godless behavior more akin to idolatry than anything else.
FWIW, I wouldn't include Charlie Kirk in that category, though I disagreed with him. (assassination of anyone is wrong regardless) But Trump? Trump is so clearly beyond the bounds of what it means to be a good Christian that every Christian should be repulsed by him. And don't confuse the shamelessness of narcissists for courage--courage implies risking something for some purpose greater than acquiring advantage and power for yourself. Anyone who does not care for anyone beyond themselves is not capable of courage. And the history of Trump's actions is indubitably the profile of a narcissist.
He certainly outranks any of the three you listed on the 'scale of authoritarianism', btw, particularly Biden or FDR. Wilson had his moments and had authoritarian (read: Confederate slaveowner) sympathies, but he never attempted to invade his opposition's cities for political gain, attempt to directly subordinate the press to presidential authority, or a hundred other things Trump has done that go well beyond the bounds of American (small L) liberalism.
"this would make appointing godless men as saviors of the faith and rewarding their godless behavior more akin to idolatry than anything else."
First, bear in mind that Trump is not a Christian. The theologian RC Sproul once quipped that he'd march arm in arm with the devil himself on issues of common grace, such as ending abortion.
Second, bear in mind that Christianity is not a Manichaean worldview in which people who are good fight against people who are evil. Instead the Christian worldview is people who are evil sinners being used by God to advance his kingdom. Believers are called to repentance, but Trump is not a believer. That's why Erika Kirk forgave her husband's murderer, whereas Trump proudly proclaimed that he hates his enemies and only wishes bad things on them. Of course there was also some self-aware trolling in Trump's statement, as in all his statements.
FDR
-----
* Interned American citizens of Japanese ethnicity without a trial, by executive order.
* Seized the entire private gold supply minus a personal allotment by executive order.
* Violated the single most important norm in American politics: the two term limit for presidents.
What has Trump done that's worse than those?
Wilson
-------
* Passed the Espionage and Sedition Acts for censoring American citizens.
* Passed multiple executive orders around censorship.
You did seem to suggest that Trump may not be as bad as Wilson, so perhaps not relevant?
Biden + Post-Obama era
-------------------------
* Taking away women's rights to single-sex spaces by executive order redefining sex on the basis of gender identity. This includes biological males in Federal prisons
* The Biden administration agreeing to support Europe in censoring US speech via the Digital Services Act
* The Biden administration targeting parents who objected to school policies - and exercising their first amendment rights to object - as domestic terrorists and then refusing FOIA requests.
* Fabricated the entire Russian collusion hoax
* The 51 spies who lied about Hunter Biden's laptop
* Government funding for agencies like Newsguard, the Global Engagement Group and the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM)to censor conservatives
* The FBI, DOJ, and White House working with Twitter, Facebook, Instagram etc. to censor Covid origins and Biden's laptop, along with other stories
* Biden's FBI targeting peaceful pro-life Catholics while ignoring and declining to prosecute violent Antifa protestors?
* The IRS targeting conservative groups for audits
If the Democrats asked me how to improve their electoral chances, I would tell them to abandon identity politics. But, if I told them that, they would call me a racist.
This is excellent, but the goal will require a modern day Dem Martin Luther, and those seem in short supply. Any Dem Savior must effectively communicate the actual Dem nemesis is mass policy failure, not an 80 year old, term limited Queens builder.
The vast bulk of Dem Party seems unwilling to address the reality of the Biden term. Perhaps the myth of MAGA is such a strong political blinder, Dems are akin to a blinkered carriage horse, frozen in the middle of an intersection. The horse is petrified of an incessantly barking, elderly dog straight ahead, while missing the semi truck barreling toward his side, at 75 mph.
Little better illustrates the problem, then the flight of Americans from the most Progressive US states. CA is one of the prettiest places on earth, with one of the most temperate climates, yet between 2010-2023, 9.3 million people fled the state. Those arriving numbered only 6.7 million, and on average, those people earned $40K less a year, then those departing. Ditto for NY and IL. Residents are voting with their feet, and generally the traffic only moves one direction.
Yet, two of the most lauded potential 2028 Dem Presidential candidates are the Governors of CA and IL. AOC is rumored to soon be the 3rd leg of the unholy political Trinity. They are the same leaders that have seen their state's poverty rates soar and living standards drop, under their rule. They have also encouraged mass ICE protests in their states, mere weeks after an assassin targeted Dallas ICE officers, killing detainees and wounding others. The insanity gives new meaning to the term "failing up".
Dems can take some solace in the fact they have company. Progressivism is failing all over Europe. The natives are not just restless. There is instability and outright unrest from Paris to Stockholm. Yet Dems remain too obsessed with Trump to realize the 3 pillars of their Party, Open Borders, Climate and Woke polices are being rejected, not just from sea to shining sea, but around the globe. A political Reformation has rarely been more needed, but no one should hold their breath awaiting one.
This is a very good intellectual argument on the foundation of what went wrong with the Democrats. Considering how the Democrats let this get so thoroughly into their DNA I am not sure I see an easy way for them to break free. Just way too much money and careers and reputation tied into it. Probably going to take two things happening. One is the money source needs to change and two a strong, charismatic leadership needs to emerge.
I’ve been beating this drum as well. Because they have so many subgroups who feel their “cause” should be first on the list, Dems rarely succeed without an effective transformative charismatic leader - Obama, Bill Clinton. The current crop are all tied to the mast riding out the storm. No one is steering the ship and calling folks to his/her banner.
I see NO SIGN that the Democrats have backed away from ANY of their "cultural" bullshit. It's full speed ahead wherever I look.
This isn't to endorse Archie Bunker Trump's nutcasery, but Trump's penchant for wild hyperbole causes everyone other than the drooling, hate-soaked "progressives" in charge of the Democratic Party to discount a lot of the most irritating and embarrassing crap from him. Also, as crazy as the wingnuts get, at least for the time being their "brand" (I hate the term, which is why I put it in quotes) mostly boils down to personal libertarianism. More than anything, most people just want the government to know its place and stay out of their face all the time. The Republicans lead on that one, and it's crucial.
If there's an exception, it would be in the extreme abortion bans in some of the R-controlled states. The "progressives" have bungled that by remaining at the extreme end rather than daring to be realistic and pursuing not just policy but rhetoric that isn't absolutist. Look, just go for a European limit of 12 weeks, maybe 15 weeks because Americans are lazy, and later if the mother's life or physical health is in danger. And stop calling abortion "reproductive health care."
But nope, can't even make sense on the one "cultural" issue where the conservatives are somewhat vulnerable. On everything else, the "progressives," which means the whole Democratic Party because the "progressives" run it from top to bottom and just about everywhere in between, are obnoxious, arrogant, condescending, hectoring, and yes, authoritarian. Not to mention grim, humorless, and utterly incapable of discussion or self reflection.
And then they wonder why their "brand" is less popular than it's been for a hundred years? No, they don't even do that much. If they're not in denial, they are lashing out at the very people whose votes, money, and support they need. Not popular? Uh-uh. Americans are stupid.
I could be wrong but it seems to me abortion is neutered as a subject. Dems spent the year before Trump's election, lecturing a 2nd Trump term would bring a national abortion ban. Now they are silent. Likewise, for the 28 year olds predicting tech and finance firms would flee Red States in response to their abortion laws.
The above notes more restrictions in Red States under Dobbs, but fails to mention many Blue States under Dobbs, now have access until the delivery room. Moreover, in some states, an 11 year old seeking an abortion with a stranger cannot be denied, and anyone attempting to contact her parents, is likely to lose their medical license.
The reality is roughly 65% of all abortions now involve a few pills, who often arrive in the mail. Unreasonable laws abound on both sides, who have gone to their respective corners and are likely to stay there.
Rhonda - neutered is a good way to put it. The big question was whether the Christian right would bail on trump when his position shifted, but they seem happy enough to battle it out at a state level where in some cases they can get more than they would have ever gotten at a federal level.
This effectively took abortion off the table as a rallying cry for the right, but also blunted it as an issue for the left. Given the calculus of the electoral college, hammering on this issue is now mostly preaching to the choir, or at most influencing state initiatives.
You know who is leaving those red states? Obstetricians and gynecologists. And those that remain are often less experienced at the procedure, because it is done so much less often. Women who need a doomed pregnancy terminated before complications arise or have a problem miscarriage that requires a D and X are going out of state, if they have the means.
Nice try. There is no evidence that OB-GYNs are leaving red states because of abortion laws, but why not just accept made-up propaganda? OB-GYN has had a long standing medical liability problem, something that "progressives" have ignored until they could tell the media that it's caused by abortion laws.
"Before the Dobbs decision, OBGYN practitioner supply patterns were similar between the 12 most restrictive and 14 control states (Figure). Practitioner supply increased overall across all states, but statistically significant decreases in OBGYN practitioners were noted after the ruling. Compared with the control group, the most restrictive states had a 4.2% decrease in practitioners per 100 000 reproductive-aged females (−3.0; 95% CI, −5.9 to −0.2; P = .04) (Table). Findings were robust to sensitivity analyses (Table; eMethods in Supplement 1)".
No slowing whatsoever in voter registration stats. Last week NV flipped back to red with R+2300 after a significant drop in D registrations. FL now is marching toward R+1.5 million. Small gains in DE, RI, NJ, larger gains in NC and PA. In no state, anywhere that we can see in the voter registration stats, are Ds gaining ground (NV seems to have been the last hope).
An insightful essay, but I’m not sure I agree that there’s been a distortion of “what the national party really stands for.“ The national party stands for not making waves with its most radical members. Thus, it makes minimal effort in the face of illegal immigration. It prioritises illegal immigrants on Section 8 housing and spends billions of free healthcare for them while citizens go without. It votes as a bloc for men in women’s sports (and prisons). It criminalises any approach that isn’t drugs/surgeries to treat adolescent confusion. It promotes a justice system that weeps for criminals while kicking victims.
Anyone who’s deviated from these positions has been vilified.
The Dems have become the party of Resistance (tm). After two years of chanting CEASE
FIRE NOW (along with some less savory things), they’re still protesting because the wrong guy brokered the deal. The Trump Administration released an agreement for universities, parts of which paraphrase Martin Luther King’s I Have a Dream speech, and they resist it as a fascist power grab. Newsom has even declared loss of state funding for any university that signs on. I believe that the southern white supremacists reacted the same way to federal enforcement of civil rights laws back in the day.
From the grassroots members to the elected elites, the left and the Democratic Patty are essentially integrated into one another. Maybe the grassroots leans more heavily into “From the river to the sea” than most elected Democrats, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Dems have changed from a party that wanted to lift all boats to one of grievances, resentment, and begrudgery.
I agree that aspects of the MAGA movement are frightening. But right now, a party I’ve been voting for since the 80s scares me more.
“ A lot will depend on whether Democrats come to terms with the cultural dissonance at the heart of modern progressivism.”
This piece, presumably unintentionally, reveals that the left is light years away from coming to that realization.
“George Floyd protests”? Call them what they were. Riots. If you want to know why the right didn’t pay much of a political price for the J6 MAGA riot, it’s because after several months of the left excusing if not tacitly approving of left wing rioting we saw a riot properly and promptly put down including with the use of lethal force. Then the left overreached by attempting to spin it up as an “insurrection” and going after everyone who was there instead of just those who assaulted LEOs.
Next up you seem to hand wave away Ruy’s piece that clearly outlays the abject failure of Democrats’ governance where they have complete control by simply stating they have a bad reputation as if it’s all based on perception.
Lastly stop with the hyperbolic nonsense. We are not anywhere close to “ American democracy as we know it is nearing midnight”. John Stewart had some great advice for Republicans who were screaming similar nonsense when President Obama was pushing the limits of Executive power:
“When the person you didn’t vote for wins an election, he’s going to do a lot of things you don’t like. That’s not authoritarianism it’s what losing an election feels like”
I wish I could agree with you on the last part. But I do not. Obama as president was nowhere near the level of progressive social insanity that has since taken over the Democratic party. He was an old school liberal by comaprison. I am a former Democrat turned true independent but I keep up with both sides of the spectrum, including within my personal life. And this itself has become increasingly difficult. Republicans have largely gone crazy in a differant way. But they will not willingly live under the full power of what those like Gov. Newsom of CA have tried to do. I have good reason to believe they would indeed rebell against it outright on a vast scale, and that the resulting conflict would truly damage (likely beyond repair) the United States as we know it. Democracy would indeed then reach midnight. Sorry, but I simply see this as realistic and don't share your optomism. I certianly hope I am wrong, but I think we are in very serious danger as a nation if we don't get the next few years at least somewhat right. And so far, I don't see that happening.
"By contrast, hardline progressives became only more judgmental of those who wouldn’t parrot all of their beliefs and declarations."
"Became..." is not precise enough. The correct phrase is "...became and still are only more judgmental..." toward anyone who dissents from their worldview by even the slightest degree. Hardline progressives control Democratic nominating contests almost everywhere in the country because they vote in primaries at rates far greater than more moderate voters do.
A genuinely moderate Democrat - in both substance and rhetoric - would likely win a landslide in the 2028 presidential election over JD Vance. But he/she can't win the general election without first beating the crazy Wokesters (Newsom, Pritzker, Harris, et al) who are loved by hardline progressives.
You had me until your final paragraph. First off, I think Democrats vastly underestimate Vance, much in the way that they underestimated Ronald Reagan. Secondly, after a decade or more of escalating craziness, I think it's going to take a lot more than some '28 candidate who calls itself a "moderate." I really think that Democrats fail to understand the degree to which they have burned bridges and lost trust. We shall see.
Vance is very articulate, very smart, very well-informed, i.e. he has impressive qualities that Trump does not have. But by 2028 Trump will likely have worn out his welcome with the public, and Republicans will not have any credible solutions for several pressing problems: tens of millions of people who fear medical bankruptcy; the massive deficits every year; the serious funding issues for Social Security and Medicare. Republican primary voters are dogmatically opposed to any tax increases, period. At some point, that dogmatism will backfire on them and Democrats will take full control of the federal government.
"...tens of millions of people who fear medical bankruptcy; the massive deficits every year; the serious funding issues for Social Security and Medicare..." not only have Dems not offered any solutions to these problems, they excoriate anyone who attempts to discuss them.
I think Vance will come across as a relief from Trump's bombast. As for opposition to tax increases, that one cuts both ways. The Democratic Party never met a tax it didn't raise. Taxes are their drug of choice.
Au contraire, mon frère! Nothing illustrates the idiotic Hatfield/McCoy nature of our current political discourse as much as the Democrats full throated opposition to tariffs. The one and only business tax they currently see no upside to, while not seeing any downside to any other taxes on businesses.
I don't take Democratic opposition to tariffs seriously. I think it's part of their knee-jerk reaction to all things Trump. If they were against tariffs, why did Biden keep the ones that Trump imposed in his first term? On my list of complaints about the Democrats is that they have no articulated, logical economic vision, let alone coherent policies.
By the way, aren't the rich "progressives" forever lecturing everyone about consuming too much? Well, if they weren't just puking out whatever they read in some op-ed last week, you'd think they would love tariffs, wouldn't you? The "progressives" don't know what they want.
It is one of the greatest historical political ironies ever, that the worst things that could befall either Party in the short term, may ultimately be their saving grace in the long term.
If Reps are shellacked in the Midterms, Dems will impeach Trump again. Like an addict staring at a coffee table piled high with white powder, Dems will not know if it is the best high of their life, or drain cleaner, and it will not matter. They will not be able to stop themselves. Reps would be forced to confront the optics of deportations and the consequences of never fixing healthcare.
For Dems, a SCOTUS ruling that non citizens, now comprising 15-20% of all US residents, can no longer be counted for apportionment sake, would seem to be a Dem death knell. Blue States would bleed Congressional seats far more than Red States, except Texas. The ruling however, would hand Dems a ladder out of their ever worsening Open Border hole. Blue States buckling under the costs of caring for non economically self sufficient migrants would reevaluate their priorities. Suddenly Blue States would be forced to implement polices that would cause US citizens to desire to live in their states.
I can't hold myself out as a prognosticator of mid-terms. I can only go on what I have read from numbers-oriented people, all of which is to say that my confidence in the following is attenuated.
As we sit here, the Dems are +2% in the generic ballot per the Real Clear Politics average. I don't think that's enough to regain the House, even apart from gerrymandering in TX vs CA, and then in a few other states.
The other thing to consider is that Republicans appear to be making significant gains in registration in states that register by party. I still don't have a good handle on how durable these gains are or how they might translate into House seats, but on that front I sure would rather be the Republicans than the Democrats, who are losing ground just about everywhere.
Finally, the Republicans have a perennial tendency to lag in turnout for mid-terms. My hypothesis there is that they are less focused on government to begin with. So, if I were them, I'd be looking for every way I could to boost turnout next year. It's too early to go into high gear now, but not to early to be thinking how to get it done next fall.
If I were the Rs, I'd make the biggest possible push next year. Only three times in the last 120 years has the party in power failed to lose seats in the mid-terms. If the Rs hold the House or even increase their margin there by any number of seats however small, it will be a real gut punch to Democratic morale.
This should read "15%-20% of some districts", not all US residents. It is too late to edit . I have to stop writing these things, while doing laundry . The dryer bings and I never proof read. Sorry
And when/if they do, if the national Democrats also haven't truly changed their aproach to governing by then, I don't think most Republicans will just accept it while waiting/preparing fot the next election. It is possible we could actually see a collapse in conflct and become a non-democracy or even failed state. I also do see it as possible that Republicans might attempt to stop an election that looks like it would lead to full Dem control, as we would not be likely to get another Biden for a Dem president, but instead a hard core progressive in that case, even if they call themselves moderate, who would be likely to have strong authoritarian tendencies.
What I believe many Democrats just don't get, is how many Republicans (and some independents), have by now decided that they abosolutely will not willingly live under the full set of social and other policies now supported by progressives at the national level.
The latter is something we have never seen before. Not even under Biden, given the block often posed in congress by a handful of conservative Dems, as well as by Biden's own occasional lingering conservative tendencies. Instead, they would likely outright rebell in vast numbers against hard core progressive rule. The chaos ensuing could in turn lead to the true end of US democracy, and possibly (in time) of the US (as we know it) itself...
I have been voting for 50 years and observing for even longer, and I am genuinely astonished at the Democrats not only clinging bitterly to the most left leaning "progressives" but inching even further. Do they have a political death wish? I really wonder.
My impression from following and engaging with some of them online is that they are very narrative rather then experiance driven, and largely believe, at least superficially that they are right and that the majority of voters actually agree with them. But there is also definitally degrees of major cognetive disonance and denialism going on. In my experiance they tend to blame Gerrymandering (as if only Republicans did it) and other dirty tricks, and view beliefs on reality (as apposed to morals) other then their own as being misinformed and/or conspiratorial. They basically just have to be/are "correct" and others misinformed. Thinking they are better informed is part of their identity! Being truly not open minded on certian issues, and given any evidence to the contrary, their tendency is to double down and furrher segregate.
Meanwhile those with differing morals are viewed as being hateful, racist, bigots, fascist, and so on. Most really do either live in their own world and do talk politics or social conteovercias with those with differing views (they may or may not interact with such people at all).
But the other huge thing that doesn't get talked about nearly enough is life experiance. I'll give just one example with immigration and concerns about job displacement: Professional class and even many working class Democrats don't see illegal or "excessive" immigration as issues and view such concerns as racist do to the simple fact that they lives in and spend their lives in areas with a low percentage of US working class people other then secund generation children of immigrants, and sometimes Black Americans, but only sometimes the latter. And often these areas (in particular) have basically no working class white laborers that are visable to them. Even if there are some around they either don't see them or don't notice them (perhaps after a very brief feeling of unease that is soon forgoten).
And because they tend to be largely narrative driven, their beliefs on other issues then follows. I am focusing on immigration and job demographics here but a simeler phenomenon is likely occuring with many other controversies as well.
So, the very concept of say, an Anglo-American tree trimmer or construction laborer is often foriegn to them, even though more then half of all tree trimmers and close to half of construction laborers in the US, are still Non Hispanic White. Immigrants and Latinos in general are highly overrepresented in these jobs of course but that varies drastically accross the country. But in the actual experiance of much of the Dem voting Professional class (and some working class Democrats) these really are "Jobs Americans (or at least white Americans) won't do, or so they think. So the idea that such American workers could actually be or even feel excluded/displaced (millions of such workers have left California for other states since 1990 for example) goes against their beliefs concerning white privilage, -such concerns can only be racist! And those workers who left, also racist, or it at least their leaving had nothing to do with being/feeling discrimminated against or otherwise marginalized...
There are many obvious exceptions to the above, such as cities like Portland or Seattle (even Boston to an extent) among others, or outside these bubbles including some nearby suburbs, where high concentrations of professional class white Democrats unavoidably live close ro and interact with large working class white populations. Some of these such as Portland, OR, or Minniapolis, MN are now places of unusual tension in recent years in part for just this reason, while others like much of New England are just differant, differant because In practice, professional class white Democrats tend ro view New England working class whites as being much less problematic (and harder working) then others of the same demographic, and becuase of this there is still a degree of protective class paternalism in NE which also leads NE working class whites to be substancially more pro union and a lot less Republican (if not exactly progressive on average) then elsewhere. To a lesser extent, something simeler is true in parts of the pacific Northwest and Minnessota (and various smaller pockets around the country) as well.
I can't stress enough just how much this large scale soceoeconomic and political segregation that began to develop since around 1980 or so and excelerated rapidly in the 1990's, has contributed to the crazy political shift we have seen among democrats of the last decade. The crazy only went into overdrive more recently because durring Obama's secund term is when a tipping point was finally reached and then Trump winning truly set people off.
A major impediment to change for Progressives is the following:
People can be more in love with their opinions than they are with even their families.
As Thich Nhat Hanh, the great Vietnamese Buddhist monk said: our greatest attachment tends to be to our opinions. We clutch on them as if they were jewels. It’s almost as if you had a right to kill somebody in self-defense if they contradict you.
Progressives are too in love with their opinions, which is that they hold the higher moral ground. Even when they lose they feel good about themselves because of the warm glow they get from feeling morally superior. Consequently, they lose, and, ironically, set back the movement that we Democrats always embraced which was to protect the vulnerable.
Now progressives are saying that they need to just "be quiet" about their beliefs and focus on matters that have broader appeal. In other words, lie to the public.
This is one (of many) things that derailed Harris. She had taken progressive positions, and nobody believed she had actually changed. Instead, she was just saying what was expedient.
We want our old Democratic Party back. As Vassallo says so clearly: We did GREAT things for this country. AND we won.
But to do that, progressives don't have to work on their "messaging." Instead they have to say:
"I was wrong."
And when is the last time you heard that? You don't because people are too in love with their opinions. So our beloved party is doomed.
We can differ on this. The Democratic Party did so much for this country and the beloved people in it, and I was proud to be considered a Democrat.....until Progressives ruined it.
Regarding your reflection on opinions, as you know, the Bible calls it being haughty and prideful, and it afflicts us all. I can certainly be accused of being too in love with my opinions, but I strive to derive the basis for them from our Creator. Just my Christian conservative 2 cents, God bless.
'By pride comes nothing but strife, But with the well-advised is wisdom'
The problem is that the center three fifths of voters on the political spectrum no longer matter in a system where most congressional seats are safe for one of the two major parties. The same goes for far too many states. Those who aren't true believers end up either voting as they always have done or for the candidate whose party disgusts them less. Unless and until our entire electoral and campaign funding system is redesigned to accommodate a diversity far greater than that of two or three generations ago, the extremist see saw we are seeing will continue in a positive feedback loop.
The problem with that hope is that those in power in both parties have no incentive to modify A system that got them into power. Add to that our allied news and social media environment, in which everyone is a victim of someone else's conspiracy, and you have a very hard knot to unravel.
Except for the Voting Rights Act, our electoral framework has changed little since reconstruction. It is basically predicated on having two parties which represent two halves of the same idea of what it is to be American.
Since then social, media, gerrymandering, migration, changes to campaign finance laws (mostly ending restrictions), and increasing minority rights and activism have rendered our system for selecting and electing our representatives obsolete.
The old method of party primaries now spits up extremist candidates who no longer represent the bulk of the electorate.
First, get rid.of party primaries in favor of a single first stage vote in which all.candidates stand, using ranked choice voting. Top.two candidates go on to a final round. In some areas, this might lead to two candidates from the same party facing off in the general election. The more moderate one is likely to attract voters from other parties. If large numbers of candidates run for a position, A second preliminary round may be needed to cull.the herd.
Such a system should be used for all elected positions, including the presidency. The protracted primary schedule for the presidency gives early states an outsize influence in the election. Votes cast.after Super Tuesday are basically meaningless. And, of course, lose the electoral college.
Congress people are basically in campaign mode all the time. Lengthen their terms to four years. Presidents should.serve A single.six year term.
Large states should get three senators, small ones should have only one. Why should in ND and RI have only one Congress person. But two senators? All should be elected simultaneously using a ranked choice system. This would result in large states like NY, CA, TX, and FL electing senators from different parties. As things stand, Republicans in CA and democrats in TX have no hope of Senatorial representation.
Consider electing slates.of Congress people statewide to disable gerrymandering.
No federal lawmaker or executive should be able.to.stand for election after their 70 th birthday. If we have learned nothing else from the current and previous presidential incumbent, it should be that.
Supreme court justices should serve single 18year terms, with one being retired every two years. Maximum age at nomination: 60.
The Citizens United ruling needs to be overridden by Congress. Money is not speech. I don't have freedom of speech if you can drown me with a megaphone.
I know that much of this would require constitutional change. But our framework is basically the same.as it was two and a half centuries ago. And that is why I would like to see a top to bottom review of our constitution every 50 or 60 years.
The framework is the same, because it was intended to endure. Each state has 2 Senators because what the Founders feared most was centralized power and rule by cities. The American Revolutionaries were unique. Most revolutionaries are too tired, hungry and abused to have anything left to lose. The US was founded by wealthy men, tied to the land thru their God. They risked everything to be free, and then turned around and handed power to farmers and farriers. One man, one vote was certainly not the prevailing political system of the day.
In some ways, they actually envisioned some form of the last decade, and they did everything in their power to plan for it. They feared big states running roughshod over little ones, and rural residents decried for being rural. Urban elite, sure they should run the country, with no input from their lessers.
The US has the most unique, successful governing system on the planet. The longer we are around, the more important it becomes. Imagine the US without the Electoral College, or the above proposed changes in the Senate. The entire nation would be CA, or worse. Maybe we should stick with what has worked for 250 years.
"The US has the most unique, successful governing system on the planet."
In the 250 years since the US had its one and only revolution, France has had revolutions to create:
* 5 different republics
* 2 restorations of the monarchy
* 2 dictators named Napoleon
* 1 Vichy occupation
And if you are inclined to call the switch from the Articles to the Constitution a revolution, I won't quibble. But by that standard, France has had 13 different constitutions. And France is precocious by European standards! Most continental European nations did not have stable representative governments until after WW2.
I read all of this and, while I agree with much of it, I find it overly complex. I think the progressive left’s current state could be mitigated to an extent by adhering to a simple guiding principle: 'Don’t Be An Asshole’.
The other side of it isn’t that complicated either. There doesn’t appear, to me at least, to be any political 4D chess-level of strategy informing the MAGA movement. For many, myself included, it’s just simple common sense policy. America first, strong borders, law and order. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than whatever it is the current Democrat party stands for, which I can’t even define at this point.
I’d also caution alluding to ‘bad omens’ for a crumbling democracy just because one party lost an election. That type of hyperbole is a big part of the problem.
Until and unless there is some remedy to the ideological corruption in the education system and the related dishonest media gaslighting, there is little hope for the Democrat party. Democrats filter as people more susceptible to emotional terrorism. They are more easily triggered and tweaked to a point of emotional turmoil. They also lack self-awareness of this fault, and they live in a constant mode of self-denial. This creates a toxic cycle of bad behavior and bad choices that is reinforced by them running to their safe spaces where their wrongness is reinforced by others like them as being right and righteous. Democrats do not process logical consequences because their “thinking” process is stuck in their emotional outer rind.
Think about the past where people prone to easy fear, anxiety, resentment and anger over events would rely on their education and media to dose them with facts and truths, and to foster calm pragmatism. That is gone. Not only does the education system and media no longer do the dosing, it has shifted 180 degrees in being the primary source promulgating fear, anxiety, resentment and anger.
Think about competitive team sports where one team is fraught with low capacity for emotional regulation. The coach of the emotive team takes a cheap leadership path to encourage aggressive play powered by overheating the emotions of the players. The opposing team leverages this and does things to enflame the turmoil so that the emotive players make mistakes and thus lose the game.
The problem for the Democrats is that they naturally filter as the least emotionally regulated people. So they are always ripe for exploitation. Democrats NEED calming institutions to help them behave well and make good choices.
"This does not mean that MAGA represents a more sincere or viable alternative."
Really? You eloquently describe in the previous paragraph so many of the progressive issues, and I know you know Trump has the opposite approach to these issues, yet Trump is not a more sincere or viable option, not even a little bit?
Mr. Vassallo, forgive me, but so often when I read the Liberal Patriot, I feel things like this are said mostly just to keep up the subscriptions on the left. I know that's a harsh accusation, and is simply my opinion, but for goodness sakes, not a more viable option to keeping in power a man who had lost so much of his cognitive ability while blatantly lying about it over and over and over again? Doesn't that point alone prove President Trump is a more sincere option?
How about just not being crazy? How about a true leader with courage to speak hard truths and to stand up when the party is off the rails? Watching Democrats circle the wagons around Jay Jones in Virginia - someone who spoke about killing his political opponent's children - I mean how low can the bar possibly be? This is a man worthy of being the attorney general of a state - the top law enforcement officer in Virginia - just because he has a "D" after his name?
I was perpetually amused by the Democrats’ repeated statements that they were willing to do “whatever it takes to defeat Trump” while refusing to do the one thing that would have easily done it: Stop doubling down on policies normie voters think are bat guano crazy.
“How about just not being crazy?”
*looks at unnecessary military occupations of blue cities over state government objections*
*sees HHS linking circumcision to autism*
*watches presidential cabinet meeting straight out of Leninist fever dream*
*Looks at 80+% approval rating of Trump amongst GOP*
…yes, it would be nice if Republicans would reclaim their sanity, but what can you do?
I don't know. . when I see a President, on day 1, make it clear that there are only 2 sexes, that you can't change your sex, that men shouldn't be occupying women's spaces, that gender affirming care for minors is wrong (I believe it's straight up evil), and that secure borders, which obviously reduce the massive sex slave and drug trades, will be obtained, all positions in opposition of progressives, I see sanity returning.
When I see so many of the President's cabinet get up at a giant public event and Boldy declare the saving grace of the gospel (while doing an excellent job of conveying the gospel), I see sanity returning.
When I see Google admit it was heavily censoring folks at the behest of the last administration, saying they won't do that again (we'll see), I see sanity returning.
When I see a President getting this much cooperation/enthusiasm/capitulation in his efforts to broker peace in the middle east even if it's probably naive to think there will ever be a lasting peace there, as opposed to bribing the Mullahs in hopes they will pause their nuclear efforts, I see sanity returning.
When I see so many examples of the cold heartless discourse MG describes so well (illustrated also with the Kirk reactions, the health care CEO murder reactions, etc) from so many on the left, I thank God that through Trump HE has given us a window. A chance to repent and return to the wisdom of HIS word.
God bless Minsky
It is always bizarre to watch the god-fearing making a savior out of a godless man.
Nonetheless, when a fellow whose views you *don’t* like gets elected and grabs ahold of all the authoritarian precedents Trump has set, and this ‘insane’ person has stationed the military at your door for the sin of not being one of his supporters, and has no checks left on his power over you, perhaps you’ll see the error of thinking godless men have the moral compass to truly do the lord’s work. The reckoning always comes, you know—that much the good book tells us.
Out of curiosity, how do you rank Tump on an authoritarian scale compared to the following:
* Biden
* Woodrow Wilson
* FDR
"It is always bizarre to watch the god-fearing making a savior out of a godless man."
Secular people seem to work from a mental understanding that the Bible is a book of virtuous people who do virtuous deeds to advance God's kingdom--that there is a hero's journey embedded in the Bible, such that the heroes are made of better stuff than the villains. But that's not how it works. The Bible is a book of a holy God using sinful people. Some of them are believers, like King David, and some are not, like King Cyrus.
I can only speak for myself, but I'd gone underground as a Christian and a conservative. I was making peace with what it meant to be a Christian in a world where secular leftism had all the power and hated my beliefs. There were two men who stand out as being particularly bold in fighting back and not conceding any ground. One was Charlie Kirk and the other was Trump. One was assassinated and the other turned his head just as his would-be assassin pulled the trigger. They both had far more courage than me--I was too afraid of getting fired to be bold.
"The Bible is a book of a holy God using sinful people."
You don't possess the knowledge of God, though, yes? Theologically, He has foresight to see that a sinful person may be put to a virtuous purpose; you do not. You can only judge according to people's behavior--this would make appointing godless men as saviors of the faith and rewarding their godless behavior more akin to idolatry than anything else.
FWIW, I wouldn't include Charlie Kirk in that category, though I disagreed with him. (assassination of anyone is wrong regardless) But Trump? Trump is so clearly beyond the bounds of what it means to be a good Christian that every Christian should be repulsed by him. And don't confuse the shamelessness of narcissists for courage--courage implies risking something for some purpose greater than acquiring advantage and power for yourself. Anyone who does not care for anyone beyond themselves is not capable of courage. And the history of Trump's actions is indubitably the profile of a narcissist.
He certainly outranks any of the three you listed on the 'scale of authoritarianism', btw, particularly Biden or FDR. Wilson had his moments and had authoritarian (read: Confederate slaveowner) sympathies, but he never attempted to invade his opposition's cities for political gain, attempt to directly subordinate the press to presidential authority, or a hundred other things Trump has done that go well beyond the bounds of American (small L) liberalism.
"this would make appointing godless men as saviors of the faith and rewarding their godless behavior more akin to idolatry than anything else."
First, bear in mind that Trump is not a Christian. The theologian RC Sproul once quipped that he'd march arm in arm with the devil himself on issues of common grace, such as ending abortion.
Second, bear in mind that Christianity is not a Manichaean worldview in which people who are good fight against people who are evil. Instead the Christian worldview is people who are evil sinners being used by God to advance his kingdom. Believers are called to repentance, but Trump is not a believer. That's why Erika Kirk forgave her husband's murderer, whereas Trump proudly proclaimed that he hates his enemies and only wishes bad things on them. Of course there was also some self-aware trolling in Trump's statement, as in all his statements.
FDR
-----
* Interned American citizens of Japanese ethnicity without a trial, by executive order.
* Seized the entire private gold supply minus a personal allotment by executive order.
* Violated the single most important norm in American politics: the two term limit for presidents.
What has Trump done that's worse than those?
Wilson
-------
* Passed the Espionage and Sedition Acts for censoring American citizens.
* Passed multiple executive orders around censorship.
You did seem to suggest that Trump may not be as bad as Wilson, so perhaps not relevant?
Biden + Post-Obama era
-------------------------
* Taking away women's rights to single-sex spaces by executive order redefining sex on the basis of gender identity. This includes biological males in Federal prisons
* The Biden administration agreeing to support Europe in censoring US speech via the Digital Services Act
* The Biden administration targeting parents who objected to school policies - and exercising their first amendment rights to object - as domestic terrorists and then refusing FOIA requests.
* Fabricated the entire Russian collusion hoax
* The 51 spies who lied about Hunter Biden's laptop
* Government funding for agencies like Newsguard, the Global Engagement Group and the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM)to censor conservatives
* The FBI, DOJ, and White House working with Twitter, Facebook, Instagram etc. to censor Covid origins and Biden's laptop, along with other stories
* Biden's FBI targeting peaceful pro-life Catholics while ignoring and declining to prosecute violent Antifa protestors?
* The IRS targeting conservative groups for audits
* The FBI wiretapping Republican politicians
*unnecessary occupations* - subjective
*linking circumcision to autism* - referred to using acetaminophen post-circumcision
*watches presidential cabinet meeting* - as opposed to Biden not holding a cabinet meeting for nearly a year?
*looks at 80% approval rating* - the horror. Almost as horrifying as fantasizing about killing children, right?
What is “being crazy” to you?
"Working families want economic security and safe, healthy communities, not a cultural revolution teeming with rent-seekers and grifters."
There is the core of your argument. And a very good argument it is.
I’d add that working families tend to view “economic security” as a good paying job with benefits in a robust economy and not as a government handout.
If the Democrats asked me how to improve their electoral chances, I would tell them to abandon identity politics. But, if I told them that, they would call me a racist.
If I could distill my impression of the Democratic Party in one image, it is Katie Porter.
She is the Dems' new Poster Child — or arrested adolescent, if you prefer.
Have you seen that AI video with Katie Porter flying across the table and wrestling the CBS interviewer? Hysterical.
Scroll down to see the video
https://www.newsweek.com/katie-porter-targeted-ai-video-viewed-1-million-times-10869351
That’s hysterical
This is excellent, but the goal will require a modern day Dem Martin Luther, and those seem in short supply. Any Dem Savior must effectively communicate the actual Dem nemesis is mass policy failure, not an 80 year old, term limited Queens builder.
The vast bulk of Dem Party seems unwilling to address the reality of the Biden term. Perhaps the myth of MAGA is such a strong political blinder, Dems are akin to a blinkered carriage horse, frozen in the middle of an intersection. The horse is petrified of an incessantly barking, elderly dog straight ahead, while missing the semi truck barreling toward his side, at 75 mph.
Little better illustrates the problem, then the flight of Americans from the most Progressive US states. CA is one of the prettiest places on earth, with one of the most temperate climates, yet between 2010-2023, 9.3 million people fled the state. Those arriving numbered only 6.7 million, and on average, those people earned $40K less a year, then those departing. Ditto for NY and IL. Residents are voting with their feet, and generally the traffic only moves one direction.
Yet, two of the most lauded potential 2028 Dem Presidential candidates are the Governors of CA and IL. AOC is rumored to soon be the 3rd leg of the unholy political Trinity. They are the same leaders that have seen their state's poverty rates soar and living standards drop, under their rule. They have also encouraged mass ICE protests in their states, mere weeks after an assassin targeted Dallas ICE officers, killing detainees and wounding others. The insanity gives new meaning to the term "failing up".
Dems can take some solace in the fact they have company. Progressivism is failing all over Europe. The natives are not just restless. There is instability and outright unrest from Paris to Stockholm. Yet Dems remain too obsessed with Trump to realize the 3 pillars of their Party, Open Borders, Climate and Woke polices are being rejected, not just from sea to shining sea, but around the globe. A political Reformation has rarely been more needed, but no one should hold their breath awaiting one.
This is a very good intellectual argument on the foundation of what went wrong with the Democrats. Considering how the Democrats let this get so thoroughly into their DNA I am not sure I see an easy way for them to break free. Just way too much money and careers and reputation tied into it. Probably going to take two things happening. One is the money source needs to change and two a strong, charismatic leadership needs to emerge.
I’ve been beating this drum as well. Because they have so many subgroups who feel their “cause” should be first on the list, Dems rarely succeed without an effective transformative charismatic leader - Obama, Bill Clinton. The current crop are all tied to the mast riding out the storm. No one is steering the ship and calling folks to his/her banner.
I see NO SIGN that the Democrats have backed away from ANY of their "cultural" bullshit. It's full speed ahead wherever I look.
This isn't to endorse Archie Bunker Trump's nutcasery, but Trump's penchant for wild hyperbole causes everyone other than the drooling, hate-soaked "progressives" in charge of the Democratic Party to discount a lot of the most irritating and embarrassing crap from him. Also, as crazy as the wingnuts get, at least for the time being their "brand" (I hate the term, which is why I put it in quotes) mostly boils down to personal libertarianism. More than anything, most people just want the government to know its place and stay out of their face all the time. The Republicans lead on that one, and it's crucial.
If there's an exception, it would be in the extreme abortion bans in some of the R-controlled states. The "progressives" have bungled that by remaining at the extreme end rather than daring to be realistic and pursuing not just policy but rhetoric that isn't absolutist. Look, just go for a European limit of 12 weeks, maybe 15 weeks because Americans are lazy, and later if the mother's life or physical health is in danger. And stop calling abortion "reproductive health care."
But nope, can't even make sense on the one "cultural" issue where the conservatives are somewhat vulnerable. On everything else, the "progressives," which means the whole Democratic Party because the "progressives" run it from top to bottom and just about everywhere in between, are obnoxious, arrogant, condescending, hectoring, and yes, authoritarian. Not to mention grim, humorless, and utterly incapable of discussion or self reflection.
And then they wonder why their "brand" is less popular than it's been for a hundred years? No, they don't even do that much. If they're not in denial, they are lashing out at the very people whose votes, money, and support they need. Not popular? Uh-uh. Americans are stupid.
Good f'ing luck, Democrats. You'll need it.
I could be wrong but it seems to me abortion is neutered as a subject. Dems spent the year before Trump's election, lecturing a 2nd Trump term would bring a national abortion ban. Now they are silent. Likewise, for the 28 year olds predicting tech and finance firms would flee Red States in response to their abortion laws.
The above notes more restrictions in Red States under Dobbs, but fails to mention many Blue States under Dobbs, now have access until the delivery room. Moreover, in some states, an 11 year old seeking an abortion with a stranger cannot be denied, and anyone attempting to contact her parents, is likely to lose their medical license.
The reality is roughly 65% of all abortions now involve a few pills, who often arrive in the mail. Unreasonable laws abound on both sides, who have gone to their respective corners and are likely to stay there.
I agree with you. I already write too long. If I were to write at length about abortion, I would make many of the same points.
Rhonda - neutered is a good way to put it. The big question was whether the Christian right would bail on trump when his position shifted, but they seem happy enough to battle it out at a state level where in some cases they can get more than they would have ever gotten at a federal level.
This effectively took abortion off the table as a rallying cry for the right, but also blunted it as an issue for the left. Given the calculus of the electoral college, hammering on this issue is now mostly preaching to the choir, or at most influencing state initiatives.
You know who is leaving those red states? Obstetricians and gynecologists. And those that remain are often less experienced at the procedure, because it is done so much less often. Women who need a doomed pregnancy terminated before complications arise or have a problem miscarriage that requires a D and X are going out of state, if they have the means.
Nice try. There is no evidence that OB-GYNs are leaving red states because of abortion laws, but why not just accept made-up propaganda? OB-GYN has had a long standing medical liability problem, something that "progressives" have ignored until they could tell the media that it's caused by abortion laws.
From JAMA survey:
"Before the Dobbs decision, OBGYN practitioner supply patterns were similar between the 12 most restrictive and 14 control states (Figure). Practitioner supply increased overall across all states, but statistically significant decreases in OBGYN practitioners were noted after the ruling. Compared with the control group, the most restrictive states had a 4.2% decrease in practitioners per 100 000 reproductive-aged females (−3.0; 95% CI, −5.9 to −0.2; P = .04) (Table). Findings were robust to sensitivity analyses (Table; eMethods in Supplement 1)".
Proves nothing. Did they test for collinearity? And why only 26 states? Cherry picked.
No slowing whatsoever in voter registration stats. Last week NV flipped back to red with R+2300 after a significant drop in D registrations. FL now is marching toward R+1.5 million. Small gains in DE, RI, NJ, larger gains in NC and PA. In no state, anywhere that we can see in the voter registration stats, are Ds gaining ground (NV seems to have been the last hope).
I've signed up for Capt. K's substack. He's further to the right than I am, but he looks pretty good on the numbers.
An insightful essay, but I’m not sure I agree that there’s been a distortion of “what the national party really stands for.“ The national party stands for not making waves with its most radical members. Thus, it makes minimal effort in the face of illegal immigration. It prioritises illegal immigrants on Section 8 housing and spends billions of free healthcare for them while citizens go without. It votes as a bloc for men in women’s sports (and prisons). It criminalises any approach that isn’t drugs/surgeries to treat adolescent confusion. It promotes a justice system that weeps for criminals while kicking victims.
Anyone who’s deviated from these positions has been vilified.
The Dems have become the party of Resistance (tm). After two years of chanting CEASE
FIRE NOW (along with some less savory things), they’re still protesting because the wrong guy brokered the deal. The Trump Administration released an agreement for universities, parts of which paraphrase Martin Luther King’s I Have a Dream speech, and they resist it as a fascist power grab. Newsom has even declared loss of state funding for any university that signs on. I believe that the southern white supremacists reacted the same way to federal enforcement of civil rights laws back in the day.
From the grassroots members to the elected elites, the left and the Democratic Patty are essentially integrated into one another. Maybe the grassroots leans more heavily into “From the river to the sea” than most elected Democrats, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Dems have changed from a party that wanted to lift all boats to one of grievances, resentment, and begrudgery.
I agree that aspects of the MAGA movement are frightening. But right now, a party I’ve been voting for since the 80s scares me more.
“ A lot will depend on whether Democrats come to terms with the cultural dissonance at the heart of modern progressivism.”
This piece, presumably unintentionally, reveals that the left is light years away from coming to that realization.
“George Floyd protests”? Call them what they were. Riots. If you want to know why the right didn’t pay much of a political price for the J6 MAGA riot, it’s because after several months of the left excusing if not tacitly approving of left wing rioting we saw a riot properly and promptly put down including with the use of lethal force. Then the left overreached by attempting to spin it up as an “insurrection” and going after everyone who was there instead of just those who assaulted LEOs.
Next up you seem to hand wave away Ruy’s piece that clearly outlays the abject failure of Democrats’ governance where they have complete control by simply stating they have a bad reputation as if it’s all based on perception.
Lastly stop with the hyperbolic nonsense. We are not anywhere close to “ American democracy as we know it is nearing midnight”. John Stewart had some great advice for Republicans who were screaming similar nonsense when President Obama was pushing the limits of Executive power:
“When the person you didn’t vote for wins an election, he’s going to do a lot of things you don’t like. That’s not authoritarianism it’s what losing an election feels like”
I wish I could agree with you on the last part. But I do not. Obama as president was nowhere near the level of progressive social insanity that has since taken over the Democratic party. He was an old school liberal by comaprison. I am a former Democrat turned true independent but I keep up with both sides of the spectrum, including within my personal life. And this itself has become increasingly difficult. Republicans have largely gone crazy in a differant way. But they will not willingly live under the full power of what those like Gov. Newsom of CA have tried to do. I have good reason to believe they would indeed rebell against it outright on a vast scale, and that the resulting conflict would truly damage (likely beyond repair) the United States as we know it. Democracy would indeed then reach midnight. Sorry, but I simply see this as realistic and don't share your optomism. I certianly hope I am wrong, but I think we are in very serious danger as a nation if we don't get the next few years at least somewhat right. And so far, I don't see that happening.
"By contrast, hardline progressives became only more judgmental of those who wouldn’t parrot all of their beliefs and declarations."
"Became..." is not precise enough. The correct phrase is "...became and still are only more judgmental..." toward anyone who dissents from their worldview by even the slightest degree. Hardline progressives control Democratic nominating contests almost everywhere in the country because they vote in primaries at rates far greater than more moderate voters do.
A genuinely moderate Democrat - in both substance and rhetoric - would likely win a landslide in the 2028 presidential election over JD Vance. But he/she can't win the general election without first beating the crazy Wokesters (Newsom, Pritzker, Harris, et al) who are loved by hardline progressives.
You had me until your final paragraph. First off, I think Democrats vastly underestimate Vance, much in the way that they underestimated Ronald Reagan. Secondly, after a decade or more of escalating craziness, I think it's going to take a lot more than some '28 candidate who calls itself a "moderate." I really think that Democrats fail to understand the degree to which they have burned bridges and lost trust. We shall see.
Vance is very articulate, very smart, very well-informed, i.e. he has impressive qualities that Trump does not have. But by 2028 Trump will likely have worn out his welcome with the public, and Republicans will not have any credible solutions for several pressing problems: tens of millions of people who fear medical bankruptcy; the massive deficits every year; the serious funding issues for Social Security and Medicare. Republican primary voters are dogmatically opposed to any tax increases, period. At some point, that dogmatism will backfire on them and Democrats will take full control of the federal government.
"...tens of millions of people who fear medical bankruptcy; the massive deficits every year; the serious funding issues for Social Security and Medicare..." not only have Dems not offered any solutions to these problems, they excoriate anyone who attempts to discuss them.
I think Vance will come across as a relief from Trump's bombast. As for opposition to tax increases, that one cuts both ways. The Democratic Party never met a tax it didn't raise. Taxes are their drug of choice.
Au contraire, mon frère! Nothing illustrates the idiotic Hatfield/McCoy nature of our current political discourse as much as the Democrats full throated opposition to tariffs. The one and only business tax they currently see no upside to, while not seeing any downside to any other taxes on businesses.
And yes the reverse is true for the GOP.
I don't take Democratic opposition to tariffs seriously. I think it's part of their knee-jerk reaction to all things Trump. If they were against tariffs, why did Biden keep the ones that Trump imposed in his first term? On my list of complaints about the Democrats is that they have no articulated, logical economic vision, let alone coherent policies.
By the way, aren't the rich "progressives" forever lecturing everyone about consuming too much? Well, if they weren't just puking out whatever they read in some op-ed last week, you'd think they would love tariffs, wouldn't you? The "progressives" don't know what they want.
It is one of the greatest historical political ironies ever, that the worst things that could befall either Party in the short term, may ultimately be their saving grace in the long term.
If Reps are shellacked in the Midterms, Dems will impeach Trump again. Like an addict staring at a coffee table piled high with white powder, Dems will not know if it is the best high of their life, or drain cleaner, and it will not matter. They will not be able to stop themselves. Reps would be forced to confront the optics of deportations and the consequences of never fixing healthcare.
For Dems, a SCOTUS ruling that non citizens, now comprising 15-20% of all US residents, can no longer be counted for apportionment sake, would seem to be a Dem death knell. Blue States would bleed Congressional seats far more than Red States, except Texas. The ruling however, would hand Dems a ladder out of their ever worsening Open Border hole. Blue States buckling under the costs of caring for non economically self sufficient migrants would reevaluate their priorities. Suddenly Blue States would be forced to implement polices that would cause US citizens to desire to live in their states.
I can't hold myself out as a prognosticator of mid-terms. I can only go on what I have read from numbers-oriented people, all of which is to say that my confidence in the following is attenuated.
As we sit here, the Dems are +2% in the generic ballot per the Real Clear Politics average. I don't think that's enough to regain the House, even apart from gerrymandering in TX vs CA, and then in a few other states.
The other thing to consider is that Republicans appear to be making significant gains in registration in states that register by party. I still don't have a good handle on how durable these gains are or how they might translate into House seats, but on that front I sure would rather be the Republicans than the Democrats, who are losing ground just about everywhere.
Finally, the Republicans have a perennial tendency to lag in turnout for mid-terms. My hypothesis there is that they are less focused on government to begin with. So, if I were them, I'd be looking for every way I could to boost turnout next year. It's too early to go into high gear now, but not to early to be thinking how to get it done next fall.
If I were the Rs, I'd make the biggest possible push next year. Only three times in the last 120 years has the party in power failed to lose seats in the mid-terms. If the Rs hold the House or even increase their margin there by any number of seats however small, it will be a real gut punch to Democratic morale.
This should read "15%-20% of some districts", not all US residents. It is too late to edit . I have to stop writing these things, while doing laundry . The dryer bings and I never proof read. Sorry
Mrs
And when/if they do, if the national Democrats also haven't truly changed their aproach to governing by then, I don't think most Republicans will just accept it while waiting/preparing fot the next election. It is possible we could actually see a collapse in conflct and become a non-democracy or even failed state. I also do see it as possible that Republicans might attempt to stop an election that looks like it would lead to full Dem control, as we would not be likely to get another Biden for a Dem president, but instead a hard core progressive in that case, even if they call themselves moderate, who would be likely to have strong authoritarian tendencies.
What I believe many Democrats just don't get, is how many Republicans (and some independents), have by now decided that they abosolutely will not willingly live under the full set of social and other policies now supported by progressives at the national level.
The latter is something we have never seen before. Not even under Biden, given the block often posed in congress by a handful of conservative Dems, as well as by Biden's own occasional lingering conservative tendencies. Instead, they would likely outright rebell in vast numbers against hard core progressive rule. The chaos ensuing could in turn lead to the true end of US democracy, and possibly (in time) of the US (as we know it) itself...
I have been voting for 50 years and observing for even longer, and I am genuinely astonished at the Democrats not only clinging bitterly to the most left leaning "progressives" but inching even further. Do they have a political death wish? I really wonder.
My impression from following and engaging with some of them online is that they are very narrative rather then experiance driven, and largely believe, at least superficially that they are right and that the majority of voters actually agree with them. But there is also definitally degrees of major cognetive disonance and denialism going on. In my experiance they tend to blame Gerrymandering (as if only Republicans did it) and other dirty tricks, and view beliefs on reality (as apposed to morals) other then their own as being misinformed and/or conspiratorial. They basically just have to be/are "correct" and others misinformed. Thinking they are better informed is part of their identity! Being truly not open minded on certian issues, and given any evidence to the contrary, their tendency is to double down and furrher segregate.
Meanwhile those with differing morals are viewed as being hateful, racist, bigots, fascist, and so on. Most really do either live in their own world and do talk politics or social conteovercias with those with differing views (they may or may not interact with such people at all).
But the other huge thing that doesn't get talked about nearly enough is life experiance. I'll give just one example with immigration and concerns about job displacement: Professional class and even many working class Democrats don't see illegal or "excessive" immigration as issues and view such concerns as racist do to the simple fact that they lives in and spend their lives in areas with a low percentage of US working class people other then secund generation children of immigrants, and sometimes Black Americans, but only sometimes the latter. And often these areas (in particular) have basically no working class white laborers that are visable to them. Even if there are some around they either don't see them or don't notice them (perhaps after a very brief feeling of unease that is soon forgoten).
And because they tend to be largely narrative driven, their beliefs on other issues then follows. I am focusing on immigration and job demographics here but a simeler phenomenon is likely occuring with many other controversies as well.
So, the very concept of say, an Anglo-American tree trimmer or construction laborer is often foriegn to them, even though more then half of all tree trimmers and close to half of construction laborers in the US, are still Non Hispanic White. Immigrants and Latinos in general are highly overrepresented in these jobs of course but that varies drastically accross the country. But in the actual experiance of much of the Dem voting Professional class (and some working class Democrats) these really are "Jobs Americans (or at least white Americans) won't do, or so they think. So the idea that such American workers could actually be or even feel excluded/displaced (millions of such workers have left California for other states since 1990 for example) goes against their beliefs concerning white privilage, -such concerns can only be racist! And those workers who left, also racist, or it at least their leaving had nothing to do with being/feeling discrimminated against or otherwise marginalized...
There are many obvious exceptions to the above, such as cities like Portland or Seattle (even Boston to an extent) among others, or outside these bubbles including some nearby suburbs, where high concentrations of professional class white Democrats unavoidably live close ro and interact with large working class white populations. Some of these such as Portland, OR, or Minniapolis, MN are now places of unusual tension in recent years in part for just this reason, while others like much of New England are just differant, differant because In practice, professional class white Democrats tend ro view New England working class whites as being much less problematic (and harder working) then others of the same demographic, and becuase of this there is still a degree of protective class paternalism in NE which also leads NE working class whites to be substancially more pro union and a lot less Republican (if not exactly progressive on average) then elsewhere. To a lesser extent, something simeler is true in parts of the pacific Northwest and Minnessota (and various smaller pockets around the country) as well.
I can't stress enough just how much this large scale soceoeconomic and political segregation that began to develop since around 1980 or so and excelerated rapidly in the 1990's, has contributed to the crazy political shift we have seen among democrats of the last decade. The crazy only went into overdrive more recently because durring Obama's secund term is when a tipping point was finally reached and then Trump winning truly set people off.
A major impediment to change for Progressives is the following:
People can be more in love with their opinions than they are with even their families.
As Thich Nhat Hanh, the great Vietnamese Buddhist monk said: our greatest attachment tends to be to our opinions. We clutch on them as if they were jewels. It’s almost as if you had a right to kill somebody in self-defense if they contradict you.
Progressives are too in love with their opinions, which is that they hold the higher moral ground. Even when they lose they feel good about themselves because of the warm glow they get from feeling morally superior. Consequently, they lose, and, ironically, set back the movement that we Democrats always embraced which was to protect the vulnerable.
Now progressives are saying that they need to just "be quiet" about their beliefs and focus on matters that have broader appeal. In other words, lie to the public.
This is one (of many) things that derailed Harris. She had taken progressive positions, and nobody believed she had actually changed. Instead, she was just saying what was expedient.
We want our old Democratic Party back. As Vassallo says so clearly: We did GREAT things for this country. AND we won.
But to do that, progressives don't have to work on their "messaging." Instead they have to say:
"I was wrong."
And when is the last time you heard that? You don't because people are too in love with their opinions. So our beloved party is doomed.
A lot of people in my life are "beloved," but not a political party...
We can differ on this. The Democratic Party did so much for this country and the beloved people in it, and I was proud to be considered a Democrat.....until Progressives ruined it.
Regarding your reflection on opinions, as you know, the Bible calls it being haughty and prideful, and it afflicts us all. I can certainly be accused of being too in love with my opinions, but I strive to derive the basis for them from our Creator. Just my Christian conservative 2 cents, God bless.
'By pride comes nothing but strife, But with the well-advised is wisdom'
We are Christian, and see, like you, so much that doesn't follow Jesus' teachings. Sadly. Thank you for this.
The problem is that the center three fifths of voters on the political spectrum no longer matter in a system where most congressional seats are safe for one of the two major parties. The same goes for far too many states. Those who aren't true believers end up either voting as they always have done or for the candidate whose party disgusts them less. Unless and until our entire electoral and campaign funding system is redesigned to accommodate a diversity far greater than that of two or three generations ago, the extremist see saw we are seeing will continue in a positive feedback loop.
The problem with that hope is that those in power in both parties have no incentive to modify A system that got them into power. Add to that our allied news and social media environment, in which everyone is a victim of someone else's conspiracy, and you have a very hard knot to unravel.
"Unless and until our entire electoral and campaign funding system is redesigned to accommodate a diversity..."
Please explain.
Except for the Voting Rights Act, our electoral framework has changed little since reconstruction. It is basically predicated on having two parties which represent two halves of the same idea of what it is to be American.
Since then social, media, gerrymandering, migration, changes to campaign finance laws (mostly ending restrictions), and increasing minority rights and activism have rendered our system for selecting and electing our representatives obsolete.
The old method of party primaries now spits up extremist candidates who no longer represent the bulk of the electorate.
And how would the system be redesigned? Specifically?
First, get rid.of party primaries in favor of a single first stage vote in which all.candidates stand, using ranked choice voting. Top.two candidates go on to a final round. In some areas, this might lead to two candidates from the same party facing off in the general election. The more moderate one is likely to attract voters from other parties. If large numbers of candidates run for a position, A second preliminary round may be needed to cull.the herd.
Such a system should be used for all elected positions, including the presidency. The protracted primary schedule for the presidency gives early states an outsize influence in the election. Votes cast.after Super Tuesday are basically meaningless. And, of course, lose the electoral college.
Congress people are basically in campaign mode all the time. Lengthen their terms to four years. Presidents should.serve A single.six year term.
Large states should get three senators, small ones should have only one. Why should in ND and RI have only one Congress person. But two senators? All should be elected simultaneously using a ranked choice system. This would result in large states like NY, CA, TX, and FL electing senators from different parties. As things stand, Republicans in CA and democrats in TX have no hope of Senatorial representation.
Consider electing slates.of Congress people statewide to disable gerrymandering.
No federal lawmaker or executive should be able.to.stand for election after their 70 th birthday. If we have learned nothing else from the current and previous presidential incumbent, it should be that.
Supreme court justices should serve single 18year terms, with one being retired every two years. Maximum age at nomination: 60.
The Citizens United ruling needs to be overridden by Congress. Money is not speech. I don't have freedom of speech if you can drown me with a megaphone.
I know that much of this would require constitutional change. But our framework is basically the same.as it was two and a half centuries ago. And that is why I would like to see a top to bottom review of our constitution every 50 or 60 years.
All of these proposals have zero chance of being instituted. How useful is it to propose things that are unconstitutional?
The framework is the same, because it was intended to endure. Each state has 2 Senators because what the Founders feared most was centralized power and rule by cities. The American Revolutionaries were unique. Most revolutionaries are too tired, hungry and abused to have anything left to lose. The US was founded by wealthy men, tied to the land thru their God. They risked everything to be free, and then turned around and handed power to farmers and farriers. One man, one vote was certainly not the prevailing political system of the day.
In some ways, they actually envisioned some form of the last decade, and they did everything in their power to plan for it. They feared big states running roughshod over little ones, and rural residents decried for being rural. Urban elite, sure they should run the country, with no input from their lessers.
The US has the most unique, successful governing system on the planet. The longer we are around, the more important it becomes. Imagine the US without the Electoral College, or the above proposed changes in the Senate. The entire nation would be CA, or worse. Maybe we should stick with what has worked for 250 years.
"The US has the most unique, successful governing system on the planet."
In the 250 years since the US had its one and only revolution, France has had revolutions to create:
* 5 different republics
* 2 restorations of the monarchy
* 2 dictators named Napoleon
* 1 Vichy occupation
And if you are inclined to call the switch from the Articles to the Constitution a revolution, I won't quibble. But by that standard, France has had 13 different constitutions. And France is precocious by European standards! Most continental European nations did not have stable representative governments until after WW2.
I read all of this and, while I agree with much of it, I find it overly complex. I think the progressive left’s current state could be mitigated to an extent by adhering to a simple guiding principle: 'Don’t Be An Asshole’.
The other side of it isn’t that complicated either. There doesn’t appear, to me at least, to be any political 4D chess-level of strategy informing the MAGA movement. For many, myself included, it’s just simple common sense policy. America first, strong borders, law and order. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than whatever it is the current Democrat party stands for, which I can’t even define at this point.
I’d also caution alluding to ‘bad omens’ for a crumbling democracy just because one party lost an election. That type of hyperbole is a big part of the problem.
Until and unless there is some remedy to the ideological corruption in the education system and the related dishonest media gaslighting, there is little hope for the Democrat party. Democrats filter as people more susceptible to emotional terrorism. They are more easily triggered and tweaked to a point of emotional turmoil. They also lack self-awareness of this fault, and they live in a constant mode of self-denial. This creates a toxic cycle of bad behavior and bad choices that is reinforced by them running to their safe spaces where their wrongness is reinforced by others like them as being right and righteous. Democrats do not process logical consequences because their “thinking” process is stuck in their emotional outer rind.
Think about the past where people prone to easy fear, anxiety, resentment and anger over events would rely on their education and media to dose them with facts and truths, and to foster calm pragmatism. That is gone. Not only does the education system and media no longer do the dosing, it has shifted 180 degrees in being the primary source promulgating fear, anxiety, resentment and anger.
Think about competitive team sports where one team is fraught with low capacity for emotional regulation. The coach of the emotive team takes a cheap leadership path to encourage aggressive play powered by overheating the emotions of the players. The opposing team leverages this and does things to enflame the turmoil so that the emotive players make mistakes and thus lose the game.
The problem for the Democrats is that they naturally filter as the least emotionally regulated people. So they are always ripe for exploitation. Democrats NEED calming institutions to help them behave well and make good choices.
"This does not mean that MAGA represents a more sincere or viable alternative."
Really? You eloquently describe in the previous paragraph so many of the progressive issues, and I know you know Trump has the opposite approach to these issues, yet Trump is not a more sincere or viable option, not even a little bit?
Mr. Vassallo, forgive me, but so often when I read the Liberal Patriot, I feel things like this are said mostly just to keep up the subscriptions on the left. I know that's a harsh accusation, and is simply my opinion, but for goodness sakes, not a more viable option to keeping in power a man who had lost so much of his cognitive ability while blatantly lying about it over and over and over again? Doesn't that point alone prove President Trump is a more sincere option?