After months of struggling to turn the page on the 2024 election, the Democratic Party is experiencing a tentative “vibe shift.” Much of this stems from the public souring on the Trump administration’s combination of overreach and underperformance.
Another we hope Trump fails so we can win failed strategy. You had joe for 4 years, you give Trump 6 months. And we should vote for such a party why.
CAN DEMOCRATS HAVE ANY CONVERSATION THAT DOESN’T INCLUDE TRUMP?
I don’t need a bunch of losers telling me what I’m watching. Tell me why I should consider voting for you. Try honesty. Try new policies and ideas to prove at least some Dems can think for themselves and demonstrate you actually care about the majority and not cramming the minority, anti science wackos down my throat who you expect us to change our lives for. You can be what you want, except someone who wants me to change my life and worldview to accommodate self righteous and self absorbed anti my life wack jobs.
You’re becoming a broken record. But I guess I should consider, you aren’t about other than Democrats at this point. All that focus will get you is more election losses.
What I am saying is that the essence of science is constant questioning and testing of current science. When those who claim climate change is real and try to shut down opposing voices they are no longer scientist but political hacks. What problem do you have with anyone who wants newer science on vaccines? If the vaccines in question prevent disease, then why does everyone need to be vaccinated? Only those who are not vaccinated are at risk. So why a government mandate? How did those mandates make anything better during covid?
If you're afraid of the conversation and opposing positions, maybe you should sit it out because you are anti science and add nothing of value to the conversation. I worked for the government for 25 years, when they start attacking personally and not the ideas, they have conceded they have no logical or rational argument to present to the real issues.
Take the people out of the problem, solve the problem. Pretty easy concept to keep the conversation on message and not wallow in the mud of denigrating others.
Sorry, you are the one who is anti-science. The vaccine and climate deniers can talk all they want, along with the flat earthers and those who believe the snake tempted Eve and was forced thereafter to slither on the ground. We must, however, act on the best of the best science we have as Trump did when he sped up development of the vaccine. The mandates did help people who could not take the vaccine but, in retrospect, they were on balance a poor idea except as to people working around vulnerable populations. The flat earthers should have been allowed to die with their convictions, as many did.
Maybe in your world. Your worldview and you are welcome to it. But 77 million voters disagreed with you. That makes you and your opinions irrelevant. Have a nice time living in Purgatory. Remember you are known as just another loser.
Pretty childish man. You going to insult my mother now? Well, anyway, it doesn’t seem you committed suicide when Obama and Biden won although I guess you were a “loser” then? I think I will go on somehow until I face a personal challenge greater than the fact that the candidate I did not like got over 49% of the vote.
Childish. Are you saying we all have the same worldview? Or that elections aren't referendums on a party's worldview?
Yes, I was a loser like many when Obama and biden won. But what you seem to want to ignore is that the losers then rebranded themselves and became winners.
What does your mother have to do with any of this? A way for a loser to not take responsibility for their actions. The victim mentality that skews one's view to a losing paradigm never to be corrected. Whether you believe that or not is of no consequence to me. The right made their changes while the left predicted their downfall. And low and behold, the right became the winners. I see no indication with posts like yours that you have any concept of what it now takes to become winners. And that is not just me. Are you not understanding what you read in the Liberal Patriot postings?
Your denial and defense of a losing worldview is good news for me. It means your worldview has very little chance to ever become political leaders for this country again. The closed bubble of the getting smaller everyday Democrat party should be evidence enough to prompt you to spend time on policies and leadership the Dems need to become winners. Denigrating Trump or those who voted him was a losing strategy in Nov 2024 and that has not changed.
I used to believe the Republicans were the best at throwing away opportunities to be winners. If it were possible they would screw up anything every time. But the Dems, being the closed-minded self-absorbed people they are, make the Republicans look like pikers today.
Please tell us the polices that will lead the left from being losers to being winners. Tell us of the leaders you see that will lead you out of the wilderness. Most of all, tell me how you will work to gain my (independents) vote in the next election. You can't win without us.
It's way more then 77 million voters who disagree with him actually, -in fact most Americans do including countless Harris and other anti Trump voters as well as non voters. As just one example, most Americans no longer trust mRNA or covid vaccines for example, and most of those people are actually still very pro vaccine in general including pro school vaccine mandate for at least the currant standard in most states. They (we!) are aghaist at Florida's recent move to end school mandates for example yet also deeply appose some mandates such as for flu or covid where the actual overall evidance (including that which the estableshment has tried to suppress) does not support it. I don't mean for this to be all about vaccines either as this is just one example, but is very typical of a larger pattern that can be applied to counless diffrant issues.
It's so important to remember that a huge fraction of eligeble voters voted for niether Trump nor for Harris. Niether one recieved anywhere near a majority of the vote of all adult US citizens eligible to vote, and even many who did vote for one of the two major US party presidental candidates, did so reluctantly and only as a lesser evil vote!
I can’t believe how many believe any of your type of BS means anything. Don’t assume since you are gullible and not too bright to believe such words are worth anything, that others, not leftist partisan, even care. We don’t and it is one more reason that proves a vote for Trump was the best vote. You people don’t even understand how this country works. Go away, you’re a waste of my time.
Sorry but you are in fact the one being by far the most anti science here just as are many Republicans, -just in a differant way more typical of far too many Democrats. Sure, being a straight up vaccine or climate change deniar is anti-science, but so is having rigid views on these subjects that blindly follow the rhetoric of a deeply corrupt progressive corporate establisment and the scientists on their payrolls!
Supporting the supression of scientific inquery that doesn't fir the established narrative, as the DNC establishment much of the US left has in recent years, is deeply anti science!
On the other hand, being open to scientific evidence other then the positions that you follow on vaccines or climate change is not being anti science! I am the by no means a deniar of the benifits of vaccines or of the reality of climate change. I am generally pro vaccine and recognize vaccine's massive lifesaving affect over the last century as well as the importance of the herd immunity concept, but there are exceptions including the mRNA vaccines in general (I am now with most Americans on this btw!). And flu vaccine for most, though I recognize it may be benificial to some. Human caused climate change is also all too real and humans obviously are having an impact yet the scientific ideas on it most commonly pushed by the US left and democrats is NOT all fully settled science in reality, just as there is very serious scientific doubt and conflicting evidence regarding mRNA products, as well as of the safety and benifit of certian other vaccinations.
Questioning estableshment narratives on these issues is not anti-science, but blindly following them regardless of the evidance and supporting supression of scientific descent sure is-!!!
"Deny climate change." No one does that, but keep lying. It's what "progressives" do. By the way, speaking of science, tell us all how a man can change himself into a woman with hormones and cosmetic surgery, like the "progressives" have been preaching.
Why do you conservative keep calling me a “progressive” and assume you know my views. The “progressives” I know don’t think me a progressive. It so happens that I largely agree that one can’t actually change one’s sex with sex change therapy. It seems that some of you guys are so eager to fight that you don’t care whether the guy you are fighting believes in the views your are attacking or not. I am glad to learn that “no one denies climate change.” Perhaps, I was misinformed. As to the facts regarding sex change operations, I am afraid you will have to do your research elsewhere as I don’t claim to know anything about it and don’t much care to learn anything on that subject. I will do research on whether “no one denies climate change” as it seemed that the current Secretary of Energy had such views. Meanwhile, you can look for a “progressive” with which to pick a fight.
If you make the arguments that "progressives" make, then you are a "progressive." Especially when you are lying, which is what "progressives" do. No one denies climate change. The climate is always changing, "progressive." Stop lying.
I am not going to get into a name-calling contest with you but I would ask you to perhaps reconsider your simplistic view that anyone who utters a thought or even asks a question that you consider to be “progressive” is a “liar” as to all issues and has adopted an ideology such that he or she is always 100% wrong. Have a nice life.
Sorry, but you're lying about climate change, plain and simple. Why do you feel the need to lie? And I find it interesting that you seem to regard "progressive" as an epithet.
Classic communication model. One sends a message. The other replies with their understanding of the message. The original messenger corrects what needs to be corrected.
Correct that Democrats need a message and what it looks like. But I see little evidence of traction. The base and leadership are just moths to an orange flame
I guess it is possible for everything Justin Vassallo says about today's Democratic Party to be both true and tiresomely moronic. His advice, while sound, reads like a "Politics for Dummies" text directed at a party fully occupied and now led by its Left Wing. And dedicated Leftists, as most people understand, are envious of and seek to destroy those virtues and strengths upon which America was built.
No, this is not my father's nor your grandfather's Democratic Party, nor does it pretend or aspire to be.
Yes, but the Republican Party has likewise drifted into neo-fascist extremism under Trump. That leaves a wide-open lane for moderates in both parties who are more in-line with the median voter to step into. (which is largely the article's point) They just have to figure out how to message in a social media environment that is hostile to moderation.
Although the electorate has become more polarized, the median voter is still neither a 'Brahmin' leftist nor a neo-fascist. Hence why both parties' approval ratings are underwater, and 'swingy' independents are now the single largest voting bloc, as well as the fastest growing one.
I generally quit reading anybody or anything that makes reference to "neo-fascist extremism" because it tells me how little they know about extremism and how void their understanding is of actual fascism.
Having said that, you do make a valid point about both parties reacting too much to one another's extreme elements and not enough to the concerns shared by the vast majority of Americans occupying a more moderate center/Left and center/Right on the political spectrum.
The "neo fascist" remarks always make me chuckle. It reminds me of my son being a teenager and complaining a household chore was physically difficult. I would remind him, had he been born 75 years earlier, he would be scaling French cliffs, with Nazis shooting at him. Everything is relative.
Completely understand people not being a fan of Trump or his policies, but anyone who truly believes the man is a fascist, likely does not have much experience with the real variety.
Note the 'neo'. Of course it is not an exact replica of Italian fascism, as it is adjusted to the 21st-century and implemented by subtler means suited for the technological and social context of its own time period, but it conforms to the same authoritarian structure, and the basic tenets are roughly in parallel. Trump himself is less ideologically disciplined than Orban, Erdogan, Bolsonaro, et. al.'s, but Trump-*ism* is of the same ideological stripes.
People always associate fascism with its late stage, when the violence and repression reached the levels that the movies are always made about--but fascism in its early stage was a nascent authoritarian branch of right-wing populism, brought on by the failures of parliamentarian governments to address economic hardships in the broader populace, by the fear of extreme Communist leftism, and by radical social, technological and demographic change. The fascist state wasn't built in a day--it was built in a slow progression, where more and more extreme measures were gradually normalized as either 'necessities' or 'minor developments'. The blackshirt paramilitary was commissioned originally to help local police 'respond' to communist aggressions and a large migration of slavs spilling out of the Balkans; Mussolini's partnerships with Italy's most powerful capitalists (the Musks and Thiels and Crypto-titans of his day) was initially a very quiet arrangement, before it became a means of economic and social control, and evolved into the explicit strategic merging of state and private industrial enterprises; and it wasn't until violent confrontations between Communist agitators and police occurred that Mussolini endorsed a 'war' against them, and the police state was fully assembled.
In a far more subtle way, Trump has followed pretty much the same path, and has been helped, like Mussolini was, by a public sentiment that began to sour on both socialism and liberal democracy, as the former became highly disruptive and the latter was viewed as ineffectual. But the lynchpin, of course, was the cult of personality and strongman rule, and this is what distinguishes Trump, most of all, from Republicans (and Democrats) of the past.
Look around--the US military's casually patrolling the streets of the Capitol, and the nation's strongman leader is posting memes about waging war on American cities full of his political opponents. He's made billionaires like Thiel and Musk colonels in the army and taken a stake in strategic industries. He has a massive masked paramilitary force at his disposal. It's all there. You'll bill this as 'alarmist'--but so was fascism, before it got *really* bad.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but where you see a budding 80 year old Mussolini, I see a Queens builder, who speaks and thinks like one. The National Guard surrounded LA federal buildings suffering major vandalism. The did not march thru the streets , they stood there, as they have numerous times in US history, protecting tax payers from the additional expense of a destroyed building.
DC is ruled by the federal government. Sending the National Guard to keep order, is the legal act of a President that refuses to tolerate any more dead kids in his neighborhood, on his watch. Sure they are hard to find , but if you speak to people who lived under Mussolini. The actions are more than a bit different.
Admittedly send ing the Guard into cities other than DC, where they have not been requested may present legal challenges. Personally , I think Dems that do that will be playing into Trump's plan, but if SCOTUS says he cannot do it. trump won't .
Those worried about ICE detainees were awful quiet when Obama deported millions that never saw the outside of an Immigration Court , let alone the inside.
Moreover, while it is unfashionable to recite actual immigration law, millions of people in the US are basically deportable with a fingerprint. Those previously deported, who reentered without authorization. Those ignoring final orders of deportations. Those with criminal convictions. Those who did not enter thru a valid port of entry and never presented themselves to the proper authorities in the required timeframe. The list goes on and on, but absent exigent circumstances, they can all be removed, basically with proof of identity.
The fact Biden refused to enforce immigration laws, does not mean they do not exist, and are not enforceable now. That has nothing to do with neo fascism, and everything to do with law and order.
Ronda, you're right on the money! I must add one comment - when will it be said that "Common Sense" and Democrat policies belong in the same sentence? What common sense solution do Democrats offer regarding securing our borders and deporting illegals? What brilliant ideas do Democrats have about not putting repeat offenders back on the streets to commit more crimes? After taking trillions of dollars from rate payers to stop the climate from changing, it's still changing. If our trading partners erect tariffs to protect their important industries, don't we have the same right to protect our manufacturers? Didn't we have all the fruits and vegetables we wanted before being overwhelmed by all the illegals? Do Democrats think the average family is interested in fighting "Oligarchies"? Why does a 200 year old political party have to listen to focus groups about how to speak to men? And finally, how absurd is it to allow men to participate in women's sports? Trump has forced the Democrats to take the 20% side of 80/20 issues, and their insane ideologies won't let them compromise.
Minsky, couldn't agree with you more. Trump is a wannabe dictator, but he's currently laying the foundation of being a full-fledged one. He is faced with democratic institutions that have been around for 200+ years and provide a lot more pushback than Weimar institutions that had only been in existence for 15 years. John Olson, ICE is reported to be holding 59,000 detainees with minimal if any due process. His DOJ is conducting criminal investigations on his political opponents like Schiff. HIs masked paramilitary is running around arresting people. You must be blind if you can's see where this is going.
So, you're telling me that the 59,000 illegal aliens in custody are being held not because they broke the immigration laws but because they belong to the Democratic Party? Their party membership would explain why Joe Biden allowed 12 million of them into the United States.
I met an American who lived in Germany in the 1930's. He witnessed Kristallnacht in Berlin. He wouldn't pay any attention to contemporary Americans who refer to Trump and his policies as "fascist." Unfortunately, that includes people who ought to know better, such as Kamala Harris, former general John Kelly, and Yale professor Jason Stanley. They began using the "fascist" hype when they discovered that voters had learned to ignore the "racist" hype. Now that they are using the "fascist" hype as loosely as they did the "racist" hype, I predict they'll proceed to something even more inflammatory and even sillier, like "genocide."
Great points. The irony by those on the Democratic Left who loosely misuse words like "fascist" and "racist" is that they drain once explosive and meaningful terms of any real meaning and value.
It’s also hard to take them seriously when they willfully ignore if not outright agree with Britain jailing people for social media posts. If we’re talking about actual steps towards fascism it doesn’t get much clearer than that.
That tracks 100%--historically, fascist governments never existed in a vacuum, they have always used violations of liberal democratic norms in various liberal democracies to normalize their authoritarian governance.
That's because it's *neo*-fascist. The forms are slightly different, but the structure is the same.
We have salient examples of actions that constitute de facto attempts to fulfill the ideology's key criteria.
I.) Subordination of independent institutions (universities, law firms, private media organs) to the central government-- check (all three have been directly attacked by the executive branch since January)
II.) Bypassing of democratic parliamentary bodies to implement key government initiatives (Trump's rule-by-executive-order leadership since reelection)--check
III.) The development of a large-scale paramilitary that answers to the central government and usurps local policing functions (ICE is now bigger than the marines, and has usurped local policing all over the country)--check
IV.) The integration of dominant capitalists and capitalist enterprises into the central government (Musk and Thiel have been made colonels in the army, Musk headed up DOGE, the government is now taking a stake in Intel)--check
V.) The gradual absorption of local policing functions into the military (LA was the pilot test, D.C. is perfecting the formula)--check
VI.) The justification of the encroachments of the central government by reference to a leftist threat (Trump's 'communist radical left', Mussolini's communists) and an ethnic one (the 'rapists' coming across the border, Mussolini's 'slav barbarians' coming out of the Balkans)--check
VI.) Leadership by strongman rule, characterized by a strongman positioning himself as the representative of the people against 'squabbling elites' in democratic bodies like Parliament (or Congress)--check
and, of course,
VII.) A cult of personality legitimizing the strongman as the people's representative.--check
Arrest of political opponents--nope. Outlawing of opposition parties--nope. Abolition of re-election campaigns and chief executive term limits--nope. Mass assassinations of potential rivals, like the Night of the Long Knives--nope. Creation of a secret police, like the Gestapo--nope. Oppression of minority groups such as Jews--nope. Abolition of labor unions--nope. Mandatory membership in youth organizations, like the Hitlerjugend--nope. Rationing and price controls--nope. Concentration camps, then death camps--nope. Annexation of neighboring countries, like the Anschluss--nope. If you can imagine Mussolini or Hitler letting the opposition party take a legislative majority, as Trump did, or allowing himself to be impeached, as Trump did, or running for re-election, as Trump did twice, or losing a lawsuit, as Trump did, or allowing the federal cops to raid his personal residence, as Trump did, or even paying income taxes, as Trump does and Hitler did not, then you have more imagination than I have.
Dismissal of Jews from government jobs--nope. Dissolution of Gentile-Jewish marriages--nope. College students staging bonfires of prohibited books--nope. Jews forbidden to use public transport--nope. Abortion prohibited--nope. Murders of the mentally ill ("useless mouths")--nope. Arrest, imprisonment and execution of homosexuals--nope. Forbidding citizens to listen to foreign broadcasts--nope. Can you imagine Hitler printing a special edition of the King James Bible with the national constitution in the back, as Trump did? I knew you could.
I am not going to argue with your particulars, although many or them are wrong or misleading, but you have missed the general point that no one is claiming that the U.S. situation is equivalent to that in Germany in 1939, the comparison is to Germany in 1932 and 1933 before the Reichstag fire. Demonizing certain minoirty groups, saying Democrats don't love their country, threatening to deport U.S. citizens, sending troops to cities where they are not wanted, and replacing experienced government officials in security positions with trusted cronies look like steps that might lead to fascism. It is certainly hoped that all the fears will prove to be exaggerated.
It appears Dems expend most energy focused on messaging and wishing for a Trump implosion. They might want to consider what they will do, if Reps ever effectively message another Dem Presidency, will simply be a repeat of Biden's term.
Americans were not melancholy in mass, prior to Biden. Housing did not seem an insurmountable climb. Immigration was rarely on anyone's mind. Moderate pro Green policies, existed with very little discussion. The came Biden's Godzilla administration, destroying the living standards of the bottom 4 quintiles of US earners, like a giant lizard demolishing Tokyo buildings.
Covid had been in the rear view mirror for years, even for Blue States unnecessarily cowed for 2+ years. It was not the disease, but Dem policies that caused US housing costs to run up 50% in 4 years, nationwide. Covid didn't cause the purposeful importation of 10 million unvetted, impoverished people, without a single extra apartment to shelter them. Dems did that. Covid did not mandate Dems hand a trillion dollars of taxpayer money, to every Green fantasy hatched over the 3rd round of Progressive Happy Hours.
Reps have been lousy at explaining just how destructive the Biden administration was for all but the US wealthy, but eventually they will figure it out. Dems might ask what policy changes they will promise voters, when Reps ask Americans, if they want a Biden sequel.
So the grand plan is to hope the economy tanks and you can keep the woke wing muzzled during the campaign. Good luck with that.
The voters have fairly clearly spoken that we want X. Trump’s numbers are under water because he keeps offering 10X and/or X + Z. The Democrats numbers are even further under water because they keep insisting X is bad and the only option is Y.
I don’t see any obvious signs that the Democratic leadership is willing to face the current Democrat establishment (ie all the special interests) to chart a new direction. Say what you may of Trump ( and I am not a supporter) he did challenge the Republican establishment in some fairly dramatic ways to win his leadership position. I don’t see any evidence so far of this happening with the Democrats
If Republicans could get over the need to blindly worship everything Trump does and says, or if Democrats were willing to defy the crazed Left Wokesters, then one or the other major parties would win a landslide in 2028. But the most committed partisans show up in disproportionate numbers for primary elections, so genuine moderates rarely even bother trying to compete - they know they can't get nominated.
Republicans are too in thrall to dogmatic anti-tax, anti-government ideology to change. If in the 2030s they don't help to maintain Social Security and Medicare benefits at current levels - meaning tax increases - Democrats will win huge majorities and restore all the Wokester craziness of the Biden years, and more. Open borders immigration, DEI quotas on steroids, packing the Supreme Court with left-wing judicial supremacists, two new states that elect far Left Senators, wholesale wealth confiscation, transgender mania, etc.
If a genuinely moderate Democrat is nominated for President in 2028, he will get 55+% of the popular vote and easily beat VP Vance. A genuinely moderate Democratic nominee for President is less likely to occur than H*** freezing over.
If an effective truth serum existed, I suspect there would be a few dozen Democrats (in Congress and Governors) who would admit to being moderate but who fear the Wokester Left's power in Democratic primaries. Likewise, I suspect a majority of Republican members of Congress and GOP Governors regard Trump as an ignorant showman - but they don't dare say so publicly.
Independents decide who gets elected, not partisans. To concentrate on partisans is to lose any election. And everyday, the independent ranks increase.
In the spirit of sweeping generalities, I would rephrase the first sentence to “the working class tends to be more knowledgeable in the realities of life’s struggles than those who spent many more years in a classroom. It is hard to appreciate the wisdom learned in the school of hard-knocks if you didn't go to that school. Humility people, humility.
Give me a break. I grew up in a family of 4 kids and a single mom. We were as poor as church mice but had a strong extended family and were given a strong work ethic and respect for reading and education (despite neither parent having gone beyond HS). SS survivor's benefits helped make ends meet. All 4 kids have gotten advanced degrees (PhD, MD, MA,MA). Years in the classroom doesn't mean you don't know hardship.
Hardy congratulations to you and your family, an inspiring story. I was a single mother with just two children and that was hard enough, even with a strong extended family. You clearly also had the gift of a strong commitment to education and hard work. My two have also complicated masters degrees. They handle money responsible and know how to put in a very full days work.
The observations here are definitely correct, but one thing is not mentioned, which is that the Democrats need new leadership that understands the new media landscape and the attention economy. To be blunt, they are too old and out of step with how things work nowadays, period.
The median age of a Democrat in Congress is 68 years old. (for Republicans it's 67 years old) The average voter's age is 38 years old. (https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/population-estimates-characteristics.html) The DNC leadership is a sclerotic gerontocracy full of boomers who don't know how modern political consumption works and can't accordingly optimize their messaging strategy. It doesn't matter how perfect your message is if you can't effectively disseminate it. I love my boomer parents, but the sun is setting on the era where they were working-age, and their generation needs to make room for the X'ers and millennials--and eventually those Gen-Z whippersnappers--the way the Greatest Generation made way for them. That way at least the people who know how to message in the modern era won't be isolated to the party's left flank--although the algorithms will still give the far left and far right advantages. (Fixing that is a whole other conversation)
The current leaders' holding on to the reins of power and the various networks of political patronage and influence that powers the process of governance will only hasten the dismantling of all that the Greatest Generation built for America. And who knows how much of that will be left by 2028, considering how quickly generational accomplishments like NATO and the alliance system of the West have been smashed to pieces.
You need both. Is there any reason you would find it mystifying that successful political parties, and political movements, must not only have a message, but must also be effective in disseminating that message?
To question a specific Democratic policy, such as subsidies for windmills and solar panels, or racial quotas in education and employment, or statehood for D.C., or overriding state right-to-work laws, or citizenship for illegal aliens, is to affront the pressure group who fought for that policy. It is safer to claim "we didn't get our message out" than to admit that there is anything unpopular about the message.
I'm sure for a lot of them it is the best job they ever had or will have, but I chalk it up to a lack of courage by party leaders. In Congress this year 3 Democrats died in office, one of lung cancer and another esophageal cancer. Who wants to work hard to get Democrats elected and then have incumbents die in office?
This is the most constructive piece I've seen on TLP. "Take power back from the Billionaires " is the most succinct (and accurate) theme I've been able to come up with. Dems need to identify the adversary of working people (whether blue- or white- collar) and that is the about 1000 billionaires who are currently calling the shots. The biggest mistake Obama made was he didn't go after a single banker in the aftermath of the financial collapse of 2008, even when HSBC was found to have laundered money for the Mafia and Hezbollah.
Dems can take the following positions: On immigration: borders closed to unauthorized immigration and a pathway to citizenship for those who have been here for more than 5 years. (both 80/20 positions). On Trans issues: no discrimination in military, housing, or employment. No trans women in women's sports at college level, leave decisions at lower levels up to school districts and sports authorities. (all 80/20)
I always appreciate your reality checks on the progressive left, but to take it back one more step, it might be better if in our "unwavering focus on making life more affordable," we just did that. Let's forget about "winning" or "taking back power," since these obsessions themselves play into Trump's hand, are simply a reaction to and defense against "the opposition" however defined. How about if we take a break from "opposing" altogether, since as I said in my own first post to Substack in August, politics itself is a royal waste of national energy and a deeply addictive drug. "At each other's throats" is exactly where capitalism always wants us to be. Actually helping people will be expensive and complicated - for instance, you can't solve the choke point problem with respect to vital goods AND jobs in the same swipe (it's one or the other), and whichever of Drutman's sources said that in order to win "you need a villain," well, that's just melodrama. I've complained about the melodramatic impulse in another post, and I know we're all a lot smarter than that. Thank you for the always provocative posts - this is a great discussion!
This might be good advice if Democratic party leadership actually prioritized winning by convincing the public, but, I increasingly don't think that is their first priority at all... Why would they subdue any of their more unpopular stances even a little when getting those through by whatever means necessary to whatever extent posible, however long it takes and no matter how much most people might appose them (to serve their core constituents only, to heck with everyone else!), is now their main reason for being. This is secularized religious ferver, not normal politics!
Another we hope Trump fails so we can win failed strategy. You had joe for 4 years, you give Trump 6 months. And we should vote for such a party why.
CAN DEMOCRATS HAVE ANY CONVERSATION THAT DOESN’T INCLUDE TRUMP?
I don’t need a bunch of losers telling me what I’m watching. Tell me why I should consider voting for you. Try honesty. Try new policies and ideas to prove at least some Dems can think for themselves and demonstrate you actually care about the majority and not cramming the minority, anti science wackos down my throat who you expect us to change our lives for. You can be what you want, except someone who wants me to change my life and worldview to accommodate self righteous and self absorbed anti my life wack jobs.
You’re becoming a broken record. But I guess I should consider, you aren’t about other than Democrats at this point. All that focus will get you is more election losses.
Are you saying that RFKj isn't an anti-science wacko or agreeing that the guys who deny climate change are wackos or the other way around?
What I am saying is that the essence of science is constant questioning and testing of current science. When those who claim climate change is real and try to shut down opposing voices they are no longer scientist but political hacks. What problem do you have with anyone who wants newer science on vaccines? If the vaccines in question prevent disease, then why does everyone need to be vaccinated? Only those who are not vaccinated are at risk. So why a government mandate? How did those mandates make anything better during covid?
If you're afraid of the conversation and opposing positions, maybe you should sit it out because you are anti science and add nothing of value to the conversation. I worked for the government for 25 years, when they start attacking personally and not the ideas, they have conceded they have no logical or rational argument to present to the real issues.
Take the people out of the problem, solve the problem. Pretty easy concept to keep the conversation on message and not wallow in the mud of denigrating others.
Sorry, you are the one who is anti-science. The vaccine and climate deniers can talk all they want, along with the flat earthers and those who believe the snake tempted Eve and was forced thereafter to slither on the ground. We must, however, act on the best of the best science we have as Trump did when he sped up development of the vaccine. The mandates did help people who could not take the vaccine but, in retrospect, they were on balance a poor idea except as to people working around vulnerable populations. The flat earthers should have been allowed to die with their convictions, as many did.
Maybe in your world. Your worldview and you are welcome to it. But 77 million voters disagreed with you. That makes you and your opinions irrelevant. Have a nice time living in Purgatory. Remember you are known as just another loser.
Pretty childish man. You going to insult my mother now? Well, anyway, it doesn’t seem you committed suicide when Obama and Biden won although I guess you were a “loser” then? I think I will go on somehow until I face a personal challenge greater than the fact that the candidate I did not like got over 49% of the vote.
Childish. Are you saying we all have the same worldview? Or that elections aren't referendums on a party's worldview?
Yes, I was a loser like many when Obama and biden won. But what you seem to want to ignore is that the losers then rebranded themselves and became winners.
What does your mother have to do with any of this? A way for a loser to not take responsibility for their actions. The victim mentality that skews one's view to a losing paradigm never to be corrected. Whether you believe that or not is of no consequence to me. The right made their changes while the left predicted their downfall. And low and behold, the right became the winners. I see no indication with posts like yours that you have any concept of what it now takes to become winners. And that is not just me. Are you not understanding what you read in the Liberal Patriot postings?
Your denial and defense of a losing worldview is good news for me. It means your worldview has very little chance to ever become political leaders for this country again. The closed bubble of the getting smaller everyday Democrat party should be evidence enough to prompt you to spend time on policies and leadership the Dems need to become winners. Denigrating Trump or those who voted him was a losing strategy in Nov 2024 and that has not changed.
I used to believe the Republicans were the best at throwing away opportunities to be winners. If it were possible they would screw up anything every time. But the Dems, being the closed-minded self-absorbed people they are, make the Republicans look like pikers today.
Please tell us the polices that will lead the left from being losers to being winners. Tell us of the leaders you see that will lead you out of the wilderness. Most of all, tell me how you will work to gain my (independents) vote in the next election. You can't win without us.
It's way more then 77 million voters who disagree with him actually, -in fact most Americans do including countless Harris and other anti Trump voters as well as non voters. As just one example, most Americans no longer trust mRNA or covid vaccines for example, and most of those people are actually still very pro vaccine in general including pro school vaccine mandate for at least the currant standard in most states. They (we!) are aghaist at Florida's recent move to end school mandates for example yet also deeply appose some mandates such as for flu or covid where the actual overall evidance (including that which the estableshment has tried to suppress) does not support it. I don't mean for this to be all about vaccines either as this is just one example, but is very typical of a larger pattern that can be applied to counless diffrant issues.
It's so important to remember that a huge fraction of eligeble voters voted for niether Trump nor for Harris. Niether one recieved anywhere near a majority of the vote of all adult US citizens eligible to vote, and even many who did vote for one of the two major US party presidental candidates, did so reluctantly and only as a lesser evil vote!
I can’t believe how many believe any of your type of BS means anything. Don’t assume since you are gullible and not too bright to believe such words are worth anything, that others, not leftist partisan, even care. We don’t and it is one more reason that proves a vote for Trump was the best vote. You people don’t even understand how this country works. Go away, you’re a waste of my time.
Sorry but you are in fact the one being by far the most anti science here just as are many Republicans, -just in a differant way more typical of far too many Democrats. Sure, being a straight up vaccine or climate change deniar is anti-science, but so is having rigid views on these subjects that blindly follow the rhetoric of a deeply corrupt progressive corporate establisment and the scientists on their payrolls!
Supporting the supression of scientific inquery that doesn't fir the established narrative, as the DNC establishment much of the US left has in recent years, is deeply anti science!
On the other hand, being open to scientific evidence other then the positions that you follow on vaccines or climate change is not being anti science! I am the by no means a deniar of the benifits of vaccines or of the reality of climate change. I am generally pro vaccine and recognize vaccine's massive lifesaving affect over the last century as well as the importance of the herd immunity concept, but there are exceptions including the mRNA vaccines in general (I am now with most Americans on this btw!). And flu vaccine for most, though I recognize it may be benificial to some. Human caused climate change is also all too real and humans obviously are having an impact yet the scientific ideas on it most commonly pushed by the US left and democrats is NOT all fully settled science in reality, just as there is very serious scientific doubt and conflicting evidence regarding mRNA products, as well as of the safety and benifit of certian other vaccinations.
Questioning estableshment narratives on these issues is not anti-science, but blindly following them regardless of the evidance and supporting supression of scientific descent sure is-!!!
"Deny climate change." No one does that, but keep lying. It's what "progressives" do. By the way, speaking of science, tell us all how a man can change himself into a woman with hormones and cosmetic surgery, like the "progressives" have been preaching.
Why do you conservative keep calling me a “progressive” and assume you know my views. The “progressives” I know don’t think me a progressive. It so happens that I largely agree that one can’t actually change one’s sex with sex change therapy. It seems that some of you guys are so eager to fight that you don’t care whether the guy you are fighting believes in the views your are attacking or not. I am glad to learn that “no one denies climate change.” Perhaps, I was misinformed. As to the facts regarding sex change operations, I am afraid you will have to do your research elsewhere as I don’t claim to know anything about it and don’t much care to learn anything on that subject. I will do research on whether “no one denies climate change” as it seemed that the current Secretary of Energy had such views. Meanwhile, you can look for a “progressive” with which to pick a fight.
If you make the arguments that "progressives" make, then you are a "progressive." Especially when you are lying, which is what "progressives" do. No one denies climate change. The climate is always changing, "progressive." Stop lying.
I am not going to get into a name-calling contest with you but I would ask you to perhaps reconsider your simplistic view that anyone who utters a thought or even asks a question that you consider to be “progressive” is a “liar” as to all issues and has adopted an ideology such that he or she is always 100% wrong. Have a nice life.
Sorry, but you're lying about climate change, plain and simple. Why do you feel the need to lie? And I find it interesting that you seem to regard "progressive" as an epithet.
Classic communication model. One sends a message. The other replies with their understanding of the message. The original messenger corrects what needs to be corrected.
Correct that Democrats need a message and what it looks like. But I see little evidence of traction. The base and leadership are just moths to an orange flame
I guess it is possible for everything Justin Vassallo says about today's Democratic Party to be both true and tiresomely moronic. His advice, while sound, reads like a "Politics for Dummies" text directed at a party fully occupied and now led by its Left Wing. And dedicated Leftists, as most people understand, are envious of and seek to destroy those virtues and strengths upon which America was built.
No, this is not my father's nor your grandfather's Democratic Party, nor does it pretend or aspire to be.
Yes, but the Republican Party has likewise drifted into neo-fascist extremism under Trump. That leaves a wide-open lane for moderates in both parties who are more in-line with the median voter to step into. (which is largely the article's point) They just have to figure out how to message in a social media environment that is hostile to moderation.
Although the electorate has become more polarized, the median voter is still neither a 'Brahmin' leftist nor a neo-fascist. Hence why both parties' approval ratings are underwater, and 'swingy' independents are now the single largest voting bloc, as well as the fastest growing one.
I generally quit reading anybody or anything that makes reference to "neo-fascist extremism" because it tells me how little they know about extremism and how void their understanding is of actual fascism.
Having said that, you do make a valid point about both parties reacting too much to one another's extreme elements and not enough to the concerns shared by the vast majority of Americans occupying a more moderate center/Left and center/Right on the political spectrum.
The "neo fascist" remarks always make me chuckle. It reminds me of my son being a teenager and complaining a household chore was physically difficult. I would remind him, had he been born 75 years earlier, he would be scaling French cliffs, with Nazis shooting at him. Everything is relative.
Completely understand people not being a fan of Trump or his policies, but anyone who truly believes the man is a fascist, likely does not have much experience with the real variety.
Note the 'neo'. Of course it is not an exact replica of Italian fascism, as it is adjusted to the 21st-century and implemented by subtler means suited for the technological and social context of its own time period, but it conforms to the same authoritarian structure, and the basic tenets are roughly in parallel. Trump himself is less ideologically disciplined than Orban, Erdogan, Bolsonaro, et. al.'s, but Trump-*ism* is of the same ideological stripes.
People always associate fascism with its late stage, when the violence and repression reached the levels that the movies are always made about--but fascism in its early stage was a nascent authoritarian branch of right-wing populism, brought on by the failures of parliamentarian governments to address economic hardships in the broader populace, by the fear of extreme Communist leftism, and by radical social, technological and demographic change. The fascist state wasn't built in a day--it was built in a slow progression, where more and more extreme measures were gradually normalized as either 'necessities' or 'minor developments'. The blackshirt paramilitary was commissioned originally to help local police 'respond' to communist aggressions and a large migration of slavs spilling out of the Balkans; Mussolini's partnerships with Italy's most powerful capitalists (the Musks and Thiels and Crypto-titans of his day) was initially a very quiet arrangement, before it became a means of economic and social control, and evolved into the explicit strategic merging of state and private industrial enterprises; and it wasn't until violent confrontations between Communist agitators and police occurred that Mussolini endorsed a 'war' against them, and the police state was fully assembled.
In a far more subtle way, Trump has followed pretty much the same path, and has been helped, like Mussolini was, by a public sentiment that began to sour on both socialism and liberal democracy, as the former became highly disruptive and the latter was viewed as ineffectual. But the lynchpin, of course, was the cult of personality and strongman rule, and this is what distinguishes Trump, most of all, from Republicans (and Democrats) of the past.
Look around--the US military's casually patrolling the streets of the Capitol, and the nation's strongman leader is posting memes about waging war on American cities full of his political opponents. He's made billionaires like Thiel and Musk colonels in the army and taken a stake in strategic industries. He has a massive masked paramilitary force at his disposal. It's all there. You'll bill this as 'alarmist'--but so was fascism, before it got *really* bad.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but where you see a budding 80 year old Mussolini, I see a Queens builder, who speaks and thinks like one. The National Guard surrounded LA federal buildings suffering major vandalism. The did not march thru the streets , they stood there, as they have numerous times in US history, protecting tax payers from the additional expense of a destroyed building.
DC is ruled by the federal government. Sending the National Guard to keep order, is the legal act of a President that refuses to tolerate any more dead kids in his neighborhood, on his watch. Sure they are hard to find , but if you speak to people who lived under Mussolini. The actions are more than a bit different.
Admittedly send ing the Guard into cities other than DC, where they have not been requested may present legal challenges. Personally , I think Dems that do that will be playing into Trump's plan, but if SCOTUS says he cannot do it. trump won't .
Those worried about ICE detainees were awful quiet when Obama deported millions that never saw the outside of an Immigration Court , let alone the inside.
Moreover, while it is unfashionable to recite actual immigration law, millions of people in the US are basically deportable with a fingerprint. Those previously deported, who reentered without authorization. Those ignoring final orders of deportations. Those with criminal convictions. Those who did not enter thru a valid port of entry and never presented themselves to the proper authorities in the required timeframe. The list goes on and on, but absent exigent circumstances, they can all be removed, basically with proof of identity.
The fact Biden refused to enforce immigration laws, does not mean they do not exist, and are not enforceable now. That has nothing to do with neo fascism, and everything to do with law and order.
Ronda, you're right on the money! I must add one comment - when will it be said that "Common Sense" and Democrat policies belong in the same sentence? What common sense solution do Democrats offer regarding securing our borders and deporting illegals? What brilliant ideas do Democrats have about not putting repeat offenders back on the streets to commit more crimes? After taking trillions of dollars from rate payers to stop the climate from changing, it's still changing. If our trading partners erect tariffs to protect their important industries, don't we have the same right to protect our manufacturers? Didn't we have all the fruits and vegetables we wanted before being overwhelmed by all the illegals? Do Democrats think the average family is interested in fighting "Oligarchies"? Why does a 200 year old political party have to listen to focus groups about how to speak to men? And finally, how absurd is it to allow men to participate in women's sports? Trump has forced the Democrats to take the 20% side of 80/20 issues, and their insane ideologies won't let them compromise.
Minsky, couldn't agree with you more. Trump is a wannabe dictator, but he's currently laying the foundation of being a full-fledged one. He is faced with democratic institutions that have been around for 200+ years and provide a lot more pushback than Weimar institutions that had only been in existence for 15 years. John Olson, ICE is reported to be holding 59,000 detainees with minimal if any due process. His DOJ is conducting criminal investigations on his political opponents like Schiff. HIs masked paramilitary is running around arresting people. You must be blind if you can's see where this is going.
So, you're telling me that the 59,000 illegal aliens in custody are being held not because they broke the immigration laws but because they belong to the Democratic Party? Their party membership would explain why Joe Biden allowed 12 million of them into the United States.
I met an American who lived in Germany in the 1930's. He witnessed Kristallnacht in Berlin. He wouldn't pay any attention to contemporary Americans who refer to Trump and his policies as "fascist." Unfortunately, that includes people who ought to know better, such as Kamala Harris, former general John Kelly, and Yale professor Jason Stanley. They began using the "fascist" hype when they discovered that voters had learned to ignore the "racist" hype. Now that they are using the "fascist" hype as loosely as they did the "racist" hype, I predict they'll proceed to something even more inflammatory and even sillier, like "genocide."
Great points. The irony by those on the Democratic Left who loosely misuse words like "fascist" and "racist" is that they drain once explosive and meaningful terms of any real meaning and value.
Then again, maybe that is their sorry intent.
It’s also hard to take them seriously when they willfully ignore if not outright agree with Britain jailing people for social media posts. If we’re talking about actual steps towards fascism it doesn’t get much clearer than that.
That tracks 100%--historically, fascist governments never existed in a vacuum, they have always used violations of liberal democratic norms in various liberal democracies to normalize their authoritarian governance.
That's because it's *neo*-fascist. The forms are slightly different, but the structure is the same.
We have salient examples of actions that constitute de facto attempts to fulfill the ideology's key criteria.
I.) Subordination of independent institutions (universities, law firms, private media organs) to the central government-- check (all three have been directly attacked by the executive branch since January)
II.) Bypassing of democratic parliamentary bodies to implement key government initiatives (Trump's rule-by-executive-order leadership since reelection)--check
III.) The development of a large-scale paramilitary that answers to the central government and usurps local policing functions (ICE is now bigger than the marines, and has usurped local policing all over the country)--check
IV.) The integration of dominant capitalists and capitalist enterprises into the central government (Musk and Thiel have been made colonels in the army, Musk headed up DOGE, the government is now taking a stake in Intel)--check
V.) The gradual absorption of local policing functions into the military (LA was the pilot test, D.C. is perfecting the formula)--check
VI.) The justification of the encroachments of the central government by reference to a leftist threat (Trump's 'communist radical left', Mussolini's communists) and an ethnic one (the 'rapists' coming across the border, Mussolini's 'slav barbarians' coming out of the Balkans)--check
VI.) Leadership by strongman rule, characterized by a strongman positioning himself as the representative of the people against 'squabbling elites' in democratic bodies like Parliament (or Congress)--check
and, of course,
VII.) A cult of personality legitimizing the strongman as the people's representative.--check
Arrest of political opponents--nope. Outlawing of opposition parties--nope. Abolition of re-election campaigns and chief executive term limits--nope. Mass assassinations of potential rivals, like the Night of the Long Knives--nope. Creation of a secret police, like the Gestapo--nope. Oppression of minority groups such as Jews--nope. Abolition of labor unions--nope. Mandatory membership in youth organizations, like the Hitlerjugend--nope. Rationing and price controls--nope. Concentration camps, then death camps--nope. Annexation of neighboring countries, like the Anschluss--nope. If you can imagine Mussolini or Hitler letting the opposition party take a legislative majority, as Trump did, or allowing himself to be impeached, as Trump did, or running for re-election, as Trump did twice, or losing a lawsuit, as Trump did, or allowing the federal cops to raid his personal residence, as Trump did, or even paying income taxes, as Trump does and Hitler did not, then you have more imagination than I have.
Dismissal of Jews from government jobs--nope. Dissolution of Gentile-Jewish marriages--nope. College students staging bonfires of prohibited books--nope. Jews forbidden to use public transport--nope. Abortion prohibited--nope. Murders of the mentally ill ("useless mouths")--nope. Arrest, imprisonment and execution of homosexuals--nope. Forbidding citizens to listen to foreign broadcasts--nope. Can you imagine Hitler printing a special edition of the King James Bible with the national constitution in the back, as Trump did? I knew you could.
I am not going to argue with your particulars, although many or them are wrong or misleading, but you have missed the general point that no one is claiming that the U.S. situation is equivalent to that in Germany in 1939, the comparison is to Germany in 1932 and 1933 before the Reichstag fire. Demonizing certain minoirty groups, saying Democrats don't love their country, threatening to deport U.S. citizens, sending troops to cities where they are not wanted, and replacing experienced government officials in security positions with trusted cronies look like steps that might lead to fascism. It is certainly hoped that all the fears will prove to be exaggerated.
Hotsi tatsi, another Nazi! Don't you "progressives" ever get tired of yourselves?
It appears Dems expend most energy focused on messaging and wishing for a Trump implosion. They might want to consider what they will do, if Reps ever effectively message another Dem Presidency, will simply be a repeat of Biden's term.
Americans were not melancholy in mass, prior to Biden. Housing did not seem an insurmountable climb. Immigration was rarely on anyone's mind. Moderate pro Green policies, existed with very little discussion. The came Biden's Godzilla administration, destroying the living standards of the bottom 4 quintiles of US earners, like a giant lizard demolishing Tokyo buildings.
Covid had been in the rear view mirror for years, even for Blue States unnecessarily cowed for 2+ years. It was not the disease, but Dem policies that caused US housing costs to run up 50% in 4 years, nationwide. Covid didn't cause the purposeful importation of 10 million unvetted, impoverished people, without a single extra apartment to shelter them. Dems did that. Covid did not mandate Dems hand a trillion dollars of taxpayer money, to every Green fantasy hatched over the 3rd round of Progressive Happy Hours.
Reps have been lousy at explaining just how destructive the Biden administration was for all but the US wealthy, but eventually they will figure it out. Dems might ask what policy changes they will promise voters, when Reps ask Americans, if they want a Biden sequel.
So the grand plan is to hope the economy tanks and you can keep the woke wing muzzled during the campaign. Good luck with that.
The voters have fairly clearly spoken that we want X. Trump’s numbers are under water because he keeps offering 10X and/or X + Z. The Democrats numbers are even further under water because they keep insisting X is bad and the only option is Y.
I don’t see any obvious signs that the Democratic leadership is willing to face the current Democrat establishment (ie all the special interests) to chart a new direction. Say what you may of Trump ( and I am not a supporter) he did challenge the Republican establishment in some fairly dramatic ways to win his leadership position. I don’t see any evidence so far of this happening with the Democrats
Outstanding analysis. Dems, please listen!
If Republicans could get over the need to blindly worship everything Trump does and says, or if Democrats were willing to defy the crazed Left Wokesters, then one or the other major parties would win a landslide in 2028. But the most committed partisans show up in disproportionate numbers for primary elections, so genuine moderates rarely even bother trying to compete - they know they can't get nominated.
Republicans are too in thrall to dogmatic anti-tax, anti-government ideology to change. If in the 2030s they don't help to maintain Social Security and Medicare benefits at current levels - meaning tax increases - Democrats will win huge majorities and restore all the Wokester craziness of the Biden years, and more. Open borders immigration, DEI quotas on steroids, packing the Supreme Court with left-wing judicial supremacists, two new states that elect far Left Senators, wholesale wealth confiscation, transgender mania, etc.
If a genuinely moderate Democrat is nominated for President in 2028, he will get 55+% of the popular vote and easily beat VP Vance. A genuinely moderate Democratic nominee for President is less likely to occur than H*** freezing over.
There is not one moderate Democrat left.
If an effective truth serum existed, I suspect there would be a few dozen Democrats (in Congress and Governors) who would admit to being moderate but who fear the Wokester Left's power in Democratic primaries. Likewise, I suspect a majority of Republican members of Congress and GOP Governors regard Trump as an ignorant showman - but they don't dare say so publicly.
Independents decide who gets elected, not partisans. To concentrate on partisans is to lose any election. And everyday, the independent ranks increase.
Here's the rub:
The working class is far more socially conservative than the educated elites.
Who is more likely to kick out their trans teenager? The professional upper middle class couple of the truck driver and his waitress wife?
And these factors are greatly magnified among non-white families. People of color are far more queer -phobic than whites.
In the spirit of sweeping generalities, I would rephrase the first sentence to “the working class tends to be more knowledgeable in the realities of life’s struggles than those who spent many more years in a classroom. It is hard to appreciate the wisdom learned in the school of hard-knocks if you didn't go to that school. Humility people, humility.
Give me a break. I grew up in a family of 4 kids and a single mom. We were as poor as church mice but had a strong extended family and were given a strong work ethic and respect for reading and education (despite neither parent having gone beyond HS). SS survivor's benefits helped make ends meet. All 4 kids have gotten advanced degrees (PhD, MD, MA,MA). Years in the classroom doesn't mean you don't know hardship.
Hardy congratulations to you and your family, an inspiring story. I was a single mother with just two children and that was hard enough, even with a strong extended family. You clearly also had the gift of a strong commitment to education and hard work. My two have also complicated masters degrees. They handle money responsible and know how to put in a very full days work.
The observations here are definitely correct, but one thing is not mentioned, which is that the Democrats need new leadership that understands the new media landscape and the attention economy. To be blunt, they are too old and out of step with how things work nowadays, period.
The median age of a Democrat in Congress is 68 years old. (for Republicans it's 67 years old) The average voter's age is 38 years old. (https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/population-estimates-characteristics.html) The DNC leadership is a sclerotic gerontocracy full of boomers who don't know how modern political consumption works and can't accordingly optimize their messaging strategy. It doesn't matter how perfect your message is if you can't effectively disseminate it. I love my boomer parents, but the sun is setting on the era where they were working-age, and their generation needs to make room for the X'ers and millennials--and eventually those Gen-Z whippersnappers--the way the Greatest Generation made way for them. That way at least the people who know how to message in the modern era won't be isolated to the party's left flank--although the algorithms will still give the far left and far right advantages. (Fixing that is a whole other conversation)
The current leaders' holding on to the reins of power and the various networks of political patronage and influence that powers the process of governance will only hasten the dismantling of all that the Greatest Generation built for America. And who knows how much of that will be left by 2028, considering how quickly generational accomplishments like NATO and the alliance system of the West have been smashed to pieces.
Forget messaging optimization, what is the message? A chicken in every pot?
You need both. Is there any reason you would find it mystifying that successful political parties, and political movements, must not only have a message, but must also be effective in disseminating that message?
I read all kinds of posts about messaging, but very few posts about specific policies.
To question a specific Democratic policy, such as subsidies for windmills and solar panels, or racial quotas in education and employment, or statehood for D.C., or overriding state right-to-work laws, or citizenship for illegal aliens, is to affront the pressure group who fought for that policy. It is safer to claim "we didn't get our message out" than to admit that there is anything unpopular about the message.
The "progressives" who control the Democratic Party think an advertising campaign ("messaging") will do the trick. It won't.
I'm sure for a lot of them it is the best job they ever had or will have, but I chalk it up to a lack of courage by party leaders. In Congress this year 3 Democrats died in office, one of lung cancer and another esophageal cancer. Who wants to work hard to get Democrats elected and then have incumbents die in office?
The Democrat party has nothing to offer. They were a dead body, the 2026 midterms we’ll see if I am right or wrong.
This is the most constructive piece I've seen on TLP. "Take power back from the Billionaires " is the most succinct (and accurate) theme I've been able to come up with. Dems need to identify the adversary of working people (whether blue- or white- collar) and that is the about 1000 billionaires who are currently calling the shots. The biggest mistake Obama made was he didn't go after a single banker in the aftermath of the financial collapse of 2008, even when HSBC was found to have laundered money for the Mafia and Hezbollah.
Dems can take the following positions: On immigration: borders closed to unauthorized immigration and a pathway to citizenship for those who have been here for more than 5 years. (both 80/20 positions). On Trans issues: no discrimination in military, housing, or employment. No trans women in women's sports at college level, leave decisions at lower levels up to school districts and sports authorities. (all 80/20)
Problem is that the Democrats are just as dependent on billionaires as the Republicans are.
No problem. Take power away from Billionaires, whether they swing Red or Blue
The Democratic Party won't go for that.
I always appreciate your reality checks on the progressive left, but to take it back one more step, it might be better if in our "unwavering focus on making life more affordable," we just did that. Let's forget about "winning" or "taking back power," since these obsessions themselves play into Trump's hand, are simply a reaction to and defense against "the opposition" however defined. How about if we take a break from "opposing" altogether, since as I said in my own first post to Substack in August, politics itself is a royal waste of national energy and a deeply addictive drug. "At each other's throats" is exactly where capitalism always wants us to be. Actually helping people will be expensive and complicated - for instance, you can't solve the choke point problem with respect to vital goods AND jobs in the same swipe (it's one or the other), and whichever of Drutman's sources said that in order to win "you need a villain," well, that's just melodrama. I've complained about the melodramatic impulse in another post, and I know we're all a lot smarter than that. Thank you for the always provocative posts - this is a great discussion!
Capitalism always wants us to be at each other's throats, said the "progressive," unwittingly revealing its Marxist roots.
Socialist, in fact ;) - good catch there!
Socialism is just slow-motion communism with better p.r.
This might be good advice if Democratic party leadership actually prioritized winning by convincing the public, but, I increasingly don't think that is their first priority at all... Why would they subdue any of their more unpopular stances even a little when getting those through by whatever means necessary to whatever extent posible, however long it takes and no matter how much most people might appose them (to serve their core constituents only, to heck with everyone else!), is now their main reason for being. This is secularized religious ferver, not normal politics!