The criticisms of the Trump administration made here are valid; a rational Democratic party would be able to win landslides in 2026 and 2028 as a backlash to Trump.
But the Democrats mentioned in this essay are just posing as moderates, aided by a compliant media. As soon as Democrats return to power, the smokescreen of moderation will quickly blow away and the entire hard Left agenda will be enacted: open borders immigration, Medicare for All, two new Democratic majority states, a packed Supreme Court, transgender mania, DEI on steroids, Green New Deal, etc. If either major party was not controlled by its crazies - the MAGA Trumpers or the Wokesters - they would win bigly. Alas, that won't happen so in 2028 we'll be stuck with a replay of Trump vs. Harris.
Yea. If either party actually moved closer to the center, they would regularly win elections and maintain power. That would force the other party to the center. But that’s not what’s happening. The corruption and self-dealing is also a big deal to me. Trump is shamelessly lining his pocket and this $10 billion lawsuit against the US is the biggest grift in history. The Democrats need to come out strong against this and stop the stock trading nonsense by Congress.
For Democrats to pull off this needed switch, they need to start with an authentic mea culpa. Like all good confessions it needs to be specific and centered on personal accountability. Democrats will need to call out some of their icons by name and articulate their flaws. This will be painful, but likely worth it.
Democrats are free to criticize elected officials, when they are Republicans. When Democrats are in power again, they will all move in lock step with whatever, even corrupt, leadership wants. Remember Joe Biden? There wasn’t a peep from Democrats.
The article makes some astute observations, but these people are not genuine Leftwing populists. They all uniformly sport Spanberger Syndrome. They are all desperate to paint themselves as anyone but the Progressives, into which they morph, the moment they cast a Congressional vote.
Ossof the Minister, literally ran from a reporter, requesting a comment on the 11 year old GA girl recently raped by an illegal immigrant in her GA home, in front of her 10 year old sister. How does a true Man of God not comment on such a vile crime? Moreover wouldn't a true populist insist on the humane removal of those dwelling illegally, driving down low skilled wages, while increasing affordable housing costs?
With a straight face, Ossof requires ID to attend his political rallies, but refuses to support SAVE Act . Ossof has repeatedly claimed his most needy constituents cannot obtain ID to vote, even as ID is universally required to enroll in Medicaid, SNAP and any other govt program.
Gallego was concerned by the Open Border, right up until the moment he was elected. Now Rubin often speaks of normalizing the residency of the millions of Biden migrants, an obvious precursor to amnesty and citizenship.
Gallego's position on immigration will truly move Right, only if this Spring a migrant semi driver, happens to cross the center line and kill a school bus full of rich white kids, or someone else Dems deem worthy of concern.
Talarico is the most disguised. An outright Socialist who seems to believe if his views are covered in Scripture, like Biblical BBQ sauce, Texans will swallow them without noticing he is AOC, minus the lip gloss and NY accent.
Talarico supports, in no particular order, men in former exclusively female spaces, child trans surgery, Open Borders, mass amnesty and tax increases for anything that moves or sits. James is way past normal Austin leftwing wacky. He is just this side of a card carrying Communist, disguised as a modern day Opie, if Opie believed Jesus was non binary and labeling someone a "mediocre Black Man" was not racist.
Beshear could be President, if his father handed him the job.
The above does not mean Reps aren't in real trouble. It just means calling this crew "left wing populists" is a fantasy. They are all Progressives, in Populist drag.
Ahhh John Ossoff the politician who firmly believes you shouldn’t be required to show ID to vote but you definitely must have one to attend one of his campaign events.
So many words of butthurt and projection. You still think old neo-Communist not-a-Democrat Bernie would have won against Trump - that’s pretty funny. And we see your idolizing of retarded elite-school graduate AOC, another DSA neo-Communist. If only the party made more nepobaby racists like Mamdani, then it truly would be populist. LOL.
I donated to Ossoff when I was a good Jewish liberal, but once the party took its adorable turn to supporting the genocidal Islamists of Hamas, and generating the biggest antisemitic tsunami in US history, I became much less inclined. Specifically to Ossoff, the second he backed denying Israel arms during a war forced on it by Hamas and Hezbollah, I decided to donate to whoever his opponent is. Quite a populist stance to back Iranian proxy armies attacking the only Jewish majority democracy in the world and longstanding US ally.
The photo with the story is of Jon Ossoff, last week's darling of the young poli sci graduate set. They are sure he is going to win young politically engaged grads with more activism than work. He even gives speeches without a coat and tie!
This will keep up for another 3 years. Democrats will win the midterms, either by big amounts or small doesn't matter, then it is grandstanding and predictions while we all wait for the guy who will rid us of student loans, restore funding to everything DEI, and give the housekeeper/uber eats guy permanent residency status.
No mention ever ever ever of Fetterman. Too Israeli friendly or something, votes centrist where only a fire breathing Tanky will do. He'd win the general but never make it through the primaries.
Populist usually means appealing to a broad spectrum of the population. The Democratic Party is great at getting the votes of those who are specialists in ethnic restaurants, not so good with Joe and Jane lunch box who used to be able to eat at McDonalds.
States provide clear illustrations of the results of different policies and governance. The comparisons are not favorable to Democrats. That’s why the populations of Florida and Texas have been growing, while California and New York are declining.
“The New Deal gave you the TVA 80 years ago” is not going to cut it. Nor is claiming Republican corruption without acknowledging the massive fraud perpetrated under Tim Walz in Minnesota.
It’s also looking like the fraud spreads far wider than Minnesota. You’d think a party that actually cared about and wanted to protect Medicaid would be at the vanguard of rooting it out.
Another article about tactics. Statements and games required to secure more votes without actually fessing up to the real goal. Power, not principle. Action without accountability. The leftist base that now controls the democrat party insists on feeding.
When was the last time an organization with the wrong group in charge admitted that mistake and turned over the ignition keys? Never is the answer. That’s WHY the GOP is no longer run by Bush or Romney clones.
Trump (former democrat) adopted many of the former democrat values and is seen as actually pursuing same as opposed to just mouthing marketing slogans.
Very interesting and thoughtful article. But to characterize Trumpism as Laissez faire governance is I think a mistake. Trump and his enablers are aggressively statist, using executive power to achieve their policy goals without regard to legislatures or courts or even popular opinion. There may a populist angle against this, especially on surveillance and overriding localism in development (data centers and school boards, but that will cost us in terms of housing development.)
It’s interesting that tariffs can be portrayed as both populist and anti-populist, depending on whether someone is more concerned with workers or consumers. A lot of Americans who like the idea of reviving domestic industry aren’t willing to pay higher prices to do so.
This suggests subsidies for domestic manufacturing, like those in the CHIPS Act, might be better funded by taxes on the rich than by tariffs. This would actually mesh quite well with what Hamilton generally wanted (he preferred “bounties” for manufacturers over protectionism in most cases) and the New Deal (the split between free traders and union-friendly protectionists of the last few decades is a split between two longstanding Democratic traditions, support for free trade and support for working class interests).
"...subsidies for domestic manufacturing, like those in the CHIPS Act, might be better funded by taxes on the rich..." "Taxes on the rich"..." - used for every new spending proposal by progressives.
Tariffs help a lot more than they hurt. The things most people spend money on are either already protected and domestic, or not "stuff". Rent, mortgage, car, health care, college, income taxes, fed and state taxes, food, cars, gasoline. If we ended NAFTA car manufacturing would move back.
I'm a lefty, and love taxing, but the CHIPS act was a huge waste of money, granted so were the tax cuts. Intel the biggest recipient of cash is a dog, it was losing money so fast they had to inject more to keep it afloat, and that was the company getting the most $$$$. Intel makes what? Their stock is rising in leaps and bounds back up to where it was 4 years ago.
When people say tax the rich, they're thinking of those immoral hedonists, not themselves. Tariffs bring in cash for our government and in the long run encourage domestic manufacturing. Neoliberalism can't die soon enough, need to drive a stake through it but it has no heart.
The criticisms of the Trump administration made here are valid; a rational Democratic party would be able to win landslides in 2026 and 2028 as a backlash to Trump.
But the Democrats mentioned in this essay are just posing as moderates, aided by a compliant media. As soon as Democrats return to power, the smokescreen of moderation will quickly blow away and the entire hard Left agenda will be enacted: open borders immigration, Medicare for All, two new Democratic majority states, a packed Supreme Court, transgender mania, DEI on steroids, Green New Deal, etc. If either major party was not controlled by its crazies - the MAGA Trumpers or the Wokesters - they would win bigly. Alas, that won't happen so in 2028 we'll be stuck with a replay of Trump vs. Harris.
Yea. If either party actually moved closer to the center, they would regularly win elections and maintain power. That would force the other party to the center. But that’s not what’s happening. The corruption and self-dealing is also a big deal to me. Trump is shamelessly lining his pocket and this $10 billion lawsuit against the US is the biggest grift in history. The Democrats need to come out strong against this and stop the stock trading nonsense by Congress.
For Democrats to pull off this needed switch, they need to start with an authentic mea culpa. Like all good confessions it needs to be specific and centered on personal accountability. Democrats will need to call out some of their icons by name and articulate their flaws. This will be painful, but likely worth it.
>" a rational Democratic party would be able to win landslides in 2026 and 2028 as a backlash to Trump."
A rational Democratic Party wouldn't decide to violently resist national immigration law.
Democrats are free to criticize elected officials, when they are Republicans. When Democrats are in power again, they will all move in lock step with whatever, even corrupt, leadership wants. Remember Joe Biden? There wasn’t a peep from Democrats.
The article makes some astute observations, but these people are not genuine Leftwing populists. They all uniformly sport Spanberger Syndrome. They are all desperate to paint themselves as anyone but the Progressives, into which they morph, the moment they cast a Congressional vote.
Ossof the Minister, literally ran from a reporter, requesting a comment on the 11 year old GA girl recently raped by an illegal immigrant in her GA home, in front of her 10 year old sister. How does a true Man of God not comment on such a vile crime? Moreover wouldn't a true populist insist on the humane removal of those dwelling illegally, driving down low skilled wages, while increasing affordable housing costs?
With a straight face, Ossof requires ID to attend his political rallies, but refuses to support SAVE Act . Ossof has repeatedly claimed his most needy constituents cannot obtain ID to vote, even as ID is universally required to enroll in Medicaid, SNAP and any other govt program.
Gallego was concerned by the Open Border, right up until the moment he was elected. Now Rubin often speaks of normalizing the residency of the millions of Biden migrants, an obvious precursor to amnesty and citizenship.
Gallego's position on immigration will truly move Right, only if this Spring a migrant semi driver, happens to cross the center line and kill a school bus full of rich white kids, or someone else Dems deem worthy of concern.
Talarico is the most disguised. An outright Socialist who seems to believe if his views are covered in Scripture, like Biblical BBQ sauce, Texans will swallow them without noticing he is AOC, minus the lip gloss and NY accent.
Talarico supports, in no particular order, men in former exclusively female spaces, child trans surgery, Open Borders, mass amnesty and tax increases for anything that moves or sits. James is way past normal Austin leftwing wacky. He is just this side of a card carrying Communist, disguised as a modern day Opie, if Opie believed Jesus was non binary and labeling someone a "mediocre Black Man" was not racist.
Beshear could be President, if his father handed him the job.
The above does not mean Reps aren't in real trouble. It just means calling this crew "left wing populists" is a fantasy. They are all Progressives, in Populist drag.
Ahhh John Ossoff the politician who firmly believes you shouldn’t be required to show ID to vote but you definitely must have one to attend one of his campaign events.
So many words of butthurt and projection. You still think old neo-Communist not-a-Democrat Bernie would have won against Trump - that’s pretty funny. And we see your idolizing of retarded elite-school graduate AOC, another DSA neo-Communist. If only the party made more nepobaby racists like Mamdani, then it truly would be populist. LOL.
I donated to Ossoff when I was a good Jewish liberal, but once the party took its adorable turn to supporting the genocidal Islamists of Hamas, and generating the biggest antisemitic tsunami in US history, I became much less inclined. Specifically to Ossoff, the second he backed denying Israel arms during a war forced on it by Hamas and Hezbollah, I decided to donate to whoever his opponent is. Quite a populist stance to back Iranian proxy armies attacking the only Jewish majority democracy in the world and longstanding US ally.
The photo with the story is of Jon Ossoff, last week's darling of the young poli sci graduate set. They are sure he is going to win young politically engaged grads with more activism than work. He even gives speeches without a coat and tie!
This will keep up for another 3 years. Democrats will win the midterms, either by big amounts or small doesn't matter, then it is grandstanding and predictions while we all wait for the guy who will rid us of student loans, restore funding to everything DEI, and give the housekeeper/uber eats guy permanent residency status.
No mention ever ever ever of Fetterman. Too Israeli friendly or something, votes centrist where only a fire breathing Tanky will do. He'd win the general but never make it through the primaries.
Populist usually means appealing to a broad spectrum of the population. The Democratic Party is great at getting the votes of those who are specialists in ethnic restaurants, not so good with Joe and Jane lunch box who used to be able to eat at McDonalds.
States provide clear illustrations of the results of different policies and governance. The comparisons are not favorable to Democrats. That’s why the populations of Florida and Texas have been growing, while California and New York are declining.
“The New Deal gave you the TVA 80 years ago” is not going to cut it. Nor is claiming Republican corruption without acknowledging the massive fraud perpetrated under Tim Walz in Minnesota.
It’s also looking like the fraud spreads far wider than Minnesota. You’d think a party that actually cared about and wanted to protect Medicaid would be at the vanguard of rooting it out.
Another article about tactics. Statements and games required to secure more votes without actually fessing up to the real goal. Power, not principle. Action without accountability. The leftist base that now controls the democrat party insists on feeding.
When was the last time an organization with the wrong group in charge admitted that mistake and turned over the ignition keys? Never is the answer. That’s WHY the GOP is no longer run by Bush or Romney clones.
Trump (former democrat) adopted many of the former democrat values and is seen as actually pursuing same as opposed to just mouthing marketing slogans.
Come ON PEOPLE. You’re smarter than that.
The Democrats aren't populists. They don't even like ordinary people. So, wrong assumptions/approaches to the story?
Very interesting and thoughtful article. But to characterize Trumpism as Laissez faire governance is I think a mistake. Trump and his enablers are aggressively statist, using executive power to achieve their policy goals without regard to legislatures or courts or even popular opinion. There may a populist angle against this, especially on surveillance and overriding localism in development (data centers and school boards, but that will cost us in terms of housing development.)
It’s interesting that tariffs can be portrayed as both populist and anti-populist, depending on whether someone is more concerned with workers or consumers. A lot of Americans who like the idea of reviving domestic industry aren’t willing to pay higher prices to do so.
This suggests subsidies for domestic manufacturing, like those in the CHIPS Act, might be better funded by taxes on the rich than by tariffs. This would actually mesh quite well with what Hamilton generally wanted (he preferred “bounties” for manufacturers over protectionism in most cases) and the New Deal (the split between free traders and union-friendly protectionists of the last few decades is a split between two longstanding Democratic traditions, support for free trade and support for working class interests).
"...subsidies for domestic manufacturing, like those in the CHIPS Act, might be better funded by taxes on the rich..." "Taxes on the rich"..." - used for every new spending proposal by progressives.
Yeah. I much prefer the current legislation’s use of tax credits as a carrot.
Tariffs help a lot more than they hurt. The things most people spend money on are either already protected and domestic, or not "stuff". Rent, mortgage, car, health care, college, income taxes, fed and state taxes, food, cars, gasoline. If we ended NAFTA car manufacturing would move back.
I'm a lefty, and love taxing, but the CHIPS act was a huge waste of money, granted so were the tax cuts. Intel the biggest recipient of cash is a dog, it was losing money so fast they had to inject more to keep it afloat, and that was the company getting the most $$$$. Intel makes what? Their stock is rising in leaps and bounds back up to where it was 4 years ago.
When people say tax the rich, they're thinking of those immoral hedonists, not themselves. Tariffs bring in cash for our government and in the long run encourage domestic manufacturing. Neoliberalism can't die soon enough, need to drive a stake through it but it has no heart.
If you strip all of the DEI requirements out of it the rest of the CHIPS act is a fairly solid piece of legislation.