40+ years as a subscriber and canceled because of this. It isn't too surprising though, as Murdoc's woke son has taken over management, and besides, it is the paper of the Professional Management Class that does not support the end of the Global Order that Trump is seeing to.
To me, the WSJ has simply become an editorially moderate-central paper with maybe a tiny twinge to the right. It is far far from Rachel Maddox and Keith Olbermann. Basically, I like it because in daily news coverage they rely on fact-based reporting. So novel.
As someone who has traditionally voted Republican, but not always happy with Republican economics, I want an excuse to vote for Democrats. However, I will not vote for a party far left on social and cultural issues. I'm fine with being in the center, but not far left. I also find that too many Democrats turn me off with their holier than thou, preachy personality. I often say I like liberalism more than I like liberals.
Another stellar effort Ruy - thank you. I think you are having a positive effect.
The items you've discussed aren't just terrible ideas, they are ideas whose sole purpose is to rend the fabric of our society. Massive illegal immigration, massive homelessness, failure to punish rioting, denial of basic human biology, restriction of fossil fuel use, disruption of parental authority, and promotion of racial animosity through DEI all have a common goal of severing the delicate bonds that bind us as a nation. I firmly believe that the consequences of the policies you've cited are not unfortunate by products of well intentioned progressivism but rather deliberate actions meant to destroy our social contract. This from a formerly loyal Democrat.
Ditto. Intentional, well financed and well orchestrated campaign to break down and remake liberal Western societies. We all have our work cut out for us. It will take decades. In my search for sanity, I am heavily focused on down ballot candidates at the moment. Other suggestions?
Ruy's analysis is spot on, but lacks the next likely step. When Dems return to power, Dem leadership is likely to move Left, not Right. It is hard to imagine Dems continuing deportations, of even violent criminals. Dem rank and file may support such removals, but current Dem leadership has no interest in deporting anyone.
A entire Dem delegation flew to El Salvador, to visit an El Salvadorian citizen, in the custody of the El Salvadorian government, on El Salvadorian soil. Garcia was inadvertently deported to the wrong local, but it was his country of origin. How many US families have ever been been personally visited by a single member of Congress offering support, let alone an entire Congressional delegation?
Moreover, if SCOTUS rules that each potential deportee is entitled to an immigration hearing, Dems are nearly guaranteed, at their first opportunity, to simply flood the US, with another 10 or 20 million more migrants, that can never be removed. Blue states bleeding American residents, have rejuvenated their populations with new arrivals. For apportionment purposes, migrants will greatly reduce the number of House seats lost by Blue States, at little cost to Blue State tax payers.
Most Americans do not realize, the millions of migrants who presented themselves at a valid port of entry, claimed asylum and were then released into the US, are "legally present" in the US. This means they qualify for SNAP, housing subsidies and a plethora of other federal welfare programs. Progressives want these programs to grow. Trump announced the end of migrant subsidies, but that may require Congressional action, which Dems will never support. This means Blue States can continue to slow their outflow of bodies, on the federal tax payer's dime.
The real threat to the Dem Party is that it follows European Progressive Parties down their rabbit hole. The Continent is moving Right, yet Progressive European leaders, refuse to pivot. The process is not quick, but both England and Germany seem ripe for full blown political revolutions. Parts of Scandinavia, might already be ahead of them. It is a big "if", but if Trump happens to drastically lower prescription drug costs, while keeping oil at $60 bucks a barrel, and working tariff deals that spur US investment and open, otherwise closed markets, the US might be right there with them, and few people are going to remember Garcia, sitting in El Salvador.
As the saying goes, there's no fixing stupid. The stupidity of the Democratic Party, which its dwindling champions can only hope has peaked in 2025 and won't get worse, should assure it won't make the midterm gains the party out of power traditionally achieves. Another blistering setback in 2028 which sees the GOP again winning the presidency and widening it's margins of control in both the House and Senate will mark the end of a Democratic Party a majority of Americans don't like and are too embarrassed to identify with.
Ruy Teixeira and many others have ably outlined the Democrats' problem and incessant missteps. But there truly is no fixing stupid.
Another incisive argument by Ruy and I couldn’t agree more. I’d love to understand WHY such bad and unpopular ideas retain their hold on the party. I have a few thoughts.
There has developed among Democrats a culture of welcoming noble failures, of seeing rejection by the (uneducated/unenlightened/bigoted) voters as confirmation of one’s own intellect and virtue.
This habit of mind goes all the way back to the 80s and may come from the experience of relentlessly losing ground on the Party’s core principles and identity as champions of organized labor, the working class, and economic fairness.
The increasingly desperate hunger for campaign cash - a reality already embraced by Tony Coelho at the end of the 70s - sucked the party inexorably to the right, turning the party of FDR and LBJ into Clinton’s Republican Lite. Thus, even when Democrats won elections they continued to lose. This enervating pattern of endlessly surrendering one’s ideals almost forced Democrats to find ways to glorify defeat.
The slow death of the party’s commitment to economic fairness - driven by the accelerating arms race in campaign fundraising - also left Democrats with cultural radicalism as the only way to recover their self image as champions of the downtrodden and of progress.
The money chase ruined the GOP as well, but in different ways and for different reasons. A topic for another day.
I know I make this reminder every now and then, but across the nation, there are thousands and thousands of precinct committee officer positions that people can run for in even number years to represent their neighborhoods at the partisan legislative District groups. Most of those positions are vacant in both parties across the country. A very small group of people run the Democratic Party because everyone else is phoning it in. in order to make a change in the party, people have to run to become PCO they need to go to the meetings and they need to change the platform. I can’t say it more simply than that. The next opportunity to run for PCO is the primary election in 2026 mark your calendar. There’s a filing week in your county that’s the time to register to run and then commit yourself to going to a meeting once a month, I would so appreciate the help. It’s lonely out here and I guarantee you that the handful of radicals left to run the party have driven it to the ground.
Thank you for this. I just signed up to receive more information on becoming a PCO in my area. I truly believe we need to start from the ground up as the majority of the leadership, at least in my home state of California, is already ideologically captured. Keep your good thoughts coming!
How can the Democrats be so dense? An even bigger question is How can there not even be one Democratic leader that doesn’t see the upside potential in fighting this.
The Pew Research Center (June 2024) reported that 64% of Americans prioritize expanding production of wind, solar, and hydrogen power over expanding the exploration and production of oil, coal, and natural gas (35%). Younger Republicans are significantly more likely to favor expanding wind and solar power than older Republicans. Moderate Democrats, prefer a "mix" of energy sources that includes both renewables and fossil fuels, rather than phasing out fossil fuels entirely.
Did the Pew Research Center ask them how much they'd be willing to pay for wind, solar, and hydrogen power? Or if they're in favor of the government shutting down oil fields and mandating that they buy electric cars? That's the more important question.
Google the North American Electricity Reliability Council's 2025 Summer Reliability Assessment for the U.S. and Canada. It will give you a more factual presentation on the value of solar, wind and batteries in keeping the lights on.
It is a detailed reliability study. There are other sources that measure emissions - EPA is a good one. If you are looking for confirmation bias, you will have to go elsewhere.
Quit being so dismissive and thin-skinned. I tell you solar is bad for the environment, post a link, and you come back with 'it's reliable.'
I read a survey that basically said people 100% solar and wind, but they are only willing to pay an extra 0 to $15 a month on it. Which is why I questioned your 'polls' above.
Are any prominent Democrats paying attention to Ruy Texeira's over-the-top, hyperbolic analysis? He should be able to name a couple of elected officials. Otherwise, he is beginning to sound like scratched vinyl.
Always a good day when a new essay from Ruy Teixeira pops up on my email.
I'd have to assume that professional Democrats see no downside to sticking with the fairly extreme agenda. They earn the approbation of other journos, congressional staffers, dark money special interest groups, and similar.
Lately there's been lots of tariff talk. I'm not sure how tariffs will end up. How many big ticket items do voters buy in a year, items made overseas. It's not the price of eggs or a gallon of milk. Can't find any prediction markets for the midterms.
“DEI is merely an expression of the American values in the Constitution.”
DEI is to traditional constitutional civil rights what WWE is to Olympic Greco-Roman wrestling. Start with a principled activity sincerely based in fairness, and pervert the rules and language to create a scam for grifters and poseurs. At least WWE hasn’t wrecked so many lives.
If Ruy's cohorts don't regain control over the Democratic Party, the progressive moment is not over. Eventually the Republicans will fall to error of just bad luck and the Democrats will be back in power and the progressives will dominate that party and administration.
And when that happens the “progressive moment” will last 2 years as it often does. Give progressives the shortest rope and they still manage to hang the Democratic Party with it every time.
Having voted for JFK, Clinton and Obamas’ first terms, I always felt I got burned for my vote. Obama started this snowball and populism blew it up in ‘16. It’s hard to get narcissists to change their ways. If they choose Newson, the worst of the narcissists as their next presidential candidate they will go down again. Need a personality that will not be afraid of setting a new agenda.
Newsom will never win. This is from a Californian. There is no appetite for another progressive Bay Area Democrat. We need a non-coastal centrist Democrat.
Out of the potential 2028 Dem candidates I have heard mentioned, the only one I could even consider voting for is Shapiro. Hard no on Newsome, Prtizker, Harris, Whitmer, and probably Pete B.
How about a grade for the mainstream media over the last decade? Is there a column for F- ?
The Wall Street Journal is downright comical these days with TDS.
Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann must be shadow-editing it.
40+ years as a subscriber and canceled because of this. It isn't too surprising though, as Murdoc's woke son has taken over management, and besides, it is the paper of the Professional Management Class that does not support the end of the Global Order that Trump is seeing to.
To me, the WSJ has simply become an editorially moderate-central paper with maybe a tiny twinge to the right. It is far far from Rachel Maddox and Keith Olbermann. Basically, I like it because in daily news coverage they rely on fact-based reporting. So novel.
As someone who has traditionally voted Republican, but not always happy with Republican economics, I want an excuse to vote for Democrats. However, I will not vote for a party far left on social and cultural issues. I'm fine with being in the center, but not far left. I also find that too many Democrats turn me off with their holier than thou, preachy personality. I often say I like liberalism more than I like liberals.
Another stellar effort Ruy - thank you. I think you are having a positive effect.
The items you've discussed aren't just terrible ideas, they are ideas whose sole purpose is to rend the fabric of our society. Massive illegal immigration, massive homelessness, failure to punish rioting, denial of basic human biology, restriction of fossil fuel use, disruption of parental authority, and promotion of racial animosity through DEI all have a common goal of severing the delicate bonds that bind us as a nation. I firmly believe that the consequences of the policies you've cited are not unfortunate by products of well intentioned progressivism but rather deliberate actions meant to destroy our social contract. This from a formerly loyal Democrat.
Agreed.
Ditto. Intentional, well financed and well orchestrated campaign to break down and remake liberal Western societies. We all have our work cut out for us. It will take decades. In my search for sanity, I am heavily focused on down ballot candidates at the moment. Other suggestions?
They persuaded me to vote for Trump and I despise Trump. Nice going Democrats.
Ruy's analysis is spot on, but lacks the next likely step. When Dems return to power, Dem leadership is likely to move Left, not Right. It is hard to imagine Dems continuing deportations, of even violent criminals. Dem rank and file may support such removals, but current Dem leadership has no interest in deporting anyone.
A entire Dem delegation flew to El Salvador, to visit an El Salvadorian citizen, in the custody of the El Salvadorian government, on El Salvadorian soil. Garcia was inadvertently deported to the wrong local, but it was his country of origin. How many US families have ever been been personally visited by a single member of Congress offering support, let alone an entire Congressional delegation?
Moreover, if SCOTUS rules that each potential deportee is entitled to an immigration hearing, Dems are nearly guaranteed, at their first opportunity, to simply flood the US, with another 10 or 20 million more migrants, that can never be removed. Blue states bleeding American residents, have rejuvenated their populations with new arrivals. For apportionment purposes, migrants will greatly reduce the number of House seats lost by Blue States, at little cost to Blue State tax payers.
Most Americans do not realize, the millions of migrants who presented themselves at a valid port of entry, claimed asylum and were then released into the US, are "legally present" in the US. This means they qualify for SNAP, housing subsidies and a plethora of other federal welfare programs. Progressives want these programs to grow. Trump announced the end of migrant subsidies, but that may require Congressional action, which Dems will never support. This means Blue States can continue to slow their outflow of bodies, on the federal tax payer's dime.
The real threat to the Dem Party is that it follows European Progressive Parties down their rabbit hole. The Continent is moving Right, yet Progressive European leaders, refuse to pivot. The process is not quick, but both England and Germany seem ripe for full blown political revolutions. Parts of Scandinavia, might already be ahead of them. It is a big "if", but if Trump happens to drastically lower prescription drug costs, while keeping oil at $60 bucks a barrel, and working tariff deals that spur US investment and open, otherwise closed markets, the US might be right there with them, and few people are going to remember Garcia, sitting in El Salvador.
As the saying goes, there's no fixing stupid. The stupidity of the Democratic Party, which its dwindling champions can only hope has peaked in 2025 and won't get worse, should assure it won't make the midterm gains the party out of power traditionally achieves. Another blistering setback in 2028 which sees the GOP again winning the presidency and widening it's margins of control in both the House and Senate will mark the end of a Democratic Party a majority of Americans don't like and are too embarrassed to identify with.
Ruy Teixeira and many others have ably outlined the Democrats' problem and incessant missteps. But there truly is no fixing stupid.
Another incisive argument by Ruy and I couldn’t agree more. I’d love to understand WHY such bad and unpopular ideas retain their hold on the party. I have a few thoughts.
There has developed among Democrats a culture of welcoming noble failures, of seeing rejection by the (uneducated/unenlightened/bigoted) voters as confirmation of one’s own intellect and virtue.
This habit of mind goes all the way back to the 80s and may come from the experience of relentlessly losing ground on the Party’s core principles and identity as champions of organized labor, the working class, and economic fairness.
The increasingly desperate hunger for campaign cash - a reality already embraced by Tony Coelho at the end of the 70s - sucked the party inexorably to the right, turning the party of FDR and LBJ into Clinton’s Republican Lite. Thus, even when Democrats won elections they continued to lose. This enervating pattern of endlessly surrendering one’s ideals almost forced Democrats to find ways to glorify defeat.
The slow death of the party’s commitment to economic fairness - driven by the accelerating arms race in campaign fundraising - also left Democrats with cultural radicalism as the only way to recover their self image as champions of the downtrodden and of progress.
The money chase ruined the GOP as well, but in different ways and for different reasons. A topic for another day.
www.savedemocracyinamerica.org
I know I make this reminder every now and then, but across the nation, there are thousands and thousands of precinct committee officer positions that people can run for in even number years to represent their neighborhoods at the partisan legislative District groups. Most of those positions are vacant in both parties across the country. A very small group of people run the Democratic Party because everyone else is phoning it in. in order to make a change in the party, people have to run to become PCO they need to go to the meetings and they need to change the platform. I can’t say it more simply than that. The next opportunity to run for PCO is the primary election in 2026 mark your calendar. There’s a filing week in your county that’s the time to register to run and then commit yourself to going to a meeting once a month, I would so appreciate the help. It’s lonely out here and I guarantee you that the handful of radicals left to run the party have driven it to the ground.
Thank you for this. I just signed up to receive more information on becoming a PCO in my area. I truly believe we need to start from the ground up as the majority of the leadership, at least in my home state of California, is already ideologically captured. Keep your good thoughts coming!
That's why I voted for Trump last November, despite being a lifelong Dem. The way things are going means I will probably vote for JD in 2028.
How can the Democrats be so dense? An even bigger question is How can there not even be one Democratic leader that doesn’t see the upside potential in fighting this.
The Pew Research Center (June 2024) reported that 64% of Americans prioritize expanding production of wind, solar, and hydrogen power over expanding the exploration and production of oil, coal, and natural gas (35%). Younger Republicans are significantly more likely to favor expanding wind and solar power than older Republicans. Moderate Democrats, prefer a "mix" of energy sources that includes both renewables and fossil fuels, rather than phasing out fossil fuels entirely.
Did the Pew Research Center ask them how much they'd be willing to pay for wind, solar, and hydrogen power? Or if they're in favor of the government shutting down oil fields and mandating that they buy electric cars? That's the more important question.
Don’t you love the polling questions &/or interpretations of polls
Exactly!
Solar - environmental disaster.
Wasting Away in Wind-and-Solarville --
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/05/15/wasting_away_in_wind-and-solarville_1110296.html
Google the North American Electricity Reliability Council's 2025 Summer Reliability Assessment for the U.S. and Canada. It will give you a more factual presentation on the value of solar, wind and batteries in keeping the lights on.
Does it include the cost to the the environment?
It is a detailed reliability study. There are other sources that measure emissions - EPA is a good one. If you are looking for confirmation bias, you will have to go elsewhere.
Quit being so dismissive and thin-skinned. I tell you solar is bad for the environment, post a link, and you come back with 'it's reliable.'
I read a survey that basically said people 100% solar and wind, but they are only willing to pay an extra 0 to $15 a month on it. Which is why I questioned your 'polls' above.
Are any prominent Democrats paying attention to Ruy Texeira's over-the-top, hyperbolic analysis? He should be able to name a couple of elected officials. Otherwise, he is beginning to sound like scratched vinyl.
Always a good day when a new essay from Ruy Teixeira pops up on my email.
I'd have to assume that professional Democrats see no downside to sticking with the fairly extreme agenda. They earn the approbation of other journos, congressional staffers, dark money special interest groups, and similar.
Lately there's been lots of tariff talk. I'm not sure how tariffs will end up. How many big ticket items do voters buy in a year, items made overseas. It's not the price of eggs or a gallon of milk. Can't find any prediction markets for the midterms.
“DEI is merely an expression of the American values in the Constitution.”
DEI is to traditional constitutional civil rights what WWE is to Olympic Greco-Roman wrestling. Start with a principled activity sincerely based in fairness, and pervert the rules and language to create a scam for grifters and poseurs. At least WWE hasn’t wrecked so many lives.
If Ruy's cohorts don't regain control over the Democratic Party, the progressive moment is not over. Eventually the Republicans will fall to error of just bad luck and the Democrats will be back in power and the progressives will dominate that party and administration.
It isn't just the US Democrats. It is global.
People are generally sick and tired of the globalist left. The European governments are using police state tactics to keep it under control.
Agreed. I fear it may take decades to really purge the politics of the progressive left from our institutions. The ideological capture is profound.
I find it humorous that just as the Left completed its Gramscian March Through The Institutions, public confidence in them collapsed.
Canceling elections, outlawing candidates and parties -- for democracy....
"democracy" means "the left getting its way"
nothing more.
And when that happens the “progressive moment” will last 2 years as it often does. Give progressives the shortest rope and they still manage to hang the Democratic Party with it every time.
The damage that Ruy notes didn't just happen to the Democratic Party. I happened to the whole country.
Having voted for JFK, Clinton and Obamas’ first terms, I always felt I got burned for my vote. Obama started this snowball and populism blew it up in ‘16. It’s hard to get narcissists to change their ways. If they choose Newson, the worst of the narcissists as their next presidential candidate they will go down again. Need a personality that will not be afraid of setting a new agenda.
Newsom will never win. This is from a Californian. There is no appetite for another progressive Bay Area Democrat. We need a non-coastal centrist Democrat.
Out of the potential 2028 Dem candidates I have heard mentioned, the only one I could even consider voting for is Shapiro. Hard no on Newsome, Prtizker, Harris, Whitmer, and probably Pete B.
100% for Shapiro!