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.
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?
I had a big rant ready to go. But the bottom line is, the worldview prior to Trump's was elected was rejected on 11/5/2024. The current worldview was voted in. The left seems unable to grasp the fact they have made themselves irrelevant.
But under that framework it was likewise rejected in 2020--and turnout was higher in 2020.
That's because presidential elections don't turn on 'worldviews', but on a whole bunch of variables, many of them very quotidian.
And let's not pretend this was a Reagan-style landslide. Less than 50% of the country voted for the guy, even if he got more votes than his opponent. Winning 0.15% more of the population than your opponent is not what you call a 'mandate', nor an 'overwhelming consensus' for what the winning candidate is selling.
This is so far beside the point. In 2024, almost every county in the United States shifted away from the Democrats and toward Trump, in many cases by double digit percentages. The People, in the way that we constitutionally determine, spoke clearly in this. We have a clear direction. That is the mandate.
‘Number of electors’ (legal construct) is not the same as ‘number of voters’ (actual voting public) and Trump could only secure under half of the actual voting public’s endorsement. That wins him the election, yes, but unless you want to claim the other 74 million are somehow not part of ‘The People’ of the United States, then you cannot say the people delivered an overwhelming endorsement to him. In truth, looking at the *actual* voting public and not a legal abstraction of it—and, as a flesh-and-blood entity, looking at the actual voting public makes more sense in adjudging the intentions of the actual ‘People’ of the nation—one sees that neither Harris nor Trump secured such an overwhelming endorsement. Thus, if we are to speak of the ‘worldview’ of the public, as ban nock is, the only sensible conclusion is that that the voting public is still completely split down the middle in terms of its views, not leaning heavily in one direction.
A worldview is said to be the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual's or society's knowledge, culture, and point of view. However, when two parties view the same real world phenomenon, their worldviews may differ, one including elements that the other does not. A worldview can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics
Notice that nowhere in that description does it say “presidential candidates are by necessity accurate one-to-one representations of the worldviews of society, and people only vote for them on the basis of such, and never on less metaphysical and abstract considerations like ‘my groceries are too expensive so I’m voting for the other guy’”.
You’re also kinda making my point for me by using the word ‘society’ there—49.9% of the population of a polity does not comprise its ‘society’. It comprises, depending on how you want to define things, at most *under half* of that polity’s ‘society’.
What exactly is the purpose of your post. You have nothing valid to say so move on. Your worldview was rejected. A loser lecturing a winner. You can’t even grasp how insane you sound.
An answer not worth answering except at least 77 million think you’re full of crap. Do you really expect anyone to view that as viable answer? You’re becoming boorish unworthy of any adult attention.
I guess my post contradicts my first few lines. But necessary. Take your response up a few notices, or say good bye.
If you’re going to use that logic then 75 million Americans “think *you’re* full of crap”. 81 million in 2020.
But you know how many people live in America, and comprise American society? 340 million. And not all of them vote. So how does who that 75 million voted for in a quadrennial election somehow determine the ‘worldview’ of the other 265 million?
Are you beginning to see the problem? It’s not that hard to figure out.
By no means. I execrate it. None of those people who knew about the Presidents incapacity should ever work in government again. Add to it the tens of billions in giveaways for loan forgiveness without authorization from Congress, the unilateral redefinition of the civil rights act, the colossal foreign policy and military incompetence, and the truly colossal level of graft that came out of the IRA. We have a constitutional manner for determining what the will of the people is, and the results were pretty definitive. We hire the President to do a job of work, not to express our culture to likeminded people.
How about, those behind the cover up are arrested as a coup that took over our government for 4 years. The weak accuse Trump of becoming a dictator. Jill biden, hunter biden, jake sullivan, anthony blinken and WH advisors ran this country. Is that what you mean and why we elected joe biden?n Why such a laissez faire attitude towards those who disposed the elected representative chosen by the people, joe, and took over the government by no one whose was elected to do so? Look up the word junta and realize that the definition has been expanded from Central and South America to the United states of America.
I can't grasp your concept. People vote for the person most likely to create a country that the voter believes is the correct way to run it. Why do we consistently her from those in charge these are or are not this county's values? If you didn't vote for Trump, it's because his values and beliefs, worldview, are not what you wanted based on your values and beliefs, worldview. Go back up and actually read and comprehend what a worldview is.
If what you say is true, you sure must have hated the biden administration and all it stood for and did. Yes, being President is part expressing our culture to all citizens. If not, then no one should have a problem with Trump accepting the 747-8, which by law has to done as accepting it for the country, based on anything but the law. Not bad optics, not because you find it repulsive etc. The only acceptable answer is, is it lawful? Yes i t is. Then move on.
"no one should have a problem with Trump accepting the 747-8, which by law has to done as accepting it for the country, based on anything but the law."
I'm afraid it's the opposite, my good fellow.
***"And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
-U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9***
And let's not forget--
***"Buyers of U.S. President Donald Trump’s $TRUMP meme coin spent an estimated $148 million in the contest to win the opportunity to dine with the president at his private golf club outside of Washington, D.C. on May 22, according to crypto intelligence firm Inca Digital.
The event, *which the president promoted on social media* as the “most EXCLUSIVE INVITATION in the world,” promised the top 220 holders of the $TRUMP meme coin an invite to a gala dinner with the president, while the top 25 will also enjoy “an ultra-exclusive private VIP reception” with the president as well as a “Special VIP Tour.”"***
If you're truly opposed to graft, you should be denouncing the sitting president AND Biden, not apotheosizing the former and focusing solely on the latter.
Constitutional law was rejected on 11/5/2024? You'll have to explain that one.
My purpose, right now, is simply to demonstrate the incorrectness of the claims you are forwarding here, both in the structure of their rationale and in their lack of empirical support. (What the fruit of such activity might be is another debate altogether)
Your constitutional law was. You know article 25 that wasn't used to replace an incompetent president but coup of unelected unknowns ran our country illegally for years.
That's all that needs to said. You have no clue. You have your version of the Constitution, then there is the correct version.
The light of truth always does. Tell me, who ran the WH, this country, during joe's 4 years? Are you comfortable with that level of deceit and corruption?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
“I often say I like liberalism more than I like liberals”
Relatable statement!
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?
I had a big rant ready to go. But the bottom line is, the worldview prior to Trump's was elected was rejected on 11/5/2024. The current worldview was voted in. The left seems unable to grasp the fact they have made themselves irrelevant.
But under that framework it was likewise rejected in 2020--and turnout was higher in 2020.
That's because presidential elections don't turn on 'worldviews', but on a whole bunch of variables, many of them very quotidian.
And let's not pretend this was a Reagan-style landslide. Less than 50% of the country voted for the guy, even if he got more votes than his opponent. Winning 0.15% more of the population than your opponent is not what you call a 'mandate', nor an 'overwhelming consensus' for what the winning candidate is selling.
This is so far beside the point. In 2024, almost every county in the United States shifted away from the Democrats and toward Trump, in many cases by double digit percentages. The People, in the way that we constitutionally determine, spoke clearly in this. We have a clear direction. That is the mandate.
‘Number of electors’ (legal construct) is not the same as ‘number of voters’ (actual voting public) and Trump could only secure under half of the actual voting public’s endorsement. That wins him the election, yes, but unless you want to claim the other 74 million are somehow not part of ‘The People’ of the United States, then you cannot say the people delivered an overwhelming endorsement to him. In truth, looking at the *actual* voting public and not a legal abstraction of it—and, as a flesh-and-blood entity, looking at the actual voting public makes more sense in adjudging the intentions of the actual ‘People’ of the nation—one sees that neither Harris nor Trump secured such an overwhelming endorsement. Thus, if we are to speak of the ‘worldview’ of the public, as ban nock is, the only sensible conclusion is that that the voting public is still completely split down the middle in terms of its views, not leaning heavily in one direction.
A worldview is said to be the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual's or society's knowledge, culture, and point of view. However, when two parties view the same real world phenomenon, their worldviews may differ, one including elements that the other does not. A worldview can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics
Notice that nowhere in that description does it say “presidential candidates are by necessity accurate one-to-one representations of the worldviews of society, and people only vote for them on the basis of such, and never on less metaphysical and abstract considerations like ‘my groceries are too expensive so I’m voting for the other guy’”.
You’re also kinda making my point for me by using the word ‘society’ there—49.9% of the population of a polity does not comprise its ‘society’. It comprises, depending on how you want to define things, at most *under half* of that polity’s ‘society’.
What exactly is the purpose of your post. You have nothing valid to say so move on. Your worldview was rejected. A loser lecturing a winner. You can’t even grasp how insane you sound.
An answer not worth answering except at least 77 million think you’re full of crap. Do you really expect anyone to view that as viable answer? You’re becoming boorish unworthy of any adult attention.
I guess my post contradicts my first few lines. But necessary. Take your response up a few notices, or say good bye.
If you’re going to use that logic then 75 million Americans “think *you’re* full of crap”. 81 million in 2020.
But you know how many people live in America, and comprise American society? 340 million. And not all of them vote. So how does who that 75 million voted for in a quadrennial election somehow determine the ‘worldview’ of the other 265 million?
Are you beginning to see the problem? It’s not that hard to figure out.
By no means. I execrate it. None of those people who knew about the Presidents incapacity should ever work in government again. Add to it the tens of billions in giveaways for loan forgiveness without authorization from Congress, the unilateral redefinition of the civil rights act, the colossal foreign policy and military incompetence, and the truly colossal level of graft that came out of the IRA. We have a constitutional manner for determining what the will of the people is, and the results were pretty definitive. We hire the President to do a job of work, not to express our culture to likeminded people.
How about, those behind the cover up are arrested as a coup that took over our government for 4 years. The weak accuse Trump of becoming a dictator. Jill biden, hunter biden, jake sullivan, anthony blinken and WH advisors ran this country. Is that what you mean and why we elected joe biden?n Why such a laissez faire attitude towards those who disposed the elected representative chosen by the people, joe, and took over the government by no one whose was elected to do so? Look up the word junta and realize that the definition has been expanded from Central and South America to the United states of America.
I can't grasp your concept. People vote for the person most likely to create a country that the voter believes is the correct way to run it. Why do we consistently her from those in charge these are or are not this county's values? If you didn't vote for Trump, it's because his values and beliefs, worldview, are not what you wanted based on your values and beliefs, worldview. Go back up and actually read and comprehend what a worldview is.
If what you say is true, you sure must have hated the biden administration and all it stood for and did. Yes, being President is part expressing our culture to all citizens. If not, then no one should have a problem with Trump accepting the 747-8, which by law has to done as accepting it for the country, based on anything but the law. Not bad optics, not because you find it repulsive etc. The only acceptable answer is, is it lawful? Yes i t is. Then move on.
"no one should have a problem with Trump accepting the 747-8, which by law has to done as accepting it for the country, based on anything but the law."
I'm afraid it's the opposite, my good fellow.
***"And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
-U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9***
And let's not forget--
***"Buyers of U.S. President Donald Trump’s $TRUMP meme coin spent an estimated $148 million in the contest to win the opportunity to dine with the president at his private golf club outside of Washington, D.C. on May 22, according to crypto intelligence firm Inca Digital.
The event, *which the president promoted on social media* as the “most EXCLUSIVE INVITATION in the world,” promised the top 220 holders of the $TRUMP meme coin an invite to a gala dinner with the president, while the top 25 will also enjoy “an ultra-exclusive private VIP reception” with the president as well as a “Special VIP Tour.”"***
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/buyers-trump-meme-coin-pay-millions-win-dinner-with-president-trump-2025-05-12/
If you're truly opposed to graft, you should be denouncing the sitting president AND Biden, not apotheosizing the former and focusing solely on the latter.
My answer is the same, under your worldview that may be true. That worldview was rejected on 11/5/2024.
And I ask again, what is your purpose for posting on here?
Constitutional law was rejected on 11/5/2024? You'll have to explain that one.
My purpose, right now, is simply to demonstrate the incorrectness of the claims you are forwarding here, both in the structure of their rationale and in their lack of empirical support. (What the fruit of such activity might be is another debate altogether)
Your constitutional law was. You know article 25 that wasn't used to replace an incompetent president but coup of unelected unknowns ran our country illegally for years.
That's all that needs to said. You have no clue. You have your version of the Constitution, then there is the correct version.
I think you think I disagree with you, but I don’t.
Pardon my passion which skews as bad as hate sometimes. The difference being folks like you who can bring me back to equilibrium:)
You know, if it makes you feel better . . .
The light of truth always does. Tell me, who ran the WH, this country, during joe's 4 years? Are you comfortable with that level of deceit and corruption?
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.
They persuaded me to vote for Trump and I despise Trump. Nice going Democrats.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.