Another well reasoned plea to the Democratic leadership. Not sure they are listening and in particular not sure they are ready to listen to logic. Too bad because their issue is much worse than moderating their cultural positions. They are going to have to admit they were simply wrong on them (men can legally be women, children can make life changing medical decisions or try science is settled). The last one really pokes me in the eye particularly for anything that doesn’t have 50-75 years of consensus. The cultural issues to a very large extent underly whether I can trust you to make decisions that there is no way I can really understand which is best. But cultural issues are different. When a party betrays women’s rights by letting men compete in women’s sports that goes to the heart of trust. Particularly when that same party has talked endlessly of women’s rights. The Democrats have one very large trust issue with a politically significant section of the country and neither of the strategies listed will begin to address that. Until they address that they will have a very hard time having enough national power to make any significant difference
"When a party betrays women’s rights by letting men compete in women’s sports that goes to the heart of trust."
Men competing in women's sports is the tip of the iceberg here. Ted Cruz grilling a judge who put a serial rapist in a women's prison. The smugness and defiance of the judge.
This is not a one-off. Most blue states allow men in women's prisons if they say the magic words, "I identify as a woman." The Federal system did too, although Trump reversed that. Interestingly, California had been dragging their feet about letting male sex offenders into women's prisons. They let violent male prisoners into women's prisons as long as they weren't sex crimes. So the ACLU sued the state of California to let male sex offenders also be put into women's prisons.
Excellent thesis. Our not particularly political 20 something son noticed coverage of the "No Kings" march on TV. He quipped, "God's Waiting Room is really, really empty today". The turnout was impressive, the median age and the policies, far less so.
It is one of history's great political ironies that Dems believe they have a messaging problem, but seem unaware their policies are widely despised. Meanwhile, Reps have far superior policies, but fail at implementation and messaging.
The March focused on deportations, but not a single Dem has offered a new policy, other than never deporting anyone, but the criminally violent. Evidently, asylum now applies not just to the persecuted, but to anyone in the world, poor, disappointed in their government, job prospects, schools or backyard view.
On the other hand Reps, need to run the numbers. Deportations are costing a fortune, while making Reps look horrendous, even though legal. Trump the premier deal maker, should work his ME magic, at home.
Few outside of border states, realize the migration was not organic. NGOs had tax payer funded physical facilities in Latin and South America that informed migrants, US tax payers would happily financially underwrite a US middle class life style, if they were willing to clean houses, pools, or pound a hammer, 40 hours a week. Then the Cartels acted as travel agents. Migrants were conned, en mass. It was one of the most evil policies ever concocted in DC.
To that end, paying migrants more to humanely, quickly repatriate, seems a far better idea than just the current route. Trump's underlying idea is understandable. He is not only trying to rid the US of the millions residing illegally, but is seeking to ensure the next wave of 10 million, never arrive.
Dems, attempting to dissolve immigration law as they did the border, should understand a 54% welfare enrollment rate by all naturalized citizens and immigrants both legal and illegal, is not remotely sustainable. Reps will eventually figure out how to message the issue, and when they do, many Americans are going to demand Japanese and Korean like immigration policies, if Dems do not address Biden's 10 million person mistake.
The pics I saw told me that every obese, depressed, middle-aged and older woman with hair tinted in Day-Glo colors left the attic and walked around on the street. Including the one from Connecticut, who could have starred as the Wicked Witch in a remake of The Wizard of Oz, this time with metallic blue hair. This is the Democratic Party on acid. LOL
I grew up Reublican. Then, I became a Libertarian for a brief time under George W. Bush. After that, I voted Obama twice. Now, I ended up voting for Trump. I am an educator. What I saw the left pushing on gender really upset me. Telling teachers to not use terms like Mom or Dad or girls and boys? Come on! And then the Covid debacle. Where people clearly enjoyed the power the shutdowns afforded in Liberal states (I live in one). Finally, the push to have men join women's spaces. No thank you.
It will take a good bit to get my vote back. I no longer trust the Democrat Party. That is not to say I trust the Republicans. But when I see the Democrats embracing the Cheneys (people who caused me to join the Dems), what am I to do?
Their biggest problem isn't winning back power, it's what they are for, specific proposals and plans, if they ever do get a clue about governing again.
Right now the only recognizable position is that they really, really, really, hate Trump and anything associated with him. That's sort of like fighting the last war. Remember, in spite of the hysteria, he's not running again.
What programs (specifics) are they proposing that haven't already been rejected by the majority of the electorate?
I thought the essay was extremely well constructed and a very interesting read. Yet the "boldness" being pleaded for did not include one mention of the specific cultural issues which may kill the Democratic Party. It felt like a proclamation by the Ministry of Magic which dared not name "He who must not be named. "
It seems the themes of The Liberal Patriot have become popular with much of the traditional media as well as the substacks. Most commentators left of center and even on the right recognise that The Democratic Party needs to make some course adjustments to send their party in a more realistic direction.
This week I saw that wages for the bottom quarter of workers is again slipping relative to everyone else. Car loan defaults are up. Yet my wife urges me to get a new ipad and the tuitions we pay barely registers on our budget. The 10% of income is doing very well, the stock market breaks new records. Half of consumer spending is by the 10%. I notice lots of heavy equipment lined up at the used dealer beside the highway.
One thing the commentariate never does is make a concrete suggestion of exactly what needs to change, just vague mentions of rust belt and cultural shifts. To win a Democrat is going to have to get specific.
Anyone go to the No Kings March? Looked pretty fun, like a huge block party in nice weather. I cut rafter tails from a home project I shouldn't be doing.
I don't see it. The Woke values infects everything on the D side, and every one of them is now increasingly pointing to one conclusion: "Democrats want us dead." Whether it's Pritzker and soft on crime in Chicago, or the rising star Mandami, who not only will be mayor of NYC, but, mark my words, WILL BE THE NOMINEE for president. (Don't give me that "but the Constitution" stuff. Ds have been quite facile at ignoring the Constitution, and neither Rs nor courts will even try to stop him before he's nominated). Wait for the messaging from Mandami's NYC when we get our first images of Muslims shutting down major NY thoroughfares for prayers . . . it's coming). I see Ds having the same problem today as the Whigs had in the 1840s, namely, they tried to advance an "economic" argument while ignoring the larger and more serious culture argument of slavery. As the Whigs found out, it's impossible. Until the cultural values are brought in line---marriage is good, there are only two sexes, illegal immigration from a cultural standpoint is a disaster, rampant crime isn't the result of "racism" or OVER funded police . . . well, I don't see the party ever being successful in the economic sphere.
Regarding the cultural values I would add, children are a blessing, it's wrong to bombard children with sexual topics, schools should never hide things from parents, and a much, much healthier respect, at least, for Christianity's net positive influence on the World. As we know, much evil, has been brought forth and continues to be brought forth under the guise of Christianity, but we should remember, man's actions never changes the Truth and the wisdom of the Bible.
I appreciate the author trying to be more balanced. It feels like it would be similar to me trying to throw a bone to those that have embraced atheism.
What makes you think Mamdani will be the 2028 nominee, when virtually everyone to the right of AOC or Bernie anticipates that his actual administration will turn out to be a disaster (i.e., unworkable)?
We'll see. In 2019 I predicted that after what I thought would be a Trump win (but regardless) that Kanye West would run for president.
He did in 2020. Not too successfully. But he ran. Actually, I hope I'm wrong---not that J.D. Vance, who will be the R candidate, won't stomp him but that he will set NYC back another 20 years to pre-Guiliani levels.
In '24, I included the veep: P. Diddy. Look, when you live in WA State, where Satan would win statewide if there was a D behind his name, an occasional sense of humor helps. LOL
My reasoning was that assuming Trump had won in 2020, the concept of "celebrity" would have become a major advantage in any national race---not the quality of candidate, but pure Tik Tok name recognition, and Kanye had that!
I stopped after the first line. If the goal is to win back power, it is an anti country/citizen goal. How about, how to win back voters and become the type of leaders this country needs. If your goal is to just win power, the goal of the electorate should be to deny one the ability to reach such a goal. Do you actually know what you are posting?
The Rs are vulnerable on health care, and ANY administration is ALWAYS vulnerable on the economy. Every presidential election is determined by the state of the economy in the early part of the election year, and a lot of mid-terms revolve around the economy too.
So if the economy holds (we shall see), I think the Ds are pretty much whistling past the graveyard on everything else. If the Supremes gut the Voting Rights Act in time for the South to redistrict before next November, the Rs stand to pick up at least 10 House seats. Combine it with the net effect of the other gerrymandering wars, and that'll be more like 15.
It would be hard to overstate how demoralizing that'd be for the Democratic Party and their legacy media water carriers. I'd expect more and more unhinged rhetoric and some increase in violence from the left. If the economy is okay or better in '28, Vance will beat Newsom by the same 10% margin that Eisenhower got over Stevenson in 1952. More if the Dems go Full Crazy like they did between 1968 and 1972. Nixon beat McGovern by 23 points.
None of this is baked in the cake. Trump's a loose cannon, and the economy is a major wild card as always. Still, the political environment reminds me of one of those tropical waves coming off of Africa in the summertime. Do the Democrats even comprehend what could easily happen? If that VRA decision comes down soon enough, it'll be a Category 2 hurricane. Lose the '28 election, and it's Katrina. After the '30 census and redistricting, Hurricane Camille.
They bitch and moan about a 6-3 Supreme Court? What'll they think when it's 8-1? They need to study up on U.S. politics between 1869 and 1933. In those 64 years, the Dems had the White House for 16, Congress for 10, and a White House-Congress "trifecta" for 10. The Rs ran this country, and the Supreme Court? Read Plessy v Ferguson.
Oh, and here's a curveball that they haven't even thought about: From what Trump said in a press conference this summer, and which got NO attention from the intrepid, biased, lazy media, it looks like the Rs are going to go for immigration reform. If they do it, and do it right, that's going to be game, set, match. 10 or 15 million naturalized Mexican Americans, 70% Republican. Hoo boy. The Democrats, and especially these insular "No Kings" fools? They won't know what hit 'em.
Oh dear. You pay far too much attention to facts. It's much easier to feel virtuous while you shout NO KINGS! And if the other side wins, you always have the fallback position of being *even more* virtuous, because...deplorables.
The Democrats have abandoned liberalism for TDS. As long as we are the official party of Trump haters, we are lost. No Kings is so embarrassing, it is a protest centered on a straw man argument.
The young Republican text messages (250 of them, it seems) and JD Vance's response were visceral reminders of why, for decades, I didn't often vote for Republicans. Not to mention Republican cruelty, like the party's commitment to ending any form of government help to poor people.
And yet, today, the Dems are just as cruel in their own way. Sure, they want to keep insurance subsidies, which is a good thing. But the party of women's rights, including its chief resister Gavin Newsom, is happy to stomp all over women so it can make trans-identified fetishistic males happy --- up to and allowing them to rape their female cellmates in women's prisons.
The party of "diversity" is openly hostile to whites (especially males) at all times, and to Asians when it suits their narrative, such as in hiring and college admissions. The party of tolerance is gushing over Graham Platner, a self-described police-hating "communist" who said that rural white people "actually are" racist and stupid. Not to mention the tipping thing, the sexual assault thing, and the thinly veiled call to take up arms against your political opponents (justified because they're "fascists."). Why is this piece presenting him as any kind of reasonable alternative to the enraged progressives and their diktats?
Those comments are the left-wing equivalent of the Young Republican text messages, and Platner's excuses for them are as empty as JD Vance's claim that the YRs were "stupid kids" making "edgy jokes." These were adults in their 20s and 30s! Talk about both men feeding the extremist base while putting off pretty much everyone else.
If Trump or Vance had said what Platner did, the No Kings! keffiyah crowd would have been stroking out with all the righteous fury they could muster. But Platner? He was going through a rough patch.
I'm disgusted and disappointed, and wondering where the Dems are going. If Graham Platner, Gavin Newsom, and the Squad are what the left has to offer, I'm not optimistic.
I think most Reps have no problem with subsidies for American citizens earning the median family income or below. Current Obamacare subsidies, due to Covid increases, also go to families earning between between $150K-$500K as well. That is insane.
80% of the country lives on less than $150K a year. I realize the Coasts are more expensive, but where to live is a choice. Expecting taxpayers to subsidize healthcare more, because San Jose is more expensive than Dallas, cannot be a winning idea for Dems. It will simply stoke more resentment from portions of the country, where Dem numbers have already dropped like a rock.
The Young Reps should have been immediately and permanently banished from the Party. Vance not saying so was a mistake. However, that in no way compares to a VA AG candidate Jones wishing not only death on his opponent, but his 2 children, who Jones knew personally from professional interactions with their father. Jones is going to lose anyway. Dems would have been miles ahead to demand his resignation, even though it was too late to replace him.
Agree completely about Jones, though I think the young Rs were as disgusting as he was.
Anyway, I can't find information confirming that subsidies are available for income up to $500,000. My understanding is that they go away at $128K (400% of federal poverty level for house of 4).
Wouldn’t it be refreshing to have no drama for several years? Could there be a Democrat mayor in the US who is effective in maintaining safe neighborhoods, safe public transit, and top performing schools? Might it be worth asking him or her for a guest article to celebrate his/her success and tell us how they did it? Is that too much to ask?
A huge loophole are the newly self employed, "consultants" and the like. Obamacare allows them to predict what their income will be, with no clawbacks. Actually I believe declared subsidies top out out at $175K, before loopholes. So first year single practitioner attorney, financial consultant or an Uber driver expect income of $40K-$75K. If the first 2 have a good year, and make $200K-$400K, their Obamacare subsidy for that year does not change. Likewise, the Uber driver pulls 3 times as much, there is no extra premium due. Also, if you inherit $200K from an Uncle George or sell your house and pocket $500K. It is a loophole, you can drive a truck through.
Nolo says that the no-payback rule only applies to the year 2020. Maybe I misunderstood you?
"If you receive Affordable Care Act tax credits and underestimate your annual income, you may have to pay them back. The rules vary depending on the year.
[Starting in 2022], the premium tax credit is only for low and moderate income people whose household income is between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL)." (this is the 2014-2019 rule).
The key word there is "may" , not "shall". An attorney friend out on her own for the first time paid $28 bucks a month for coverage. She made nearly $400K, that year. The next year she did not qualify, but she never paid more , for the first year. It is not required.
"...like the party's commitment to ending any form of government help to poor people..." For pity's sake. Because they want citizens to access insurance subsidized by citizens? Because people making six figures won't be subsidized anymore? 40% of people in some states are on the dole. This is not sustainable.
I was referring to genuinely low-income people who can't afford essential medicines. I know people who have to choose between paying rent, buying food, and buying insulin for juvenile diabetes. It's not right that we abandon our weakest citizens. I agree about stopping abuse, but states that banned the Medicaid expansion, for example, weren't going after abuse.
Val--we feel the same way. And then the pesky data show that the bottom 20% of income earners received about 64K per year in various services, and they earn nothing themselves to get that 64K.
Kind of sad that people are ignoring my overall point here. But if you force me, here goes: Boeing, home of self-crashing planes and freedom from FAA oversight, got $15.6 billion in government subsidies last year. Amazon got $14.4 billion ($59 billion profit). This list goes on an on.* The top 20 subsidies amounted to $98 billion.
Spending on SNAP benefits, much of which goes to children, was $100 billion in 2024.**
We pour free government money into Amazon, which excels at avoiding taxes, and begrudge food to children? When is enough enough?
(I agree that soda and garbage like Lunchables should be excluded from SNAP; but that is a very different question from begrudging people food when we pour money into highly profitable tech giants, auto giants, and etc.). This includes even military families. Why are members of our military forced to sign up for welfare? I guess they're not doing "enough," right?
So, yeah, I'm furious at the Democrats. And the reason why is because they're doing such an abysmal job, not because I think that ensuring that children get food and healthcare is beyond "enough." I don't expect them to be "earn" that help. I expect that the help will put them in a position to escape needing it someday.
I agree Reps missed the opportunity of a lifetime, by not raising taxes at very top end, and setting a minimum corporate tax based on sales and gross income, not net income.
The Rep argument is people who work their whole lives and sell their business, should not be hit for 1 extraordinary year, out of 50 mediocre ones. That can be cured with a single exemption that can be used for the sale of one business. Had Reps enacted such policies, they could hold power for a very long time.
Reps are missing the low hanging fruit by not offering to increase subsidies, but only for American citizens. The Swiss have the best medical care in the world, for Swiss citizens. There are a few Red Cross free clinics for non Swiss citizens, but generally speaking, if a non Swiss citizen shows up in a hospital lacking the insurance everyone is required to carry or the ability to self pay, they stabilize you and send you back to your country of origin, where your family and your country can care for you.
I lived in CH for a few years and am married to a citizen. Healthcare there is pricey, but subsidized. I had a work permit and the government subsidized my insurance because my income was so low. I lived well but not like a queen in spite of the low income. Anyone with a work permit would be in the same situation. Switzerland gets a lot of things right. It's kind of feudal in some ways, which is a problem, but there are a lot of laws that protect people from being taken advantage of. The country has a way of insulating itself against extremism, for the most part. And the immigration process is so smooth it's unreal.
I'll ask my husband tonight about the stabilizing thing; his brother and sister are in the medical field.
How do you propose to pay down the National Debt? (and don't say "tax the rich." Studies have shown that if you took all of the money from the rich it would last about a year).
How many of those folks getting SNAP benefits have cell phones? How many live frugally?
Aren't we already being incredibly generous? 64K? When does it stop? Is there no limit to it?
Thanks for the link on subsidies. But what are they? What does our government subsidize for, say, Amazon? Who compiled those data? Plus, aren't those data summaries of the last 25 years? And a lot of those subsidies are actually spent giving people jobs.
SNAP benefits are not all. Medicaid? Tons of other benefits.
My sister retired as a teacher. She got 60K/year. What someone who isn't working at all is getting.
We are VERY generous. We can't just keep printing money.
People need phones, and you can get plans for $35 a month with a free or subsidized phone. How will people find jobs without a phone, exactly? Are you going to begrudge them electricity too? This is what I mean about right-wing cruelty: punishing people for being poor, raising barriers making it harder for them to escape poverty, and then blaming them.
This is the same tactic the left uses on women: it's YOUR fault you're trapped in traffic jams. It's YOUR fault you were late because you got stopped at 15 red lights on a two-mile journey. We have to punish you for driving because driving is BAD. And we won't build trains and bus routes because...NIMBY. And synchronizing lights would just encourage driving.
I don't know where you get that $64K number. You need to provide URLs, like I did.
Amazon subsidies; click on the company name links in that URL for more information.
One question (a big one) for us is the emphasis on economics for Democrats.
Can they fix anything? Not asking whether there are any people who can fix anything, but instead asking whether anything is truly fixable.
Here is why. We are boomers. In our childhoods, we did not live according to the middle class now. We rarely went out to eat, for vacations we drove to relatives' houses, we ate cheaply, our homes were very small (very!), our cars were nothing like what cars are like now (safety features, electronics, etc.). Our entertainment was the black and white TV along with going to movies, my bedroom had been the attic, etc. etc. We didn't have a dishwasher, microwave, or other fancy cooking thingys. Our college dorms were cinder block, with a bed, a desk, and a lamp. Simple, and cheap.
Now, people expect so much more.
Our parents: My father was a college professor, my wife's father was an engineer at Boeing. Our mothers were a teacher and a nurse. So our lack of amenities wasn't because our parents just sat around. They worked, and so did we during our adolescences....hard and long hours! Working at these professions was enough to give us very simple, and cheap, lives.
Thanks mom and dad and dad and mom.
In those days we lived simply.
When people are complaining about not having enough money now are they comparing the amount of money they have to how much money we had, or are they comparing the amount of money they have to their very (very) expanding and high expectations of what life should provide for them? Currently, every person over the age of 10 has a cell phone, for example, with all of the monthly fees that are necessitated by that. They have "home entertainment centers," not B&W TVs, etc. Disneyworld is packed. Almost everybody in our small community has an $20K+ OHV. And a big truck, not a small sedan without even power steering.
If it is the latter then there is ultimately no solution. Expectations will always grow faster than resources, so maybe people will always feel economically bad.
I don't think you understand just how tough it is for the bottom 30-50 percent these days. It's not an issue of a new car. It's paying for gas for the old one they've got and hoping it doesn't break down. They live extremely frugally but still can't keep up. It's an ugly situation.
Are there ways to integrate the Resistance concern about democracy with economic populism and cultural moderation? While "just oppose Trump" isn't a good strategy, the guy is indeed a thug, and it wouldn't surprise me if he tried to run for a third term by intimidating people who stood in his way. Hopefully there are at least some Resistance types who realize that to defend democracy, Democrats have to win back voters they lost thanks to their cultural snobbery.
The Resistance isn't a concern for most people with real life right now financial concerns for themselves and their children. Resist and then what? No one is confident that they would be better off under Democrats.
"Yet, at least in its current iteration, the populist approach falls short in solving the party’s problems with the working class. This is because it is predicated on the mistaken belief that authentic economic populism can, in every instance, overcome a culture war that progressives have had a hand in perpetuating. "
There's another big issue no one talks about. The Democrats -- now an elite party -- have too many constituents who basically loath the working class. They can't look far enough down their noses at them. There are jokes. No stereotype is demeaning enough. As someone who was a lifelong Democrat, I find this elitist view to be appallingly ignorant. "Close-minded" just scratches the surface. Blinders the size of gigantic cymbals begins to approach it. They steep in their own willful, righteous ignorance regarding about half the country and can't see this has caused a problem for the party.
I swear, if you take about half the elected Democrats and put them in a room, the room's general IQ might approach that of, say, a fuchsia. On a good day.
While you’re certainly correct about being on the wrong side and therefore ceding almost every 80/20 issue to Trump, you touch on but then don’t follow up on the glaring reason the Democrats have no credibility on the economy with middle and lower middle class Americans.
The following observation you made deserves far more attention than you’re giving it:
“due to migration from expensive blue states”
If the Democrats want voters to believe they are capable of building prosperity at the national level, then they really need to focus on building prosperity in the states where they have full control. When your policies are driving voters out of your state, it’s not exactly a ringing endorsement for taking those policies national.
For this 88 year old independent who has voted with Democrats in the past only to be disappointed in their results, until the dems get off this far left social/cultural rhetoric and hatred for anyone who doesn't buy their line, you will not be seeing me at the polls voting for them. But at my age I don't buy green bananas. Of course some dem or rep may still find a way to get my vote after I pass.
Another well reasoned plea to the Democratic leadership. Not sure they are listening and in particular not sure they are ready to listen to logic. Too bad because their issue is much worse than moderating their cultural positions. They are going to have to admit they were simply wrong on them (men can legally be women, children can make life changing medical decisions or try science is settled). The last one really pokes me in the eye particularly for anything that doesn’t have 50-75 years of consensus. The cultural issues to a very large extent underly whether I can trust you to make decisions that there is no way I can really understand which is best. But cultural issues are different. When a party betrays women’s rights by letting men compete in women’s sports that goes to the heart of trust. Particularly when that same party has talked endlessly of women’s rights. The Democrats have one very large trust issue with a politically significant section of the country and neither of the strategies listed will begin to address that. Until they address that they will have a very hard time having enough national power to make any significant difference
"When a party betrays women’s rights by letting men compete in women’s sports that goes to the heart of trust."
Men competing in women's sports is the tip of the iceberg here. Ted Cruz grilling a judge who put a serial rapist in a women's prison. The smugness and defiance of the judge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5dv4GKAUOI
This is not a one-off. Most blue states allow men in women's prisons if they say the magic words, "I identify as a woman." The Federal system did too, although Trump reversed that. Interestingly, California had been dragging their feet about letting male sex offenders into women's prisons. They let violent male prisoners into women's prisons as long as they weren't sex crimes. So the ACLU sued the state of California to let male sex offenders also be put into women's prisons.
https://womensliberationfront.org/news/aclu-cisgender-women-can-also-present-security-concerns-in-womens-prisons
Excellent thesis. Our not particularly political 20 something son noticed coverage of the "No Kings" march on TV. He quipped, "God's Waiting Room is really, really empty today". The turnout was impressive, the median age and the policies, far less so.
It is one of history's great political ironies that Dems believe they have a messaging problem, but seem unaware their policies are widely despised. Meanwhile, Reps have far superior policies, but fail at implementation and messaging.
The March focused on deportations, but not a single Dem has offered a new policy, other than never deporting anyone, but the criminally violent. Evidently, asylum now applies not just to the persecuted, but to anyone in the world, poor, disappointed in their government, job prospects, schools or backyard view.
On the other hand Reps, need to run the numbers. Deportations are costing a fortune, while making Reps look horrendous, even though legal. Trump the premier deal maker, should work his ME magic, at home.
Few outside of border states, realize the migration was not organic. NGOs had tax payer funded physical facilities in Latin and South America that informed migrants, US tax payers would happily financially underwrite a US middle class life style, if they were willing to clean houses, pools, or pound a hammer, 40 hours a week. Then the Cartels acted as travel agents. Migrants were conned, en mass. It was one of the most evil policies ever concocted in DC.
To that end, paying migrants more to humanely, quickly repatriate, seems a far better idea than just the current route. Trump's underlying idea is understandable. He is not only trying to rid the US of the millions residing illegally, but is seeking to ensure the next wave of 10 million, never arrive.
Dems, attempting to dissolve immigration law as they did the border, should understand a 54% welfare enrollment rate by all naturalized citizens and immigrants both legal and illegal, is not remotely sustainable. Reps will eventually figure out how to message the issue, and when they do, many Americans are going to demand Japanese and Korean like immigration policies, if Dems do not address Biden's 10 million person mistake.
The pics I saw told me that every obese, depressed, middle-aged and older woman with hair tinted in Day-Glo colors left the attic and walked around on the street. Including the one from Connecticut, who could have starred as the Wicked Witch in a remake of The Wizard of Oz, this time with metallic blue hair. This is the Democratic Party on acid. LOL
I grew up Reublican. Then, I became a Libertarian for a brief time under George W. Bush. After that, I voted Obama twice. Now, I ended up voting for Trump. I am an educator. What I saw the left pushing on gender really upset me. Telling teachers to not use terms like Mom or Dad or girls and boys? Come on! And then the Covid debacle. Where people clearly enjoyed the power the shutdowns afforded in Liberal states (I live in one). Finally, the push to have men join women's spaces. No thank you.
It will take a good bit to get my vote back. I no longer trust the Democrat Party. That is not to say I trust the Republicans. But when I see the Democrats embracing the Cheneys (people who caused me to join the Dems), what am I to do?
Their biggest problem isn't winning back power, it's what they are for, specific proposals and plans, if they ever do get a clue about governing again.
Right now the only recognizable position is that they really, really, really, hate Trump and anything associated with him. That's sort of like fighting the last war. Remember, in spite of the hysteria, he's not running again.
What programs (specifics) are they proposing that haven't already been rejected by the majority of the electorate?
I thought the essay was extremely well constructed and a very interesting read. Yet the "boldness" being pleaded for did not include one mention of the specific cultural issues which may kill the Democratic Party. It felt like a proclamation by the Ministry of Magic which dared not name "He who must not be named. "
It seems the themes of The Liberal Patriot have become popular with much of the traditional media as well as the substacks. Most commentators left of center and even on the right recognise that The Democratic Party needs to make some course adjustments to send their party in a more realistic direction.
This week I saw that wages for the bottom quarter of workers is again slipping relative to everyone else. Car loan defaults are up. Yet my wife urges me to get a new ipad and the tuitions we pay barely registers on our budget. The 10% of income is doing very well, the stock market breaks new records. Half of consumer spending is by the 10%. I notice lots of heavy equipment lined up at the used dealer beside the highway.
One thing the commentariate never does is make a concrete suggestion of exactly what needs to change, just vague mentions of rust belt and cultural shifts. To win a Democrat is going to have to get specific.
Anyone go to the No Kings March? Looked pretty fun, like a huge block party in nice weather. I cut rafter tails from a home project I shouldn't be doing.
We live near a town of a couple thousand, maybe a little more. I saw a car with some signs, and another vehicle with two people wearing masks inside.
I don't see it. The Woke values infects everything on the D side, and every one of them is now increasingly pointing to one conclusion: "Democrats want us dead." Whether it's Pritzker and soft on crime in Chicago, or the rising star Mandami, who not only will be mayor of NYC, but, mark my words, WILL BE THE NOMINEE for president. (Don't give me that "but the Constitution" stuff. Ds have been quite facile at ignoring the Constitution, and neither Rs nor courts will even try to stop him before he's nominated). Wait for the messaging from Mandami's NYC when we get our first images of Muslims shutting down major NY thoroughfares for prayers . . . it's coming). I see Ds having the same problem today as the Whigs had in the 1840s, namely, they tried to advance an "economic" argument while ignoring the larger and more serious culture argument of slavery. As the Whigs found out, it's impossible. Until the cultural values are brought in line---marriage is good, there are only two sexes, illegal immigration from a cultural standpoint is a disaster, rampant crime isn't the result of "racism" or OVER funded police . . . well, I don't see the party ever being successful in the economic sphere.
Regarding the cultural values I would add, children are a blessing, it's wrong to bombard children with sexual topics, schools should never hide things from parents, and a much, much healthier respect, at least, for Christianity's net positive influence on the World. As we know, much evil, has been brought forth and continues to be brought forth under the guise of Christianity, but we should remember, man's actions never changes the Truth and the wisdom of the Bible.
I appreciate the author trying to be more balanced. It feels like it would be similar to me trying to throw a bone to those that have embraced atheism.
What makes you think Mamdani will be the 2028 nominee, when virtually everyone to the right of AOC or Bernie anticipates that his actual administration will turn out to be a disaster (i.e., unworkable)?
Because he will blame everyone else for his failures and his supporters will believe him and double down.
As libertarian as I am about personal decisions, I think you done smoked too much of that there wacky weed with the Mamdani prediction.
We'll see. In 2019 I predicted that after what I thought would be a Trump win (but regardless) that Kanye West would run for president.
He did in 2020. Not too successfully. But he ran. Actually, I hope I'm wrong---not that J.D. Vance, who will be the R candidate, won't stomp him but that he will set NYC back another 20 years to pre-Guiliani levels.
I wrote in Kanye in '20 and '24 because I'm no racist. LOL. As for Mamdani, he will be an unmitigated disaster.
And I didn't write him in cuz I'm no racist either!
In '24, I included the veep: P. Diddy. Look, when you live in WA State, where Satan would win statewide if there was a D behind his name, an occasional sense of humor helps. LOL
My reasoning was that assuming Trump had won in 2020, the concept of "celebrity" would have become a major advantage in any national race---not the quality of candidate, but pure Tik Tok name recognition, and Kanye had that!
I stopped after the first line. If the goal is to win back power, it is an anti country/citizen goal. How about, how to win back voters and become the type of leaders this country needs. If your goal is to just win power, the goal of the electorate should be to deny one the ability to reach such a goal. Do you actually know what you are posting?
Very good article. Not perfect, but nothing is.
The Rs are vulnerable on health care, and ANY administration is ALWAYS vulnerable on the economy. Every presidential election is determined by the state of the economy in the early part of the election year, and a lot of mid-terms revolve around the economy too.
So if the economy holds (we shall see), I think the Ds are pretty much whistling past the graveyard on everything else. If the Supremes gut the Voting Rights Act in time for the South to redistrict before next November, the Rs stand to pick up at least 10 House seats. Combine it with the net effect of the other gerrymandering wars, and that'll be more like 15.
It would be hard to overstate how demoralizing that'd be for the Democratic Party and their legacy media water carriers. I'd expect more and more unhinged rhetoric and some increase in violence from the left. If the economy is okay or better in '28, Vance will beat Newsom by the same 10% margin that Eisenhower got over Stevenson in 1952. More if the Dems go Full Crazy like they did between 1968 and 1972. Nixon beat McGovern by 23 points.
None of this is baked in the cake. Trump's a loose cannon, and the economy is a major wild card as always. Still, the political environment reminds me of one of those tropical waves coming off of Africa in the summertime. Do the Democrats even comprehend what could easily happen? If that VRA decision comes down soon enough, it'll be a Category 2 hurricane. Lose the '28 election, and it's Katrina. After the '30 census and redistricting, Hurricane Camille.
They bitch and moan about a 6-3 Supreme Court? What'll they think when it's 8-1? They need to study up on U.S. politics between 1869 and 1933. In those 64 years, the Dems had the White House for 16, Congress for 10, and a White House-Congress "trifecta" for 10. The Rs ran this country, and the Supreme Court? Read Plessy v Ferguson.
Oh, and here's a curveball that they haven't even thought about: From what Trump said in a press conference this summer, and which got NO attention from the intrepid, biased, lazy media, it looks like the Rs are going to go for immigration reform. If they do it, and do it right, that's going to be game, set, match. 10 or 15 million naturalized Mexican Americans, 70% Republican. Hoo boy. The Democrats, and especially these insular "No Kings" fools? They won't know what hit 'em.
Oh dear. You pay far too much attention to facts. It's much easier to feel virtuous while you shout NO KINGS! And if the other side wins, you always have the fallback position of being *even more* virtuous, because...deplorables.
I know, I know. It's a character flaw, one of many, along with independence and critical thinking. Shoot me now. LOL
The Democrats have abandoned liberalism for TDS. As long as we are the official party of Trump haters, we are lost. No Kings is so embarrassing, it is a protest centered on a straw man argument.
The young Republican text messages (250 of them, it seems) and JD Vance's response were visceral reminders of why, for decades, I didn't often vote for Republicans. Not to mention Republican cruelty, like the party's commitment to ending any form of government help to poor people.
And yet, today, the Dems are just as cruel in their own way. Sure, they want to keep insurance subsidies, which is a good thing. But the party of women's rights, including its chief resister Gavin Newsom, is happy to stomp all over women so it can make trans-identified fetishistic males happy --- up to and allowing them to rape their female cellmates in women's prisons.
The party of "diversity" is openly hostile to whites (especially males) at all times, and to Asians when it suits their narrative, such as in hiring and college admissions. The party of tolerance is gushing over Graham Platner, a self-described police-hating "communist" who said that rural white people "actually are" racist and stupid. Not to mention the tipping thing, the sexual assault thing, and the thinly veiled call to take up arms against your political opponents (justified because they're "fascists."). Why is this piece presenting him as any kind of reasonable alternative to the enraged progressives and their diktats?
Those comments are the left-wing equivalent of the Young Republican text messages, and Platner's excuses for them are as empty as JD Vance's claim that the YRs were "stupid kids" making "edgy jokes." These were adults in their 20s and 30s! Talk about both men feeding the extremist base while putting off pretty much everyone else.
If Trump or Vance had said what Platner did, the No Kings! keffiyah crowd would have been stroking out with all the righteous fury they could muster. But Platner? He was going through a rough patch.
I'm disgusted and disappointed, and wondering where the Dems are going. If Graham Platner, Gavin Newsom, and the Squad are what the left has to offer, I'm not optimistic.
I think most Reps have no problem with subsidies for American citizens earning the median family income or below. Current Obamacare subsidies, due to Covid increases, also go to families earning between between $150K-$500K as well. That is insane.
80% of the country lives on less than $150K a year. I realize the Coasts are more expensive, but where to live is a choice. Expecting taxpayers to subsidize healthcare more, because San Jose is more expensive than Dallas, cannot be a winning idea for Dems. It will simply stoke more resentment from portions of the country, where Dem numbers have already dropped like a rock.
The Young Reps should have been immediately and permanently banished from the Party. Vance not saying so was a mistake. However, that in no way compares to a VA AG candidate Jones wishing not only death on his opponent, but his 2 children, who Jones knew personally from professional interactions with their father. Jones is going to lose anyway. Dems would have been miles ahead to demand his resignation, even though it was too late to replace him.
Agree completely about Jones, though I think the young Rs were as disgusting as he was.
Anyway, I can't find information confirming that subsidies are available for income up to $500,000. My understanding is that they go away at $128K (400% of federal poverty level for house of 4).
Wouldn’t it be refreshing to have no drama for several years? Could there be a Democrat mayor in the US who is effective in maintaining safe neighborhoods, safe public transit, and top performing schools? Might it be worth asking him or her for a guest article to celebrate his/her success and tell us how they did it? Is that too much to ask?
A huge loophole are the newly self employed, "consultants" and the like. Obamacare allows them to predict what their income will be, with no clawbacks. Actually I believe declared subsidies top out out at $175K, before loopholes. So first year single practitioner attorney, financial consultant or an Uber driver expect income of $40K-$75K. If the first 2 have a good year, and make $200K-$400K, their Obamacare subsidy for that year does not change. Likewise, the Uber driver pulls 3 times as much, there is no extra premium due. Also, if you inherit $200K from an Uncle George or sell your house and pocket $500K. It is a loophole, you can drive a truck through.
Nolo says that the no-payback rule only applies to the year 2020. Maybe I misunderstood you?
"If you receive Affordable Care Act tax credits and underestimate your annual income, you may have to pay them back. The rules vary depending on the year.
[Starting in 2022], the premium tax credit is only for low and moderate income people whose household income is between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL)." (this is the 2014-2019 rule).
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/obamacare-tax-credits-the-pay-back-requirements-for-underestimating-annual-income.html
The key word there is "may" , not "shall". An attorney friend out on her own for the first time paid $28 bucks a month for coverage. She made nearly $400K, that year. The next year she did not qualify, but she never paid more , for the first year. It is not required.
"...like the party's commitment to ending any form of government help to poor people..." For pity's sake. Because they want citizens to access insurance subsidized by citizens? Because people making six figures won't be subsidized anymore? 40% of people in some states are on the dole. This is not sustainable.
I was referring to genuinely low-income people who can't afford essential medicines. I know people who have to choose between paying rent, buying food, and buying insulin for juvenile diabetes. It's not right that we abandon our weakest citizens. I agree about stopping abuse, but states that banned the Medicaid expansion, for example, weren't going after abuse.
Anyone who is genuinely low-income and weak is on Medicaid. 45% of enrollees in Obamacare pay no premiums. No one is being abandoned.
Just curious, are you calling tax deductions 'subsidies'?
Val--we feel the same way. And then the pesky data show that the bottom 20% of income earners received about 64K per year in various services, and they earn nothing themselves to get that 64K.
When is enough enough?
Kind of sad that people are ignoring my overall point here. But if you force me, here goes: Boeing, home of self-crashing planes and freedom from FAA oversight, got $15.6 billion in government subsidies last year. Amazon got $14.4 billion ($59 billion profit). This list goes on an on.* The top 20 subsidies amounted to $98 billion.
Spending on SNAP benefits, much of which goes to children, was $100 billion in 2024.**
We pour free government money into Amazon, which excels at avoiding taxes, and begrudge food to children? When is enough enough?
(I agree that soda and garbage like Lunchables should be excluded from SNAP; but that is a very different question from begrudging people food when we pour money into highly profitable tech giants, auto giants, and etc.). This includes even military families. Why are members of our military forced to sign up for welfare? I guess they're not doing "enough," right?
So, yeah, I'm furious at the Democrats. And the reason why is because they're doing such an abysmal job, not because I think that ensuring that children get food and healthcare is beyond "enough." I don't expect them to be "earn" that help. I expect that the help will put them in a position to escape needing it someday.
*https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent-totals
**https://usafacts.org/answers/how-much-does-the-federal-government-spend-on-snap-every-year/country/united-states/
I agree Reps missed the opportunity of a lifetime, by not raising taxes at very top end, and setting a minimum corporate tax based on sales and gross income, not net income.
The Rep argument is people who work their whole lives and sell their business, should not be hit for 1 extraordinary year, out of 50 mediocre ones. That can be cured with a single exemption that can be used for the sale of one business. Had Reps enacted such policies, they could hold power for a very long time.
Reps are missing the low hanging fruit by not offering to increase subsidies, but only for American citizens. The Swiss have the best medical care in the world, for Swiss citizens. There are a few Red Cross free clinics for non Swiss citizens, but generally speaking, if a non Swiss citizen shows up in a hospital lacking the insurance everyone is required to carry or the ability to self pay, they stabilize you and send you back to your country of origin, where your family and your country can care for you.
I lived in CH for a few years and am married to a citizen. Healthcare there is pricey, but subsidized. I had a work permit and the government subsidized my insurance because my income was so low. I lived well but not like a queen in spite of the low income. Anyone with a work permit would be in the same situation. Switzerland gets a lot of things right. It's kind of feudal in some ways, which is a problem, but there are a lot of laws that protect people from being taken advantage of. The country has a way of insulating itself against extremism, for the most part. And the immigration process is so smooth it's unreal.
I'll ask my husband tonight about the stabilizing thing; his brother and sister are in the medical field.
How do you propose to pay down the National Debt? (and don't say "tax the rich." Studies have shown that if you took all of the money from the rich it would last about a year).
How many of those folks getting SNAP benefits have cell phones? How many live frugally?
Aren't we already being incredibly generous? 64K? When does it stop? Is there no limit to it?
Thanks for the link on subsidies. But what are they? What does our government subsidize for, say, Amazon? Who compiled those data? Plus, aren't those data summaries of the last 25 years? And a lot of those subsidies are actually spent giving people jobs.
SNAP benefits are not all. Medicaid? Tons of other benefits.
My sister retired as a teacher. She got 60K/year. What someone who isn't working at all is getting.
We are VERY generous. We can't just keep printing money.
People need phones, and you can get plans for $35 a month with a free or subsidized phone. How will people find jobs without a phone, exactly? Are you going to begrudge them electricity too? This is what I mean about right-wing cruelty: punishing people for being poor, raising barriers making it harder for them to escape poverty, and then blaming them.
This is the same tactic the left uses on women: it's YOUR fault you're trapped in traffic jams. It's YOUR fault you were late because you got stopped at 15 red lights on a two-mile journey. We have to punish you for driving because driving is BAD. And we won't build trains and bus routes because...NIMBY. And synchronizing lights would just encourage driving.
I don't know where you get that $64K number. You need to provide URLs, like I did.
Amazon subsidies; click on the company name links in that URL for more information.
One question (a big one) for us is the emphasis on economics for Democrats.
Can they fix anything? Not asking whether there are any people who can fix anything, but instead asking whether anything is truly fixable.
Here is why. We are boomers. In our childhoods, we did not live according to the middle class now. We rarely went out to eat, for vacations we drove to relatives' houses, we ate cheaply, our homes were very small (very!), our cars were nothing like what cars are like now (safety features, electronics, etc.). Our entertainment was the black and white TV along with going to movies, my bedroom had been the attic, etc. etc. We didn't have a dishwasher, microwave, or other fancy cooking thingys. Our college dorms were cinder block, with a bed, a desk, and a lamp. Simple, and cheap.
Now, people expect so much more.
Our parents: My father was a college professor, my wife's father was an engineer at Boeing. Our mothers were a teacher and a nurse. So our lack of amenities wasn't because our parents just sat around. They worked, and so did we during our adolescences....hard and long hours! Working at these professions was enough to give us very simple, and cheap, lives.
Thanks mom and dad and dad and mom.
In those days we lived simply.
When people are complaining about not having enough money now are they comparing the amount of money they have to how much money we had, or are they comparing the amount of money they have to their very (very) expanding and high expectations of what life should provide for them? Currently, every person over the age of 10 has a cell phone, for example, with all of the monthly fees that are necessitated by that. They have "home entertainment centers," not B&W TVs, etc. Disneyworld is packed. Almost everybody in our small community has an $20K+ OHV. And a big truck, not a small sedan without even power steering.
If it is the latter then there is ultimately no solution. Expectations will always grow faster than resources, so maybe people will always feel economically bad.
I don't think you understand just how tough it is for the bottom 30-50 percent these days. It's not an issue of a new car. It's paying for gas for the old one they've got and hoping it doesn't break down. They live extremely frugally but still can't keep up. It's an ugly situation.
Are there ways to integrate the Resistance concern about democracy with economic populism and cultural moderation? While "just oppose Trump" isn't a good strategy, the guy is indeed a thug, and it wouldn't surprise me if he tried to run for a third term by intimidating people who stood in his way. Hopefully there are at least some Resistance types who realize that to defend democracy, Democrats have to win back voters they lost thanks to their cultural snobbery.
The Resistance isn't a concern for most people with real life right now financial concerns for themselves and their children. Resist and then what? No one is confident that they would be better off under Democrats.
"Yet, at least in its current iteration, the populist approach falls short in solving the party’s problems with the working class. This is because it is predicated on the mistaken belief that authentic economic populism can, in every instance, overcome a culture war that progressives have had a hand in perpetuating. "
There's another big issue no one talks about. The Democrats -- now an elite party -- have too many constituents who basically loath the working class. They can't look far enough down their noses at them. There are jokes. No stereotype is demeaning enough. As someone who was a lifelong Democrat, I find this elitist view to be appallingly ignorant. "Close-minded" just scratches the surface. Blinders the size of gigantic cymbals begins to approach it. They steep in their own willful, righteous ignorance regarding about half the country and can't see this has caused a problem for the party.
I swear, if you take about half the elected Democrats and put them in a room, the room's general IQ might approach that of, say, a fuchsia. On a good day.
While you’re certainly correct about being on the wrong side and therefore ceding almost every 80/20 issue to Trump, you touch on but then don’t follow up on the glaring reason the Democrats have no credibility on the economy with middle and lower middle class Americans.
The following observation you made deserves far more attention than you’re giving it:
“due to migration from expensive blue states”
If the Democrats want voters to believe they are capable of building prosperity at the national level, then they really need to focus on building prosperity in the states where they have full control. When your policies are driving voters out of your state, it’s not exactly a ringing endorsement for taking those policies national.
For this 88 year old independent who has voted with Democrats in the past only to be disappointed in their results, until the dems get off this far left social/cultural rhetoric and hatred for anyone who doesn't buy their line, you will not be seeing me at the polls voting for them. But at my age I don't buy green bananas. Of course some dem or rep may still find a way to get my vote after I pass.