No one in Trump administration has ever been brought to justice. We’ll have time to ponder our inability to punish these people. When we are on our long train rides out to the work camps.
I agree. They have spent too much attention focusing on what they (progressives) didn't get done vs the incredible things they have. Yet they still don't seem to have a strategic comms plan about the infrastructure package (e.g. are they on conservative media outlets selling it, how many places is Pete going to and cutting ribbons particularly in red states?) relative to the attention focused on the next attempt at a skinnied down BBB. And even when they put out BBB 4.0 recently (or whatever version they're now on) their policy or comms team didn't even think to get Manchin's reaction (unaware the press is going to go right to Joe and ask him). It seems finally today (based on something I saw) they are FINALLY going to say nothing publicly. SLOW LEARNERS.
They can let the media or their opposition control the narrative or they can. But they have to make it a priority. And the Reps (particularly trump) are the extreme of narrative control even when lying. The Dems have accomplished a decent amount with the constraints they have, but need more selling/celebrating. (Reps on the other hand sell disinformation to a incredibly pliable audience). Maybe the WH should hire some disaffected Republican/Never Trumper comms people on their staff?? Maybe Tim would like a new job? :).
Do you think the progressives fell in and went overwhelmingly for Biden because they believed in AND WOULD FOLLOW his vision or because they wanted trump out AND believed they could still have significant influence on the party? Personally, I'd love to see Joe find the right place for his Sistah Souljah moment with the progressive wing.
I still want to believe a place like TX (and the trifecta of Abbott, Patrick and Paxton) should be ripe for Dems given the over reach of the TX Republicans (or as the old Molly Ivins used to call the TX Republicans "Shiite Republicans")--abortion, citizen vigilantes, deny parents of transgenders to do what they think is best for their kids, book banning, etc. Republicans punish Dems for real or perceived over-reaching (e.g. ACA, BBB, defund the police, etc). Dems are not as good at reciprocity in this area IMO. Again a comms issue.
As an aside won't PA be an interesting Dem Senate primary to see how the progressive vs centrist wings of the party prevail in a swing state.
I'm glad former President Reagan saw fit to do the right thing in an appalling way, but saying his record on homosexuality was "mixed" strains credulity to the breaking point. We're taking about an administration that fight tooth and nail to avoid even acknowledging AIDS, even as some of his wife's best friends were dying of it. And even in your story, Reagan was not defending gay people. He was defending a number of principles, some of them worthy, but the right of gay people to live as they saw fit was explicitly not one of them.
One can argue that Reagan was a man of his time, or any number of other mitigating factors. But to say his record on LGBT issues was "mixed" is fundamentally unsupported by events. His record was bad.
I'm mixed on Bojo, but compared to the median moderate right politician who attempts to ride the nationalist/populist tiger, he's not done too badly. Having Jeremy Corbyn as an opponent certainly helped, plus it's the UK, not USA! USA! USA! Here's to Keir Starmer trying to drag Labour back to sanity. The UK needs two plausible governing parties too, and much as I like the Libdems, I don't seem them clawing back to the electoral glory days of 2007 - 2010.
Going to Kyiv is not a profile in physical courage to match with Mitterand's photo-op in Sarajevo *while the Serbs were shelling the city*, but OTOH the Johnson government is in fact providing lethal aid, whereas Mitterand kept the arms embargo in place. Obviously a civil war is a rather different thing than a clear invasion, but still.
Interesting about the Russian "anti grooming" laws. Did NOT know that. If the Dems were smart/knew how to fight in today's political climate, you'd think they would have run ads "DeSantis wants to be like Putin". But there goes my wish casting...that they were smart. Seems they only know how to win on the intellectual arguments/policy, but no clue how to win by appealing to the emotions (positive and negative) of the electorate.
Perhaps one hazard the Democrats face is that while a majority of all voting-age Americans may be OK with LGBTQ+, gay marriage, Pride parades, a majority of older Americans, who tend to vote in higher %s than younger Americans, may prefer a return to the glorious past in which such people remained in the closet or faced serious consequences. That is, it's possible a majority of American adults prefer one thing, but a majority of likely voters prefers another. I'm nowhere near convinced Americans are as tolerant and socially liberal as many polls paint us to be.
In which case, Democrats pointing out to the American public that new anti-gay laws in the US are just following in Russia's autocratic shadow may do little more than spur the public to ask what took so long?
In short, I figure Republicans are more right than wrong about the electoral efficacy of Culture War issues. Definitely in a majority of states. In a sense, California is no longer a cultural bellwether, Florida is (God help us).
Until Trump, many of the current voters you speak of didn't vote. He changed the game and the public discourse/narratives. The Dems have not responded to that by changing the game/debate to their terms and getting new voters to the polls like Trump did.
The Dems need to decide if they want to continue to allow the Rep's to control/dictate the debates vs "spur the public". Right now the Dems are not dominating the public square and it feels like they have consciously or unconsciously let the Republicans drive discourse and as a result the Dems are losing the public narratives.
Personally, I'd like to see the Dems take the Reps on on topics from sensible immigration (legal immigration, secure borders AND immigration as vital to US economic growth), freedom of speech vs book banning, parental rights/input and the contradictory positions on parent's rights for input on books/FLs anti gay laws vs no parental rights for those with transgender kids, creating citizen vigilante/Gestapo cultures thru legislation, cruelty (vs compassionate conservatism) to women/trans/gays, climate change as a national security issue vs just a better environment and more. There just seems so many things to also call out as "conservatives used to believe x...now they believe the opposite"..as a lot of today's "conservatives" have no clue what traditional conservatives believe (or used to believe)
Unfortunately I seems like the Dems have 2 problems--no effective communicators for the party and a tendency to propose alternatives from the more progressive/noncentrist wing such that voters feel they're having to pick from two extremes. Wouldn't it be great if someone would argue for AND proposals (e.g. border security AND an immigration policy that encourages people to come to the US) vs OR proposals. TX is a classic example. The over reach of so many laws passed in TX you'd think would spur somebody to step up to call out the crazy and campaign on normalcy/centrist positions. But instead, there appear no such viable candidates for the top offices.
Re Reagan saying Gay, there was once a time Republicans were normal, rational human beings who viewed politics through the lens of enlightened self-interest and still had more than a nodding acquaintance with the concepts of honor and shame.
Tersely put, today's Republicans would consider Reagan a RINO. That's the tragedy for former Republicans who still grok the importance of rationality and honor.
Then again, a bit of historical perspective would suggest that Joseph McCarthy was 6-7 decades ahead of his time. IOW, the cancer may have been there for a long time, just took a while to metastasize.
I absolutely second Mary McKim's entreaty to have a discussion about bail reform. I've been particularly dismayed to see this being portrayed as another example of progressive cluelessness. Cash bail indeed disadvantages the poor, and is a lot like predatory lending in that it often compounds problems and can turn small offenses in to life-altering ordeals. Even if we don't eliminate it entirely, reform is something that should be taken seriously.
Especially since the people who are against bail reform look at it as allowing criminals to go scot free. I remind them that these are people who have not been found guilty in a court of law and all bail is is insurance to show up at court.
Why are they all so threatened by the LGBTQ community?? It's ridiculous. I keep reading about traditional values but what are those exactly? Divorce, abuse, philandering, incest, violence can take place in heterosexual families. I know gay families more stable than some heterosexual families. The people stroking anger and fear toward the gay community are the same people who didn't want interracial marriage. They don't want the government to tell them how to live but they want the government to punish anyone they are threatened by.
Who knew that the history books will show (fingers crossed) that an ex regional, conservative talk show host and his ‘merry band of brothers/sisters’ played an important role in saving American democracy?
After noticing the term "Honorable" as a prefix to many of the names included in the documented attempt to rig the election, now we're going to have to go to the Oxford English Dictionary committee and request an addendum to the definition of the term based purely on usage by the unwashed. I'm not at all sure how they should do it, by ACRONYM, by intent, white aging maleness? I'm lost.
It's quite a rogue's gallery, but I'm most interested in one: Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. Perkins coached Trump in what became the "2 Corinthians" debacle at Liberty University in 2016 and then covered for him and his administration in every way possible in his missives to followers throughout Trump's term. He even enthusiastically smeared Michael Gerson when Gerson criticized Trump and company over racism and the assault on democracy. Hiding in plain sight, indeed.
In a healthy nation, Trump and his band of crooks would never ever be considered for positions in government or of public trust again. They would be canceled by citizens and officials of all political persuasions, if they were lucky, and imprisoned if they weren't so lucky. It seems we are a very sick nation.
Enjoyed your letter, but I look at the mission of The Bulwark entirely differently. The Bulwark focuses almost entirely on the politics of issues rather than on issues themselves. And I believe they are right to do so. Why? Look no further than the beginning of Charlie's newsletter today where he details the threat one party is to constitutional and democratic governance. The Republican Party as it is now constituted needs to be soundly defeated for the American experiment to even continue.
I'll illustrate what I mean with an example. We've had this phrase "defund the police" floating around our politics for a few years now. There is a policy debate to be had here about the proper amount of funding for police and the funding of other institutions that impinge on police work like public mental health work and drug addiction treatment. I don't come to The Bulwark for that debate. I come for insights into how our problems around policing can be leveraged into a winning political strategy. It pisses off Progressives when people are dismissive of the "defund the police" idea because Progressives are acutely alive to all the issues that come in under that phrase. But if The Bulwark can help Progressives learn how to speak to more centrist voters in a manner that does not drive them away, that is all to the good in my opinion.
"But if The Bulwark can help Progressives learn how to speak to more centrist voters in a manner that does not drive them away, that is all to the good in my opinion."
I'm not sure how spending 4 days out of 7 talking about how Democrats need to "tack back to the center or be destroyed," usually without explaining what that means with any deeper level of engagement than "it's the economy, stupid" does any of that. A discussion with someone who advocates for the policies would at least open up the potential to discuss who is being messaged to and how.
No one in Trump administration has ever been brought to justice. We’ll have time to ponder our inability to punish these people. When we are on our long train rides out to the work camps.
I agree. They have spent too much attention focusing on what they (progressives) didn't get done vs the incredible things they have. Yet they still don't seem to have a strategic comms plan about the infrastructure package (e.g. are they on conservative media outlets selling it, how many places is Pete going to and cutting ribbons particularly in red states?) relative to the attention focused on the next attempt at a skinnied down BBB. And even when they put out BBB 4.0 recently (or whatever version they're now on) their policy or comms team didn't even think to get Manchin's reaction (unaware the press is going to go right to Joe and ask him). It seems finally today (based on something I saw) they are FINALLY going to say nothing publicly. SLOW LEARNERS.
They can let the media or their opposition control the narrative or they can. But they have to make it a priority. And the Reps (particularly trump) are the extreme of narrative control even when lying. The Dems have accomplished a decent amount with the constraints they have, but need more selling/celebrating. (Reps on the other hand sell disinformation to a incredibly pliable audience). Maybe the WH should hire some disaffected Republican/Never Trumper comms people on their staff?? Maybe Tim would like a new job? :).
Do you think the progressives fell in and went overwhelmingly for Biden because they believed in AND WOULD FOLLOW his vision or because they wanted trump out AND believed they could still have significant influence on the party? Personally, I'd love to see Joe find the right place for his Sistah Souljah moment with the progressive wing.
I still want to believe a place like TX (and the trifecta of Abbott, Patrick and Paxton) should be ripe for Dems given the over reach of the TX Republicans (or as the old Molly Ivins used to call the TX Republicans "Shiite Republicans")--abortion, citizen vigilantes, deny parents of transgenders to do what they think is best for their kids, book banning, etc. Republicans punish Dems for real or perceived over-reaching (e.g. ACA, BBB, defund the police, etc). Dems are not as good at reciprocity in this area IMO. Again a comms issue.
As an aside won't PA be an interesting Dem Senate primary to see how the progressive vs centrist wings of the party prevail in a swing state.
Take care
I'm glad former President Reagan saw fit to do the right thing in an appalling way, but saying his record on homosexuality was "mixed" strains credulity to the breaking point. We're taking about an administration that fight tooth and nail to avoid even acknowledging AIDS, even as some of his wife's best friends were dying of it. And even in your story, Reagan was not defending gay people. He was defending a number of principles, some of them worthy, but the right of gay people to live as they saw fit was explicitly not one of them.
One can argue that Reagan was a man of his time, or any number of other mitigating factors. But to say his record on LGBT issues was "mixed" is fundamentally unsupported by events. His record was bad.
I'm mixed on Bojo, but compared to the median moderate right politician who attempts to ride the nationalist/populist tiger, he's not done too badly. Having Jeremy Corbyn as an opponent certainly helped, plus it's the UK, not USA! USA! USA! Here's to Keir Starmer trying to drag Labour back to sanity. The UK needs two plausible governing parties too, and much as I like the Libdems, I don't seem them clawing back to the electoral glory days of 2007 - 2010.
Going to Kyiv is not a profile in physical courage to match with Mitterand's photo-op in Sarajevo *while the Serbs were shelling the city*, but OTOH the Johnson government is in fact providing lethal aid, whereas Mitterand kept the arms embargo in place. Obviously a civil war is a rather different thing than a clear invasion, but still.
Interesting about the Russian "anti grooming" laws. Did NOT know that. If the Dems were smart/knew how to fight in today's political climate, you'd think they would have run ads "DeSantis wants to be like Putin". But there goes my wish casting...that they were smart. Seems they only know how to win on the intellectual arguments/policy, but no clue how to win by appealing to the emotions (positive and negative) of the electorate.
Perhaps one hazard the Democrats face is that while a majority of all voting-age Americans may be OK with LGBTQ+, gay marriage, Pride parades, a majority of older Americans, who tend to vote in higher %s than younger Americans, may prefer a return to the glorious past in which such people remained in the closet or faced serious consequences. That is, it's possible a majority of American adults prefer one thing, but a majority of likely voters prefers another. I'm nowhere near convinced Americans are as tolerant and socially liberal as many polls paint us to be.
In which case, Democrats pointing out to the American public that new anti-gay laws in the US are just following in Russia's autocratic shadow may do little more than spur the public to ask what took so long?
In short, I figure Republicans are more right than wrong about the electoral efficacy of Culture War issues. Definitely in a majority of states. In a sense, California is no longer a cultural bellwether, Florida is (God help us).
Excellent points...
Until Trump, many of the current voters you speak of didn't vote. He changed the game and the public discourse/narratives. The Dems have not responded to that by changing the game/debate to their terms and getting new voters to the polls like Trump did.
The Dems need to decide if they want to continue to allow the Rep's to control/dictate the debates vs "spur the public". Right now the Dems are not dominating the public square and it feels like they have consciously or unconsciously let the Republicans drive discourse and as a result the Dems are losing the public narratives.
Personally, I'd like to see the Dems take the Reps on on topics from sensible immigration (legal immigration, secure borders AND immigration as vital to US economic growth), freedom of speech vs book banning, parental rights/input and the contradictory positions on parent's rights for input on books/FLs anti gay laws vs no parental rights for those with transgender kids, creating citizen vigilante/Gestapo cultures thru legislation, cruelty (vs compassionate conservatism) to women/trans/gays, climate change as a national security issue vs just a better environment and more. There just seems so many things to also call out as "conservatives used to believe x...now they believe the opposite"..as a lot of today's "conservatives" have no clue what traditional conservatives believe (or used to believe)
Unfortunately I seems like the Dems have 2 problems--no effective communicators for the party and a tendency to propose alternatives from the more progressive/noncentrist wing such that voters feel they're having to pick from two extremes. Wouldn't it be great if someone would argue for AND proposals (e.g. border security AND an immigration policy that encourages people to come to the US) vs OR proposals. TX is a classic example. The over reach of so many laws passed in TX you'd think would spur somebody to step up to call out the crazy and campaign on normalcy/centrist positions. But instead, there appear no such viable candidates for the top offices.
Trump and Oz...why not?
What's not to like about a little nip and tuck for the permanent smile and creating a media empire based on being a shameless "Lying Sack of Shit"?
Re Reagan saying Gay, there was once a time Republicans were normal, rational human beings who viewed politics through the lens of enlightened self-interest and still had more than a nodding acquaintance with the concepts of honor and shame.
Tersely put, today's Republicans would consider Reagan a RINO. That's the tragedy for former Republicans who still grok the importance of rationality and honor.
Then again, a bit of historical perspective would suggest that Joseph McCarthy was 6-7 decades ahead of his time. IOW, the cancer may have been there for a long time, just took a while to metastasize.
I absolutely second Mary McKim's entreaty to have a discussion about bail reform. I've been particularly dismayed to see this being portrayed as another example of progressive cluelessness. Cash bail indeed disadvantages the poor, and is a lot like predatory lending in that it often compounds problems and can turn small offenses in to life-altering ordeals. Even if we don't eliminate it entirely, reform is something that should be taken seriously.
Especially since the people who are against bail reform look at it as allowing criminals to go scot free. I remind them that these are people who have not been found guilty in a court of law and all bail is is insurance to show up at court.
Why are they all so threatened by the LGBTQ community?? It's ridiculous. I keep reading about traditional values but what are those exactly? Divorce, abuse, philandering, incest, violence can take place in heterosexual families. I know gay families more stable than some heterosexual families. The people stroking anger and fear toward the gay community are the same people who didn't want interracial marriage. They don't want the government to tell them how to live but they want the government to punish anyone they are threatened by.
Who knew that the history books will show (fingers crossed) that an ex regional, conservative talk show host and his ‘merry band of brothers/sisters’ played an important role in saving American democracy?
Well done! (Fingers crossed)
After noticing the term "Honorable" as a prefix to many of the names included in the documented attempt to rig the election, now we're going to have to go to the Oxford English Dictionary committee and request an addendum to the definition of the term based purely on usage by the unwashed. I'm not at all sure how they should do it, by ACRONYM, by intent, white aging maleness? I'm lost.
It also might bring in more paid subscribers.
It also might bring in more paid subscribers.
Thanks for giving the list of signatories to the election subversion letter. Helps me keep my mental list of douchebags up to date.
It's quite a rogue's gallery, but I'm most interested in one: Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. Perkins coached Trump in what became the "2 Corinthians" debacle at Liberty University in 2016 and then covered for him and his administration in every way possible in his missives to followers throughout Trump's term. He even enthusiastically smeared Michael Gerson when Gerson criticized Trump and company over racism and the assault on democracy. Hiding in plain sight, indeed.
In a healthy nation, Trump and his band of crooks would never ever be considered for positions in government or of public trust again. They would be canceled by citizens and officials of all political persuasions, if they were lucky, and imprisoned if they weren't so lucky. It seems we are a very sick nation.
Well said. The US is not a healthy nation. And our pathologies are many.
You are so right. It makes sick to see people I used to admire on their knees waiting for their turn to kiss his humongous behind.
Btw. Why isn't Donnie Jr in jail for writing an email planning to overthrow the election? That can't be legal.
To Mary McKim-
Enjoyed your letter, but I look at the mission of The Bulwark entirely differently. The Bulwark focuses almost entirely on the politics of issues rather than on issues themselves. And I believe they are right to do so. Why? Look no further than the beginning of Charlie's newsletter today where he details the threat one party is to constitutional and democratic governance. The Republican Party as it is now constituted needs to be soundly defeated for the American experiment to even continue.
I'll illustrate what I mean with an example. We've had this phrase "defund the police" floating around our politics for a few years now. There is a policy debate to be had here about the proper amount of funding for police and the funding of other institutions that impinge on police work like public mental health work and drug addiction treatment. I don't come to The Bulwark for that debate. I come for insights into how our problems around policing can be leveraged into a winning political strategy. It pisses off Progressives when people are dismissive of the "defund the police" idea because Progressives are acutely alive to all the issues that come in under that phrase. But if The Bulwark can help Progressives learn how to speak to more centrist voters in a manner that does not drive them away, that is all to the good in my opinion.
"But if The Bulwark can help Progressives learn how to speak to more centrist voters in a manner that does not drive them away, that is all to the good in my opinion."
I'm not sure how spending 4 days out of 7 talking about how Democrats need to "tack back to the center or be destroyed," usually without explaining what that means with any deeper level of engagement than "it's the economy, stupid" does any of that. A discussion with someone who advocates for the policies would at least open up the potential to discuss who is being messaged to and how.