I like this lighthearted, philosophical, not-quite-explicit ongoing debate between Kristol and JVL. I'm guessing something like it happened back at the Weekly Standard, back in the day. Keep it up!
I don’t understand why abolishing the filibuster would be described as a progressive priority. It is objectively the best decision for the country. Let each party do their best/worst and let the country decide. If one side goes “too far” they will be voted out. Right now repugs block mostly everything and blame it on dems. It does not promote compromise, it promotes disfunction. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.
Amen to Kristol’s insightful analysis of the purpose and promise of effective political party institutions. We do need to have at least two of them, and maybe three.
Bill, great analysis. The Democrats have their act together and are functioning how an effective governing coalition should. The Republicans are completely dysfunctional for governing purposes.
I like Edmund Burke too, particularly for his support of Catholic emancipation when that was a pretty risky stance (although I also think he's _somewhat_ overrated, particularly by Americans), but I don't agree that he is in any meaningful way "the founder of modern party government" as Mr. Kristol asserts. Factional leader of the more conservative Whigs (versus the radical Whigs who followed Charles James Fox), certainly. But for anything like an ultimately long term stable party, with branding, some level of party discipline, corporate identity ("follow the money") I think credit really belongs to Pitt the Younger (if you just mean a long term coordinated cabal keeping in office with a somewhat rotating cast, Walpole deserves such credit as might be deserved).
I'm all about Harris beating Trump. Can't say I'm enthused about the loss leaders the dems are promoting to get the votes. If they come to fruition. Seems Harris vs. Biden isn't enough.
I'm in the fiscally conservative socially liberal camp. I'd like to know and see more about who (exactly) is providing this 'free chicken.' It's not the dems. It's who they're going to tax.
Meh. Depends on what one heard in her policy rollout.
The big part of the "free chicken" is likely to be funded by ending a goodly amount of Donald Trump's tax cuts. That was attempted during Biden, and blocked largely by Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ). You can chalk up a lot of Democratic sourness on Biden, over his presidency, to that well-meaning, introverted, socially-liberal champion of capital and finance.
(Also, to a lesser extent, Sen. Joe Manchin (then D-, now I-WV), who was more opposed to Biden's social spending plans than his proposed tax policy, per se.)
Kamala, by nature of simply being Not Biden, has the street cred to propose succeeding where Biden failed on this issue--but she also has a golden opportunity to act on it. Much of the Trump tax cuts sunset in 2025; like Obama in 2013, she has a window to cut a deal. Likely the top 5% of taxpayers and corporate America would be the ones sacrificing in that deal.
As far as the rest goes:
Some corners of punditry believe (on the grocery thing, for example) she just promised to appoint certain people to the FTC and use existing antitrust law to promulgate regulations there--then framed it as a brand spankin' new "price gouging ban" to make voters happy and bait Donald Trump into coming out against it.
If so, it would also almost be certainly consonant with the roadblock a razor-thin margin in Congress would pose to any big new legislation she'd propose--and further, it would be limited by a Supreme Court that has declared itself (wrongly, IMO) the High Mullah Council Of All Things Regulatory.
"After all the tweets, I'm pretty sure Harris did not in fact propose price controls on groceries — just kind of vaguely said that antitrust enforcement is good (it is good)", according to Matt Yglesias. He's got more time and energy to analyze these things than I do.
"Demagogues will find ways to combine men in the service of bad causes....."
In the case of Trump, though, didn't the increasingly fact-free Republican Party of the 1990s and 2000s create a fallow field for his demagoguery to take root?
I used to really take a hard line against Republican office-holders who betrayed their oaths and their moral principles to support Trump in favor of their own political standing. I've softened a little bit, when I realized that I'm probably guilty of a softer version of that betrayal of moral principles.
"Biden never endorsed many progressive priorities, from Medicare for All to the end of the Senate filibuster. But he also didn’t spend his time in office beating up on the Sanders coalition to burnish his moderate bona fides. Instead, he brought them into his tent: ensuring they had a seat at the table in legislative negotiations while drawing on their brain trust as he rolled out his own unexpectedly populist and antitrust-heavy agenda." Thank you. I rarely see this acknowledged in center/center-right spaces, where there tends to be a lot of talk about the left "bullying" the normies. Biden's coalition-building has been good for the Democratic Party and good for the country.
"The Cause" is not to defeat The False Prophet. The Cause is to obliterate that for which he slithers, like a boa constrictor in the weeds. This means defeating not only The False Prophet but as many of his down-ballot sycophants as possible. It's not that MAGA-ism is shallow: MAGA-ism is empty and utterly devoid of any meaning in a nation governed by our Constitution.
The skeptic, the curmudgeon that has centered itself in my fiber is satisfied that, because I do not possess a television, I cannot be tempted to watch this orchestrated propaganda show or anything similar. If I open The Bulwark's YouTube channel, I find incredibly long videos of Bulwarkians whose collective focus seems to be about their approval or disapproval of the media; the technology and techniques involved.
McLuhan emphasized that "The Medium is the Massage". I believe, though, that the message the DNC must communicate includes the observations of Judge J. Michael Luttig:
"Most cults don't turn into religions . . . " Most cults are in their nature "religious" from the jump. The structure and operations of the two are more than merely synonymous. Both are structured in basic pyramid design, all-knowing, unquestioned, all powerful entity on top, REIGNING autonimously to all beneath. The entity does all the thinking, provides all the answers, no need to ruminate individually in the least. All is required is the total submission. Easy peasy.
"Cultus" in Latin = "care, labor; cultivation, culture; worship, reverence," "Cultus deorum" = "reverence for the gods."
In historical parlance, a saint's "cult" is not a pejorative term. It was rather recently that "cult" came to mean a religious group outside the dominant, established religious organizations, and more specifically one at odds with mainstream society and its institution., and inducing strange and destructive behavior.
MAGAs define themselves as supporters of Trump just as much as adherents to a religion. They elevate the will of Trump over all the established institutions of society, and they trust his word as authoritative. They wouldn't be insisting that the 2020 election was stolen if Trump didn't claim it was.
Indeed, thank you. I began to correct myself in the matter of throwing the word cult around. It occured to me earlier that Trump's lemming following was cultish in nature. But then I reasoned how was it that a good third to half of the American people suddenly found themselves behaving in cultist resonance. Explanations were everywhere but fell short, alluding to some insidious virus, some mystic voodoo, yadda yadda. My belief now is that people who fall victim to cults are disenfranchised, emotionally raped, left hopeless on many levels, finding any recourse unavailable. Along comes superhero to their rescue, a surprisingly sudden banner of hope.
What's perplexing is that so many otherwise normal-seeming people - some of them highly accomplished-- have committed themselves to defending a fantasy version of Trump that's wildly at odds with the most obvious facts about him and spinning weird theories to explain the opposition to him from among their former allies.
A few days ago, I heard someone describe an analysis of the people arrested in connection with the Jan. 6 attack: 93% white and 87% male (no surprise), and mostly with good jobs. Slightly more than half were from blue states. Overall, they were disproportionately from counties that had voted for Biden.
At this point, I don't recall the line between the data about J6ers and the results of a survey about disposition to approve of political violence. I think it was the latter where the researchers found a strong correlation with demographic trends away from a white majority.
The Trump cult is largely defined by a sense that "they are taking our country away from us," whether it's cast in ethnic terms, or as Marxists who use ethnic minorities to overwhelm "legacy Americans." Some intelligent and successful people who hold that belief embraced Trump as a dauntless warrior against the people they see as enemies of their America.
Michelle Obama made an excellent point at last night’s nominating convention: Donald Trump, in re-seeking the presidency, is in effect after a black job … Obama’s.
*****As Edmund Burke, the founder of modern party government, explained, “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”
[...]
Some commentators have hoped that the Harris candidacy is on the verge of becoming something more powerful than a campaign, a “movement.” I understand the wish, but I’m wary of an embrace of “movements.” Movements can be necessary and admirable—the civil rights movement for example. But good movements are hard to sustain, and bad ones can arise to bolster demagogues.
A sound political party is what we need. It’s more than an individual campaign. But it’s less than an all-encompassing movement. It’s consistent with the purposes and limits of political action in a free society.*****
.
I will stipulate (perhaps examination will show otherwise) that in stating "the good must associate," Edmund Burke had specifically in mind that they associate in a political party rather than in a movement. However, the lesson that we take away need not be limited in this way.
Yesterday Joe Perticone put up a piece (link below; see also NPR piece linked below) about Republicans who have come out for the Harris/Walz ticket. They are part of a movement, not a political party. The Bulwark community is part of this same movement.
Yes, we need an effective pro-democracy political party like the Democratic Party. Yes, we can fantasize about some future Republican Party that is also pro-democracy.
In the meantime, this apartisan pro-democracy, pro-decency, pro-sense movement is even more essential to the lasting vigor of our constitutional republic.
I like this lighthearted, philosophical, not-quite-explicit ongoing debate between Kristol and JVL. I'm guessing something like it happened back at the Weekly Standard, back in the day. Keep it up!
I don’t understand why abolishing the filibuster would be described as a progressive priority. It is objectively the best decision for the country. Let each party do their best/worst and let the country decide. If one side goes “too far” they will be voted out. Right now repugs block mostly everything and blame it on dems. It does not promote compromise, it promotes disfunction. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.
Amen to Kristol’s insightful analysis of the purpose and promise of effective political party institutions. We do need to have at least two of them, and maybe three.
"... keeping his ungainly coalition together through sheer force of personality."
Correction: "through sheer force of personality disorder."
"... a weird cult of personality ...."
Correction: "a weird cult of personality disorder"
Bill, great analysis. The Democrats have their act together and are functioning how an effective governing coalition should. The Republicans are completely dysfunctional for governing purposes.
I like Edmund Burke too, particularly for his support of Catholic emancipation when that was a pretty risky stance (although I also think he's _somewhat_ overrated, particularly by Americans), but I don't agree that he is in any meaningful way "the founder of modern party government" as Mr. Kristol asserts. Factional leader of the more conservative Whigs (versus the radical Whigs who followed Charles James Fox), certainly. But for anything like an ultimately long term stable party, with branding, some level of party discipline, corporate identity ("follow the money") I think credit really belongs to Pitt the Younger (if you just mean a long term coordinated cabal keeping in office with a somewhat rotating cast, Walpole deserves such credit as might be deserved).
I'm all about Harris beating Trump. Can't say I'm enthused about the loss leaders the dems are promoting to get the votes. If they come to fruition. Seems Harris vs. Biden isn't enough.
I'm in the fiscally conservative socially liberal camp. I'd like to know and see more about who (exactly) is providing this 'free chicken.' It's not the dems. It's who they're going to tax.
Meh. Depends on what one heard in her policy rollout.
The big part of the "free chicken" is likely to be funded by ending a goodly amount of Donald Trump's tax cuts. That was attempted during Biden, and blocked largely by Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ). You can chalk up a lot of Democratic sourness on Biden, over his presidency, to that well-meaning, introverted, socially-liberal champion of capital and finance.
(Also, to a lesser extent, Sen. Joe Manchin (then D-, now I-WV), who was more opposed to Biden's social spending plans than his proposed tax policy, per se.)
Kamala, by nature of simply being Not Biden, has the street cred to propose succeeding where Biden failed on this issue--but she also has a golden opportunity to act on it. Much of the Trump tax cuts sunset in 2025; like Obama in 2013, she has a window to cut a deal. Likely the top 5% of taxpayers and corporate America would be the ones sacrificing in that deal.
As far as the rest goes:
Some corners of punditry believe (on the grocery thing, for example) she just promised to appoint certain people to the FTC and use existing antitrust law to promulgate regulations there--then framed it as a brand spankin' new "price gouging ban" to make voters happy and bait Donald Trump into coming out against it.
If so, it would also almost be certainly consonant with the roadblock a razor-thin margin in Congress would pose to any big new legislation she'd propose--and further, it would be limited by a Supreme Court that has declared itself (wrongly, IMO) the High Mullah Council Of All Things Regulatory.
"After all the tweets, I'm pretty sure Harris did not in fact propose price controls on groceries — just kind of vaguely said that antitrust enforcement is good (it is good)", according to Matt Yglesias. He's got more time and energy to analyze these things than I do.
Who pays for the republicans free chicken? This is a binary choice.
Also talk about an interesting programming choice. Bernie Sanders to an actual Billionaire to the former CEO of American Express.*
*Though it is frequently ranked one of the best companies for working moms. And way ahead of the corporate DE& I train.
"Demagogues will find ways to combine men in the service of bad causes....."
In the case of Trump, though, didn't the increasingly fact-free Republican Party of the 1990s and 2000s create a fallow field for his demagoguery to take root?
I used to really take a hard line against Republican office-holders who betrayed their oaths and their moral principles to support Trump in favor of their own political standing. I've softened a little bit, when I realized that I'm probably guilty of a softer version of that betrayal of moral principles.
"Biden never endorsed many progressive priorities, from Medicare for All to the end of the Senate filibuster. But he also didn’t spend his time in office beating up on the Sanders coalition to burnish his moderate bona fides. Instead, he brought them into his tent: ensuring they had a seat at the table in legislative negotiations while drawing on their brain trust as he rolled out his own unexpectedly populist and antitrust-heavy agenda." Thank you. I rarely see this acknowledged in center/center-right spaces, where there tends to be a lot of talk about the left "bullying" the normies. Biden's coalition-building has been good for the Democratic Party and good for the country.
Bill,
Well said!
I too look for the return of a second functioning conservative national party.
"The Cause" is not to defeat The False Prophet. The Cause is to obliterate that for which he slithers, like a boa constrictor in the weeds. This means defeating not only The False Prophet but as many of his down-ballot sycophants as possible. It's not that MAGA-ism is shallow: MAGA-ism is empty and utterly devoid of any meaning in a nation governed by our Constitution.
The skeptic, the curmudgeon that has centered itself in my fiber is satisfied that, because I do not possess a television, I cannot be tempted to watch this orchestrated propaganda show or anything similar. If I open The Bulwark's YouTube channel, I find incredibly long videos of Bulwarkians whose collective focus seems to be about their approval or disapproval of the media; the technology and techniques involved.
McLuhan emphasized that "The Medium is the Massage". I believe, though, that the message the DNC must communicate includes the observations of Judge J. Michael Luttig:
https://www.youtube.com/live/VdTIMQ8wpUc?si=79aPl4erhH0u5Mnl
"Most cults don't turn into religions . . . " Most cults are in their nature "religious" from the jump. The structure and operations of the two are more than merely synonymous. Both are structured in basic pyramid design, all-knowing, unquestioned, all powerful entity on top, REIGNING autonimously to all beneath. The entity does all the thinking, provides all the answers, no need to ruminate individually in the least. All is required is the total submission. Easy peasy.
"Cultus" in Latin = "care, labor; cultivation, culture; worship, reverence," "Cultus deorum" = "reverence for the gods."
In historical parlance, a saint's "cult" is not a pejorative term. It was rather recently that "cult" came to mean a religious group outside the dominant, established religious organizations, and more specifically one at odds with mainstream society and its institution., and inducing strange and destructive behavior.
MAGAs define themselves as supporters of Trump just as much as adherents to a religion. They elevate the will of Trump over all the established institutions of society, and they trust his word as authoritative. They wouldn't be insisting that the 2020 election was stolen if Trump didn't claim it was.
Indeed, thank you. I began to correct myself in the matter of throwing the word cult around. It occured to me earlier that Trump's lemming following was cultish in nature. But then I reasoned how was it that a good third to half of the American people suddenly found themselves behaving in cultist resonance. Explanations were everywhere but fell short, alluding to some insidious virus, some mystic voodoo, yadda yadda. My belief now is that people who fall victim to cults are disenfranchised, emotionally raped, left hopeless on many levels, finding any recourse unavailable. Along comes superhero to their rescue, a surprisingly sudden banner of hope.
What's perplexing is that so many otherwise normal-seeming people - some of them highly accomplished-- have committed themselves to defending a fantasy version of Trump that's wildly at odds with the most obvious facts about him and spinning weird theories to explain the opposition to him from among their former allies.
A few days ago, I heard someone describe an analysis of the people arrested in connection with the Jan. 6 attack: 93% white and 87% male (no surprise), and mostly with good jobs. Slightly more than half were from blue states. Overall, they were disproportionately from counties that had voted for Biden.
At this point, I don't recall the line between the data about J6ers and the results of a survey about disposition to approve of political violence. I think it was the latter where the researchers found a strong correlation with demographic trends away from a white majority.
The Trump cult is largely defined by a sense that "they are taking our country away from us," whether it's cast in ethnic terms, or as Marxists who use ethnic minorities to overwhelm "legacy Americans." Some intelligent and successful people who hold that belief embraced Trump as a dauntless warrior against the people they see as enemies of their America.
Michelle Obama made an excellent point at last night’s nominating convention: Donald Trump, in re-seeking the presidency, is in effect after a black job … Obama’s.
Really like Andrew’s comment that the Dems’ current unity was made possible by the patient coalition building by Joe Biden.
Bill wrote:
*****As Edmund Burke, the founder of modern party government, explained, “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”
[...]
Some commentators have hoped that the Harris candidacy is on the verge of becoming something more powerful than a campaign, a “movement.” I understand the wish, but I’m wary of an embrace of “movements.” Movements can be necessary and admirable—the civil rights movement for example. But good movements are hard to sustain, and bad ones can arise to bolster demagogues.
A sound political party is what we need. It’s more than an individual campaign. But it’s less than an all-encompassing movement. It’s consistent with the purposes and limits of political action in a free society.*****
.
I will stipulate (perhaps examination will show otherwise) that in stating "the good must associate," Edmund Burke had specifically in mind that they associate in a political party rather than in a movement. However, the lesson that we take away need not be limited in this way.
Yesterday Joe Perticone put up a piece (link below; see also NPR piece linked below) about Republicans who have come out for the Harris/Walz ticket. They are part of a movement, not a political party. The Bulwark community is part of this same movement.
Yes, we need an effective pro-democracy political party like the Democratic Party. Yes, we can fantasize about some future Republican Party that is also pro-democracy.
In the meantime, this apartisan pro-democracy, pro-decency, pro-sense movement is even more essential to the lasting vigor of our constitutional republic.
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/democrats-welcome-disaffected-republicans
https://www.npr.org/2024/08/20/nx-s1-5081167/republicans-for-harris-coalitions-have-launched-in-several-swing-states