I don't underestimate spin from the right, but you seem to underestimate the cognitive abilities of half of your fellow citizens to tell the difference between propaganda & what is happening in their daily lives. You also appear to have a misunderstanding about the word propaganda & what it means.
Propaganda is false & misleading information to gain a political advantage, so if you are suggesting the Democrats resort to propaganda, you are effectively calling for all trust in politics in America to be destroyed. In which case you might as well keep the autocrat you have in power now, because democracy cannot survive under the conditions were everbody lies.
As for the spin from the right, a person who cannot afford or access the medication for their parent with Alzheimer's will not care what the spin artists say. Neither will the parents having to decide whether to pay the rent or buy food for their kids. Sure the die-hard MAGA cultists will believe whatever Dear Leader or his proxies say, but the die-hards are not the majority of your voting population.
The first and most important thing Democrats need to do is detoxify the brand. But I fear the approach they look to embark on is flawed. Democrats need to know how the brand has been destroyed in order that they fix it. The flawed conventional wisdom is that the party became obsessed with wokeism and identity politics. In reality, that’s not actually the case. That’s the false narrative of Fox et al., and the root cause of Democratic collapse. The right propaganda juggernaut has painted Democrats as evil, un-american, Marxist, pedophiles, sexual deviants, socialists, and enemies of the state. This has been going on for 30 years. There’s no equivalent push back on Republicans because there’s no left propaganda machine. How do we know this is true? Donald Trump was whitewashed while Joe Biden had a legislatively consequential Presidency that resonated with no one. To blame Biden for that is to forget that there’s no propaganda machine on the left to push a Democrats agenda as was done for Trump. But here’s how to get back: don’t bother with policy, don’t reach out, don’t meet the voters where they are. All you need to do is appear STRONG. Democrats appear weak and that’s all people vote for. Don’t believe what people tell pollsters, they are lying. How do we know? Look at the polling for the last 3 elections…. How to appear strong? Fight! Not whine, not complain, not convey disbelief, but rather use Trump’s/Fox’s own game plan, make the other guys brand toxic. Coordinated ad hominem attacks on Trump from now till the midterms. And they MUST be bumper sticker sized. Nothing bigger, NO EXCEPTIONS! Every Democrat in every congressional hearing begins every question with “Do you believe President Trump is a Russian asset?” Every single time. Trump used repetition, use it on him. Once the Democrats look like fighters, the independents will return as well as the couch Democrats. Strong is the only criteria that matters. And STRONG will detoxify the brand.
Just when I was really starting to like you, Lauren. 😉
The Big Ten now reigns supreme. The SEC can't compete with the money and the national exposure. The SEC is a regional conference. Ask Tim about LSU losing #1 football player in the country to Michigan when their big donors opened up their checkbook. Lackluster showing in March Madness and last two College Football Championships to Michigan and Ohio St. respectively.
In regards to migration to the South, climate change is going to have the final say in where people ultimately settle. In the coming years, parts of the South and West will be unlivable. I have read a number of articles discussing the resurgence of the rust belt. I live in the Chicago area and already winters are almost non existent. We had a little over 10 inches of snow for the entire winter and only a handful of very cold days. Most days were quite pleasant with lots of sun with the exception of a couple short stretches. Last year we had 80 degree temps in February. This year, the same in March. Some scientific reports are predicting Chicago will have climates similar to Las Vegas or Phoenix by 2070 with 60 days that hit 100 plus degrees. While the West and South are experiencing drought, wildfires, water shortages, hurricanes, winter storms, floods, etc., the rust belt is going to become a very attractive place to live leading up to 2070.
I think more attention should be given to the South, but I think because the climate situation is so fluid, it should be more measured and selective. Maintain focus on the blue wall, Arizona, Northern Carolina and Georgia. But I don’t think we should get crazy. Especially with a state like Florida. Texas much more gettable, in my opinion.
Sorry for the long winded comment. Couldn't help myself.
Has anyone studied the voting behavior of Democrats after they move from a Blue State to a Red One? What (if anything) happens to the voting patterns of Republican’s who move from a Red to a Blue state? Without good, quantitative and qualitative data on these questions, no one can really know the impact of future population movements from Blues states to Red ones in the South.
Democrats listen to their donors, not their voters. Democrats make decisions that benefit their donors, not their voters. A party that represents the working class cannot depend on money from the ruling class.
My only comment about the South in 2O3O and all the black, Latino, and Asian people moving there is that the Southeast will suffer the greatest damage to the human habitat from our warming climate. "Nine of the 10 states that are likely to experience the worst impacts of climate change are in the South . . . " [https://www.safehome.org/climate-change-statistics/]. Is that the best place for college grads to plant themselves and their future families?
Doomsday, you say? What's happening to the GOP is happening to the Dems. We've been wailing for a generation about all the uni-party business as usual bullshit. Now we have a break, a very big one, one that is reshaping politics in a way not seen since Reconstruction. The simple formulation that "the future is just the Democratic Party's to lose" is wrong, mainly because it will soon be the same kind of twisted wreckage as the GOP. They were challenged by an orange used-call shill, and they failed. We noticed.
Regardless of what political party is more popular at the moment, there seems to be something in the water down south that just makes people meaner.
I grew up in the south, and after a few years out west my wife and I thought we’d move closer to our parents as we started a family- the closest place we could get for my type of job was Huntsville, AL. Our move coincided with a major move of people from the Northern VA area due to BRAC.
I met so many people that were objectively well educated and successful at their highly technical jobs (literal rocket scientists), and pleasant enough to be around, but who bought into the overarching white southern political worldview hook, line, and sinker. An otherwise polite and worldly twenty-something friend would, in 2010, launch into how “they” were ruining the local schools.
For many reasons (including the hot and humid weather), we decided to move back west after a couple of years. As we moved, an upstart politician named Mo Brooks was successfully running for Congress using the tag line: “He’s one of US” (“US” was also underlined, italicized, bolded). No one would be confused about what that meant.
It does seem like places like GA and NC are more “purple”, but there’s some kind of cultural inertia (and of course a tremendous imbalance in state politics) that will keep them decidedly southern.
The electoral map-based comments seem to be based on the assumption that the view of the populace will not change in reaction to how their lives have been changed since last November. I would not assume that at all. We are in the midst of a huge rollerball of sentiment. The anger that former core Democrats have exhibited goes back to the 1980 Reagan Trickle-Down economic plan. It didn't work and the Democrats answer to that fact, opening the fiscal floodgates had a bad side effect, inflation. There needs to be a new Democratic message. As I see it, Ken Martin does not have the depth to come up with that message, and unfortunately Heritage seems to be more effective at messages than Brookings.
So, this is really about how the conservatives have taken a big jump forward on their philosophical agenda and that there has been no Democratic response.
A New Democratic Party or if that does not evolve, a New Republican Party will need to arise and paint a clear picture of what people really want.
The Bannon/Heritage/MAGA/Trump movement that we are currently seeing is tied into the part of America that was not happy.
Ironically, as I said above much of the unhappiness can be tied to the inequality that grew out of the Reagan Supply/Side trickle-down economics that started back in 1980.
The Democrats did not do a good job of explaining the cause / effect story.
An important aspect to the big picture is that America’s core is by nature a greedy nation, not a nation that coalesces around fairness and peacefulness.
That core is not going to change, but the majority of the people know that there is a better way.
It is key for Democrats to understand why they lost a close election. We are at a tipping point unless we look deep into the macro drivers and formulate a deep response.
Tim Walz & Beto O'Rourke brought out about a thousand Houstonians on a rainy Thursday afternoon. The DNC should send Beto on a townhall tour around the south. Listen to voters and build a better platform.
What point are you trying to make? Is spreading optimism among Republicans the new way to combat them? Perhaps you are trying to wake up the Democrats by making them feel dysthymic and pessimistic by reproaching them for their inability to do what you think they need to. Why is it no longer best to denounce the Trump Administration's wrongs and ill-intended governance well grounding what you say or write? Are you a journalist or a reverse psychology expert in disguise? Look at the reactions your writings are getting. How do you know that those favoring them are not coming from Republican or anti-Trump readers? Increasing confusion is, in general, not necessarily the best way to spark interest or mobilize people. It is disrespectful to publish thoughts on such vital matters as politics, assuming that all of your readers will interpret your thoughts the way you intend them to or that all of your readers have the same level of political awareness or information that political insiders like you may have. Being direct and explicitly transparent is always best when trying to inform, educate people, or raise their awareness. In what measure is being convolutedly paradoxical or ironical (if that is what you are doing) the best way to tell or raise awareness? Furthermore, assuming to be infallible is generally offensive to readers or listeners or simply arrogant, which is not an attractive attitude. I know you will probably not read my comment; however, venting my frustrations is helpful.
Egan’s article was direct and clear. She reported on how many Ds think the party needs to invest more time and money into Southern states. There is no reason you or anyone else should have difficulty understating the point of this article. Also, your suggestion that Egan was “assuming to be infallible” is pure nonsense.
You seem to not count on me being an idiot or incapable of understanding Egan. I am glad that you seem to understand what she is writing. What may be direct and clear to you may not be necessarily so to others. I respect your disagreement with me, but why must you defend her opinion? Do you fear that my opinion may be right on point? Is it not typical of freedom exercising the right to disagree? I am not asking you to do it, but if you look back at what I wrote, you will see many more questions than affirmations. My honest mistake was thinking that I needed to write anything or that she or one of her assistants would read my comment. Thanks for making me think further about the social role of websites like The Bulwark.
Your writing and hypothesizing make me confident that you are not an idiot.
Likewise, I believe 99% of Bulwark subscribers can understand this article.
I have no problem with you disagreeing with Egan. What I have a problem with are your points.
I didn't agree or disagree with any of Egan's opinions. I believe she reported on the recent Brennan Center analysis and how Democratic politicians are reacting to it.
Also, I saw no evidence of her "assuming infallibility".
Let me apologize, beforehand, for having wrote such a lengthy reply, but I failed to shorten it. I agree that 99% of Bulwark subscribers may understand Ms. Egan’s article as you do. I also know, however, that Bulwark journalists and contributors should not limit the scope of what they publish to high-culture readers. Looking at what the so-called «low culture» did, as claimed in a recent article in The Bulwark, «low culture» voters might successfully sink the US democracy. (Cf. Jim Swift's recent article, dated 22 March in The Bulwark, titled: «The Low Culture that Brought Us Trump.» Even though I'm not a political expert, I'm still willing to share my thoughts. In my view, there is nothing against Trumpian totalitarianism that should not be considered worth divulging and enouncing in a style as direct and clear as simplicity and directness demand for the sake of effective communication. If I did not express my thoughts adequately, I apologize. Defending or supporting someone’s affirmation (or correct to affirm), in my view, implies at least partial agreement. Otherwise, spreading confusion is never justified because reducing or misusing others' rightful access to the best expression of the truth in most circumstances constitutes a crime against the First Amendment (Despite Scalia's and others' interpretations, such as Trump's). Otherwise, the «so help me God» prayer may be hypocritical. Faking news, overtly lying, defaming, or using ill-intended speech to profit or influence others must be criminally punishable, although it is often not. In conclusion, I believe that expressing opinions in public or publishing must never take for granted the differences in perspectives or circumstances. Thus, divulging the truth as it is perceived demands clarity and intentionality, citing sources used as referents, making a good-faith effort not to mislead, and ensuring that everything said is verifiable. There are differences in publications, I agree, but I think that 99% of the readership or audience interprets in a particular way, which one considers the right way, while the 1% supposed to disagree is discriminated against. Such a position might be explainable, but in my view, not justifiable enough, by the arguable morality law of the Principle of double-effect (Cf., for instance, T. A. Cavanaugh, Double-Effect Reasoning, Doing Good And Avoiding Evil, New York, Oxford University Press, Oxford Studies in Theological Ethics, 2006; Cornelius J. Van Der Poel, «The Principle of Double Effect» in Absolutes in moral theology? Curran, Charles E. 1968, 186-210. Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming: Internet Archive, accessed 31 March 2025.
Thanks for reading my comment. Please let me address the concerns raised by your comment by questioning more than affirming them. Did realizing the ineffectiveness of merely denouncing Trump as a liar and con contribute to your conclusion that other means were necessary to keep him within the bounds of the law and good faith governance? (Even if such a hope remains unrealistic.) If so, calling him a liar and a con was not useless because it caused some effect. What made you imagine, without asking for clarification, that I just wanted to do «the same thing?» Denouncing, while using all available and adequate legal means to make him as harmless as possible, is what I think is best. He did not win the popular vote. Why is no one campaigning to reform or abolish the Electoral College, which has repeatedly been a source of danger and vulnerability to ill-intentioned politics? Other initiatives, for instance, the recent White House Correspondents Association's protest of the White House's attempt to dominate over the assignment of seats at the Briefing Room, which is an assault on the independence and autonomy of the WHCA. Those actions are essential to denounce the pro-totalitarianism policies of the current administration. Are they not worth publicizing because they don't seem spectacular enough? What Democrats, such as Rep. Jamie Raskin and others, are doing in the Judiciary Committee is not worth divulging or commenting on? Why is it preferable to write in the seeminly passive aggresive tone of Ms. Egan in this case? Why readers who may be not sophisticated, perspicacious, or sensible as Ms. Egan's majority of readers or listeners should be left out of consideration when writing in public? The way to write is to write addressing as broad a readership or audience as possible, is it not?
Where population grows, divisions among sections of a population grow. Much of the growth of Southern populations will occur among groups among whom Democrats are competitive, and it doesn't necessarily follow that a seat lost by California or New York to Texas or Florida will necessarily result in a seat flipping from blue to red.
To the extent Republicans succeed is turning new seats into red seats, they will have to adjust their membership and priorities at least somewhat to new types of voters.
I’ve believed for years that the Dems are never going to break through in this political environment until they relearn how to win elections outside of the big cities in the west coast and the northeast. This just raises the urgency of figuring out how to do that.
Voters of color aren’t as liberal as a lot of white liberals. Culturally, they’re more conservative on most issues besides race, and they’re quite a bit more pragmatic on race and other issues than many white liberals who don’t face the consequences of lost elections. It’s not a given that they’re going to turn the southern districts they inhabit blue. They may just integrate and vote more Republican. If Democrats don’t get better on the ground and figure out how to reach those voters, instead of assuming they’ll vote the same way as people of color in blue bastions, then they’re going to be in trouble.
I don't underestimate spin from the right, but you seem to underestimate the cognitive abilities of half of your fellow citizens to tell the difference between propaganda & what is happening in their daily lives. You also appear to have a misunderstanding about the word propaganda & what it means.
Propaganda is false & misleading information to gain a political advantage, so if you are suggesting the Democrats resort to propaganda, you are effectively calling for all trust in politics in America to be destroyed. In which case you might as well keep the autocrat you have in power now, because democracy cannot survive under the conditions were everbody lies.
As for the spin from the right, a person who cannot afford or access the medication for their parent with Alzheimer's will not care what the spin artists say. Neither will the parents having to decide whether to pay the rent or buy food for their kids. Sure the die-hard MAGA cultists will believe whatever Dear Leader or his proxies say, but the die-hards are not the majority of your voting population.
The first and most important thing Democrats need to do is detoxify the brand. But I fear the approach they look to embark on is flawed. Democrats need to know how the brand has been destroyed in order that they fix it. The flawed conventional wisdom is that the party became obsessed with wokeism and identity politics. In reality, that’s not actually the case. That’s the false narrative of Fox et al., and the root cause of Democratic collapse. The right propaganda juggernaut has painted Democrats as evil, un-american, Marxist, pedophiles, sexual deviants, socialists, and enemies of the state. This has been going on for 30 years. There’s no equivalent push back on Republicans because there’s no left propaganda machine. How do we know this is true? Donald Trump was whitewashed while Joe Biden had a legislatively consequential Presidency that resonated with no one. To blame Biden for that is to forget that there’s no propaganda machine on the left to push a Democrats agenda as was done for Trump. But here’s how to get back: don’t bother with policy, don’t reach out, don’t meet the voters where they are. All you need to do is appear STRONG. Democrats appear weak and that’s all people vote for. Don’t believe what people tell pollsters, they are lying. How do we know? Look at the polling for the last 3 elections…. How to appear strong? Fight! Not whine, not complain, not convey disbelief, but rather use Trump’s/Fox’s own game plan, make the other guys brand toxic. Coordinated ad hominem attacks on Trump from now till the midterms. And they MUST be bumper sticker sized. Nothing bigger, NO EXCEPTIONS! Every Democrat in every congressional hearing begins every question with “Do you believe President Trump is a Russian asset?” Every single time. Trump used repetition, use it on him. Once the Democrats look like fighters, the independents will return as well as the couch Democrats. Strong is the only criteria that matters. And STRONG will detoxify the brand.
Just when I was really starting to like you, Lauren. 😉
The Big Ten now reigns supreme. The SEC can't compete with the money and the national exposure. The SEC is a regional conference. Ask Tim about LSU losing #1 football player in the country to Michigan when their big donors opened up their checkbook. Lackluster showing in March Madness and last two College Football Championships to Michigan and Ohio St. respectively.
In regards to migration to the South, climate change is going to have the final say in where people ultimately settle. In the coming years, parts of the South and West will be unlivable. I have read a number of articles discussing the resurgence of the rust belt. I live in the Chicago area and already winters are almost non existent. We had a little over 10 inches of snow for the entire winter and only a handful of very cold days. Most days were quite pleasant with lots of sun with the exception of a couple short stretches. Last year we had 80 degree temps in February. This year, the same in March. Some scientific reports are predicting Chicago will have climates similar to Las Vegas or Phoenix by 2070 with 60 days that hit 100 plus degrees. While the West and South are experiencing drought, wildfires, water shortages, hurricanes, winter storms, floods, etc., the rust belt is going to become a very attractive place to live leading up to 2070.
I think more attention should be given to the South, but I think because the climate situation is so fluid, it should be more measured and selective. Maintain focus on the blue wall, Arizona, Northern Carolina and Georgia. But I don’t think we should get crazy. Especially with a state like Florida. Texas much more gettable, in my opinion.
Sorry for the long winded comment. Couldn't help myself.
Has anyone studied the voting behavior of Democrats after they move from a Blue State to a Red One? What (if anything) happens to the voting patterns of Republican’s who move from a Red to a Blue state? Without good, quantitative and qualitative data on these questions, no one can really know the impact of future population movements from Blues states to Red ones in the South.
But as climate change and its consequences kick in, this could be temporary.
You're worried about the 2030 census? The US will be unrecognizable before 2030.
Democrats listen to their donors, not their voters. Democrats make decisions that benefit their donors, not their voters. A party that represents the working class cannot depend on money from the ruling class.
My only comment about the South in 2O3O and all the black, Latino, and Asian people moving there is that the Southeast will suffer the greatest damage to the human habitat from our warming climate. "Nine of the 10 states that are likely to experience the worst impacts of climate change are in the South . . . " [https://www.safehome.org/climate-change-statistics/]. Is that the best place for college grads to plant themselves and their future families?
Doomsday, you say? What's happening to the GOP is happening to the Dems. We've been wailing for a generation about all the uni-party business as usual bullshit. Now we have a break, a very big one, one that is reshaping politics in a way not seen since Reconstruction. The simple formulation that "the future is just the Democratic Party's to lose" is wrong, mainly because it will soon be the same kind of twisted wreckage as the GOP. They were challenged by an orange used-call shill, and they failed. We noticed.
... used-car shill ...
Regardless of what political party is more popular at the moment, there seems to be something in the water down south that just makes people meaner.
I grew up in the south, and after a few years out west my wife and I thought we’d move closer to our parents as we started a family- the closest place we could get for my type of job was Huntsville, AL. Our move coincided with a major move of people from the Northern VA area due to BRAC.
I met so many people that were objectively well educated and successful at their highly technical jobs (literal rocket scientists), and pleasant enough to be around, but who bought into the overarching white southern political worldview hook, line, and sinker. An otherwise polite and worldly twenty-something friend would, in 2010, launch into how “they” were ruining the local schools.
For many reasons (including the hot and humid weather), we decided to move back west after a couple of years. As we moved, an upstart politician named Mo Brooks was successfully running for Congress using the tag line: “He’s one of US” (“US” was also underlined, italicized, bolded). No one would be confused about what that meant.
It does seem like places like GA and NC are more “purple”, but there’s some kind of cultural inertia (and of course a tremendous imbalance in state politics) that will keep them decidedly southern.
The electoral map-based comments seem to be based on the assumption that the view of the populace will not change in reaction to how their lives have been changed since last November. I would not assume that at all. We are in the midst of a huge rollerball of sentiment. The anger that former core Democrats have exhibited goes back to the 1980 Reagan Trickle-Down economic plan. It didn't work and the Democrats answer to that fact, opening the fiscal floodgates had a bad side effect, inflation. There needs to be a new Democratic message. As I see it, Ken Martin does not have the depth to come up with that message, and unfortunately Heritage seems to be more effective at messages than Brookings.
So, this is really about how the conservatives have taken a big jump forward on their philosophical agenda and that there has been no Democratic response.
A New Democratic Party or if that does not evolve, a New Republican Party will need to arise and paint a clear picture of what people really want.
The Bannon/Heritage/MAGA/Trump movement that we are currently seeing is tied into the part of America that was not happy.
Ironically, as I said above much of the unhappiness can be tied to the inequality that grew out of the Reagan Supply/Side trickle-down economics that started back in 1980.
The Democrats did not do a good job of explaining the cause / effect story.
An important aspect to the big picture is that America’s core is by nature a greedy nation, not a nation that coalesces around fairness and peacefulness.
That core is not going to change, but the majority of the people know that there is a better way.
It is key for Democrats to understand why they lost a close election. We are at a tipping point unless we look deep into the macro drivers and formulate a deep response.
It is all about the message, not more politics.
Thank you for a "demography is destiny" perspective I hadn't really thought about. Maybe because I wasn't sure we'd still be a democracy in 2030?
Tim Walz & Beto O'Rourke brought out about a thousand Houstonians on a rainy Thursday afternoon. The DNC should send Beto on a townhall tour around the south. Listen to voters and build a better platform.
What point are you trying to make? Is spreading optimism among Republicans the new way to combat them? Perhaps you are trying to wake up the Democrats by making them feel dysthymic and pessimistic by reproaching them for their inability to do what you think they need to. Why is it no longer best to denounce the Trump Administration's wrongs and ill-intended governance well grounding what you say or write? Are you a journalist or a reverse psychology expert in disguise? Look at the reactions your writings are getting. How do you know that those favoring them are not coming from Republican or anti-Trump readers? Increasing confusion is, in general, not necessarily the best way to spark interest or mobilize people. It is disrespectful to publish thoughts on such vital matters as politics, assuming that all of your readers will interpret your thoughts the way you intend them to or that all of your readers have the same level of political awareness or information that political insiders like you may have. Being direct and explicitly transparent is always best when trying to inform, educate people, or raise their awareness. In what measure is being convolutedly paradoxical or ironical (if that is what you are doing) the best way to tell or raise awareness? Furthermore, assuming to be infallible is generally offensive to readers or listeners or simply arrogant, which is not an attractive attitude. I know you will probably not read my comment; however, venting my frustrations is helpful.
Totally agree.
Egan’s article was direct and clear. She reported on how many Ds think the party needs to invest more time and money into Southern states. There is no reason you or anyone else should have difficulty understating the point of this article. Also, your suggestion that Egan was “assuming to be infallible” is pure nonsense.
You seem to not count on me being an idiot or incapable of understanding Egan. I am glad that you seem to understand what she is writing. What may be direct and clear to you may not be necessarily so to others. I respect your disagreement with me, but why must you defend her opinion? Do you fear that my opinion may be right on point? Is it not typical of freedom exercising the right to disagree? I am not asking you to do it, but if you look back at what I wrote, you will see many more questions than affirmations. My honest mistake was thinking that I needed to write anything or that she or one of her assistants would read my comment. Thanks for making me think further about the social role of websites like The Bulwark.
Your writing and hypothesizing make me confident that you are not an idiot.
Likewise, I believe 99% of Bulwark subscribers can understand this article.
I have no problem with you disagreeing with Egan. What I have a problem with are your points.
I didn't agree or disagree with any of Egan's opinions. I believe she reported on the recent Brennan Center analysis and how Democratic politicians are reacting to it.
Also, I saw no evidence of her "assuming infallibility".
Let me apologize, beforehand, for having wrote such a lengthy reply, but I failed to shorten it. I agree that 99% of Bulwark subscribers may understand Ms. Egan’s article as you do. I also know, however, that Bulwark journalists and contributors should not limit the scope of what they publish to high-culture readers. Looking at what the so-called «low culture» did, as claimed in a recent article in The Bulwark, «low culture» voters might successfully sink the US democracy. (Cf. Jim Swift's recent article, dated 22 March in The Bulwark, titled: «The Low Culture that Brought Us Trump.» Even though I'm not a political expert, I'm still willing to share my thoughts. In my view, there is nothing against Trumpian totalitarianism that should not be considered worth divulging and enouncing in a style as direct and clear as simplicity and directness demand for the sake of effective communication. If I did not express my thoughts adequately, I apologize. Defending or supporting someone’s affirmation (or correct to affirm), in my view, implies at least partial agreement. Otherwise, spreading confusion is never justified because reducing or misusing others' rightful access to the best expression of the truth in most circumstances constitutes a crime against the First Amendment (Despite Scalia's and others' interpretations, such as Trump's). Otherwise, the «so help me God» prayer may be hypocritical. Faking news, overtly lying, defaming, or using ill-intended speech to profit or influence others must be criminally punishable, although it is often not. In conclusion, I believe that expressing opinions in public or publishing must never take for granted the differences in perspectives or circumstances. Thus, divulging the truth as it is perceived demands clarity and intentionality, citing sources used as referents, making a good-faith effort not to mislead, and ensuring that everything said is verifiable. There are differences in publications, I agree, but I think that 99% of the readership or audience interprets in a particular way, which one considers the right way, while the 1% supposed to disagree is discriminated against. Such a position might be explainable, but in my view, not justifiable enough, by the arguable morality law of the Principle of double-effect (Cf., for instance, T. A. Cavanaugh, Double-Effect Reasoning, Doing Good And Avoiding Evil, New York, Oxford University Press, Oxford Studies in Theological Ethics, 2006; Cornelius J. Van Der Poel, «The Principle of Double Effect» in Absolutes in moral theology? Curran, Charles E. 1968, 186-210. Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming: Internet Archive, accessed 31 March 2025.
Calling Trump a liar and a con hasn't worked in a decade. But if you wanna keep doing the same thing and expecting different results, go right ahead.
Thanks for reading my comment. Please let me address the concerns raised by your comment by questioning more than affirming them. Did realizing the ineffectiveness of merely denouncing Trump as a liar and con contribute to your conclusion that other means were necessary to keep him within the bounds of the law and good faith governance? (Even if such a hope remains unrealistic.) If so, calling him a liar and a con was not useless because it caused some effect. What made you imagine, without asking for clarification, that I just wanted to do «the same thing?» Denouncing, while using all available and adequate legal means to make him as harmless as possible, is what I think is best. He did not win the popular vote. Why is no one campaigning to reform or abolish the Electoral College, which has repeatedly been a source of danger and vulnerability to ill-intentioned politics? Other initiatives, for instance, the recent White House Correspondents Association's protest of the White House's attempt to dominate over the assignment of seats at the Briefing Room, which is an assault on the independence and autonomy of the WHCA. Those actions are essential to denounce the pro-totalitarianism policies of the current administration. Are they not worth publicizing because they don't seem spectacular enough? What Democrats, such as Rep. Jamie Raskin and others, are doing in the Judiciary Committee is not worth divulging or commenting on? Why is it preferable to write in the seeminly passive aggresive tone of Ms. Egan in this case? Why readers who may be not sophisticated, perspicacious, or sensible as Ms. Egan's majority of readers or listeners should be left out of consideration when writing in public? The way to write is to write addressing as broad a readership or audience as possible, is it not?
Where population grows, divisions among sections of a population grow. Much of the growth of Southern populations will occur among groups among whom Democrats are competitive, and it doesn't necessarily follow that a seat lost by California or New York to Texas or Florida will necessarily result in a seat flipping from blue to red.
To the extent Republicans succeed is turning new seats into red seats, they will have to adjust their membership and priorities at least somewhat to new types of voters.
I’ve believed for years that the Dems are never going to break through in this political environment until they relearn how to win elections outside of the big cities in the west coast and the northeast. This just raises the urgency of figuring out how to do that.
Voters of color aren’t as liberal as a lot of white liberals. Culturally, they’re more conservative on most issues besides race, and they’re quite a bit more pragmatic on race and other issues than many white liberals who don’t face the consequences of lost elections. It’s not a given that they’re going to turn the southern districts they inhabit blue. They may just integrate and vote more Republican. If Democrats don’t get better on the ground and figure out how to reach those voters, instead of assuming they’ll vote the same way as people of color in blue bastions, then they’re going to be in trouble.