Generally a great discussion. I read the article as well. Here is my main criticism: George Packer admits he has hardly visited Phoenix prior to writing this article. I’m not a journalist. I’m an attorney and I have lived in Phoenix full time since 1983. I don’t expect someone who hasn’t lived here to fully appreciate what has been and is happening but if you are going to write an article of the length written you really need to do better background research. It is hard to believe but Arizona uses less water than 1950 even though the population has increased almost 10 times since 1950. How can that be? Agriculture uses more water per acre than residential development so every acre of agricultural land with water rights (either from ground water or water stored in dams through the Salt River Project) that becomes residential development uses less water than the prior use. That is the key to understanding the water issues in Arizona. There is of course a lot more to it than that but I don’t think Packer fully understands what is happening although his article did correctly distinguish between areas in the Phoenix metro with excess water rights and those which are currently inadequate. Another criticism. You cannot understand Arizona politics unless you understand that prior to MAGA and the Tea Party, Arizona always had a certain crazy factor mixed in with some surprising “progressive “ politics (greatest number of women Governors by far of any state, including the current Governor who defeated another woman, Kari Lake). For example, long prior to the Tea Party there was a concept of a “Kookocracy” in Republican politics including famously former Republican Governor Evan Mecham, who was impeached and convicted after serving barely a year as Governor in the late 1980s by an overwhelmingly Republican legislature because he was so batsh*t crazy that even conservative Republicans wanted him out of power. Again, a good article and discussion but you cannot understand a place as big as Phoenix that has grown so much over the decades without getting into the historical weeds. Why not talk with journalists who have extensive knowledge of Phoenix such as Jon Talton, a great journalist who grew up in Phoenix, wrote for decades at the Arizona Republic and has written extensively on the history of Phoenix.
Though Packer is a good writer as always, and adept at crafting eloquent observations from new experiences, he is. . . well, a center-left, Harvard-educated pundit from the East Coast.
That means that no matter how long he did a work trip in Phoenix, everything he says is going to be colored by his day job in woke, tony, hoity-toity Manhattan and/or Massachusetts. Or wherever he lives.
That doesn't just mean he's "liberal"--it means, like the proverbial devout Catholic/Mormon/Muslim (insert religion here), he feels guilt about liberalism. Deep, gnawing, guilt.
Enough to look at the polls, the state of the country, and assume it's probably mainly our fault as liberals that we're in this situation. And that Biden, no matter what he's materially done as president of the United States, is, as an "incapable messenger", to blame--or that Democrats are to blame for not booting him for [??!??]. And that liberals just don't "talk enough to the other side", dontcha know. And stuff.
George Packer is an old-fashioned, genial journalistic type who longs to comprehend the incomprehensible, and rationalize the irrational. (After all, he managed to interview Charlie Kirk for the article, a Hitler Youth-wannabe if there ever was one in modern America.)
Simply stating aloud the obvious fact that a substantial portion of 2024 American voters are bored, antsy, willfully anti-informed, and considering burning the world down in a childish snit by their own damn agency is something he cannot do. It would be too blunt, rude, and honest of him. He would feel guilt. *eyeroll*
(Also, Let's be clear here: Air conditioning is not going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back on global warming. For God's sake.)
That said, I did enjoy the conversation. But I felt my mouth twitch several times during it. Hence this mild rant. :P
Great discussion. It is important to recognize that some of “The Great Books” or classical education schools are sponsored by Opus Dei. They do not acknowledge this openly.
Great discussion, thank you both! You understand the tension in AZ between the older libertarian sort of conservatism and the MAGA type. Methinks the fringe (lots of different fringes actually) has always found places in the desert heat. As the population has expanded, those fringe groups become bigger in sheer numbers and harder to dismiss as they've grown.
Also tension as the blue population grows, including migrants from the Pacific Northwest, CA, upper Midwest. These are often middle-to-upper income folks with a habit of voting, which does way more to upset the old red tint the state had, compared to the imagined caravans of migrants from outside the US.
We do have some unexpected coalitions around climate and development, and these give some hope for joint action and/or compromise. Environmentalists and family ranchers/farmers can sync up about the water supply & mining development. Recreation & tourism business can work with both around these same issues.
I'm with ya, George - "can't give up on the future."
My fear is that as the climate tips to extremes, it will drive people towards fundamentalism. They become apocalyptic and want someone to "save" them. They become suspicious and divide into camps. This creates a situation ripe for demagoguery and exploitation. I think we do not fully appreciate how the environment impacts human behavior. Extreme heat and the lack of clean water (or too much water) is, I believe, already beginning to work on people's unconscious psyche. If we do not have good leaders who can help society and communities adapt, then we're screwed.
Tura, thx for your thoughtful comments. A few thoughts for you:
1. We are already in a situation ripe for demagoguery and exploitation, yes? Since the invention of agriculture and the civilzations that it made possible, humans have not fully appreciated not only how the environment impacts our behavior but also how we rely on the ecological services it provides so we can thrive on Planet Earth. And they aren't gonna get this until it's in their face when it will actually be too late.
2. Agree leadership is the limiting factor, because it is a rare quality; most humans are followers. However, most of the current, respected historians of American history that I follow believe political leaders leaders arise to meet circumstances. They cite Washington, Lincoln and FDR as the best presidents because they emerged in a crisis and led the nation. We haven't seen ours yet. We must stay tuned.
Great discussion today. One small quibble: charter schools. As a retired teacher who worked in high poverty schools, I was an early proponent of charters. In my mind these would be laboratories where a population of students, reflective of the community could be taught in a new way. We could test ideas and learn best practices from each other. But, when public dollars went and are going to charters and private schools that do not provide transportation or free lunch or services for special needs, then they are no longer laboratories, but a way to divide. And public schools are suffering due to money being drained from them.
I hate to break this to you but the current voucher/private/charter school movement was born of the desegregation movement in the 1960's as a way to allow more affluent white families to send their children to schools with other white kids.
Much of the anti-public schooling attacks that we have witnessed since the 1980's is 100% based around forced bussing and desegregation and the people pushing these ideas today probably have no idea. It's just what Team Red is in favor of.
I think you need to do some homework on the voucher and charter school movements. Conflating them with the segregation academies is an act of profound ignorance. Spend a few hours with Howard Fuller's "No Struggle No Progress" and then come back and, with the benefit of some actual understanding, join the conversation on public school choice.
I think there were two motivations for charter schools happening at different points in time. Desegregation resulted in white families creating their own schools and they've been eyeing public dollars to help pay for tuition ever since. But there was a later time in which people like Sherie were very interested in charter schools for the reasons she describes. I don't mind the idea of charter schools as Sherie describes. What I mind is when the states do not fund education adequately claiming that there is a finite pot of money for education so that the addition of new charter schools reduces the amount of money available to all the schools.
The anti tax sentiment makes legislators reluctant to raise the money needed to meet modern educational needs. They believe they'll be punished by voters for supporting tax increases. People want great public education for their kids but don't care to pay for it especially when they aren't assured that every dime of taxpayer money goes to their kids' school.
Just curious. Why do you think states do not fun public education adequately? I'll give you a clue: They did until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. Here's another clue: White flight from cities to suburbs.
Part of the reason people like Sherie feel public education is not sufficient is explicitly because States are purposefully defunding public education to pay for situation #1.
FYI, I'm a retired educator. In my state, CA, under Gov Jerry Brown, the state did not defund public education. On the contrary, it remade its school funding system to funnel more money to low-income students, English learners and foster youth. It was called Local Control Funding Formula. I've been out of that loop for quite a few years, but this report published this year says it has improved math and reading scores and brought more resources to students who struggle the most. See https://calmatters.org/education/k-12-education/2024/03/school-finance/.
I got uplift for you Tim. But first off it's "Arizonans." Not "Arizonians." Unless there's a sect of Armenians outside of Prescott I don't know about.
Uplift:
I've been a professional journalist in Arizona covering politics everywhere but Phoenix.
Down in Pima County in 2024, a host of book banners ran on the eye-rolling ticket of "Parents Rights." They ran in Amphi (Oro Valley), Vail, Marana and the formerly Republican Catalina Foothills. They all got smoked. Jacked. Worked. Hosed. Defenestrated.
Kari Lake was up by Trump's margin one week out from the election. Hobbs hung an L on her neck.
Mark Finchem turned to election denial and lost the "bullwark" (if you will) of GOP support in his Legislative District when he ran for Sec State. He lost Saddlebrook. That's like Trump losing The Lakes.
There's more: My old buddy and former boss in Dem politics, put it, Dem turnout was "ass" in 2022. It was the best election Dems have had in 75 years and their voters didn't turn out.
If Democrats didn't turn out in 22 and MAGA lost up and down the ballot, democracy has a fighting chance in an election when Dems do turn out and King MAGA is at the top of the ballot.
Immigration? They pass through. They're not here in big numbers. I walk to get smokes at midnight smack in the middle of Tucson and my biggest fear is white people bumming a cigarette off me.
In regards to Mormon connection to this story, I strongly recommend everyone check out the Mormon Women for Ethical Government (MWEG). I work in the ‘support and save our healthy democracy, civic engagement, thriving community’ space and these ladies are amazing in what they’re doing.
The LDS undercurrent here in Arizona is simply fascinating. By coincidence, tonight is the kickoff meeting of the PAC behind 2020's "Arizona Republicans for Biden"--which is re-engaging in 2024. The leadership and ethical tone of this group are set by its LDS leadership. They talk a great deal like Rusty Bowers does in Packer's story this month in The Atlantic.
Tim - I will be at TNL live Friday in Denver and would love to hear you three react to this revealing 6/19/24 opinion piece in The Hill by Jeremy Etelson on why Biden is losing young D voters. Etelson raises a slew of arguments I think are wrong but they’re interesting because they cross the usual party lines. Do you hear others say these things in focus groups?
I do not doubt these sentiments are coming up in some young focus groups--but ugh.
To hell with that article. With respect to Mr. Etelson, what he wrote is that of someone comprehensively uninformed (anti-informed, really) at best. At worst, it's that of someone looking for an excuse (any excuse) to elect Trump, for thrills, jollies, and an opportunity to watch shit burn.
One generally does not call oneself a liberal, all but call the criminal conviction of Trump rigged, and condemn Biden for "leaving abortion to the courts", and either be serious or expect to be taken seriously.
The dude probably smirked when he sent his article to the Hill; pro bono Trump campaign operatives, claiming to be "real liberals", are a thing. We've seen one or two of them in Congress, not too long ago. :/
I guess my biggest disagreement with George is about Biden and his reaction to running again. First, I completely agree with George that my view of what needed to happen after the coup is exactly the same as George: dial the culture wars back, focus on economics in red states, stay out of the ticktock of the media, and operate in a non controversial manner.
Where I differ from George is on the conclusion. I wasn’t wrong because Biden wasn’t the right vessel to execute such an idea but I was wrong because the American public wanted the exact opposite of what I thought (and George) was needed. The American public WANTS the culture war. They want running the presidency to look like WWE (even liberals) than a tea party.
For Biden to be successful he had to TURN UP the temperature, not turn it down. He had to block out Trump (let’s be fair that might not have been possible. I don’t even think Clinton or Obama could do it in this media environment). He had to prevent Trump from coming back into the fold. I, and I think most normal people, thought after J6th trump was done. We were wrong. JB had to end him.
The problem was JB was never that guy. However, I’m not sure anyone else with temperament to end trump above would (1) win in 2020 and (2) win a primary for the Dems in 2024. Dammed if you do, damned if you don’t.
Please don't say the American public wants the culture war. Only the extremes - MAGA and the Far Left - wants it. Also right-wing media. It's their bread and butter.
Sandy the center is so small to not matter. Everyone describes themselves as the center of the American people. Maga thinks they represent “real” America.
Why would the media constantly focus on the culture wars then? Not just the right wing ecosystem but msm. Sandy, they aren’t stupid. CBS, nbc, abc, cnn, msnbc are giving us what people are reading, listening to and watching. If people wanted to hear about policy and non culture war issues they would provide it.
I know a ton of ex republicans like myself and you know what their biggest complaint is of Biden “why isn’t he out there just attacking Trump? That’s what we would be doing.” They don’t want someone to bring down the temperature but bring it up
You are right that cable news is giving the audience what it wants. Policy and non-culture-war issues make for boring television. But in surveys of self-described political ideology, moderates, neither liberal or conservative, are about a third of Americans (https://news.gallup.com/poll/388988/political-ideology-steady-conservatives-moderates-tie.aspx). So I disagree that the center is so small to not matter and that everyone describes themselves as such.
But do the moderates want the culture war? I don't know. I do think many Americans are persuaded by politicians fighting for them cause I see the word "fight" in a lot of politicians' rhetoric. However, cable TV viewers are only abou a third of the audience.
The key to your question/response is “self described.” Think about your friends the ones with the nutty beliefs (I know I have them. We all do). Do they EVER say when you ask them about their politics “oh yeah I’m radical.” The problem is most people think they are moderate. I have interacted on here a lot with you. In my mind you’re a moderate liberal. I’m probably a bit more right than you but close. You know what my wife would describe you as? Rightwing. She would probably think you’re a Republican.
My wife is VERY liberal. We live in sf. If I asked her what she was she would describe herself as a moderate liberal. She is…in sf. If I introduced her to a democrat in Wisconsin she would be RADICAL left wing anarchist.
The reason I use my wife here is that last night we had the FUNNIEST conversation. She is a lawyer. She went to lunch with another lawyer who she likes BUT she represents a bunch of Trumpish clients. She asked me if she could be friends with her. I literally laughed out loud. I was like “you have friends that represent criminals!!! That is what lawyers do!” She responded “somehow this is different.”
I agree for lawyers it's different. My dad was a prosecutor and then a defense attorney. When he switched, we kids would ask him how could he now represent the bad guys he used to put away. He said, "Everyone deserves a fair trial." That's the defense's job, to ensure their client's rights are protected. That's a noble responsibility.
I might be a bit naive, but it seems to me that the real purveyors of the culture wars are the media and grifter class on the right. The center mass of Dems, specifically most elected Dem officials, do not push the culture war. They're constantly reacting to it because of the constant and relentless push from the right.
This is not new - every couple of generations, there's about 1/3 of the population that just can't move on when it comes to change. There was slavery in the 1860's, basic worker's rights and economic justice in the 1920's/1930's, and stuff like civil rights, feminism, etc. in the 1960's/70s.
What happens is either the middle third basically says, 'stop your BS' and closes that 1/3 off from power until they largely die off. But, that was easier when that 1/3 was split because Southern Dixiecrats in the Democratic party and various old-guard right-wing types like your Henry Ford's in the GOP.
Now though, they're united, but the good news is the culture is still changing on them.
But ,a little dirty secret is outside of gay marriage (and maybe recently on abortion, though that might just be better polling reflecting what people actually want), most people don't actually change their views on cultural issues. They just die off - if you look at the history of interraical marriage approval, it took a massive jump in the late 80s/early 90s - because that's when a lot of people who were already middle-aged by time the Civil Rights Movement started and their views weren't going to shift.
That’s kind of my point. Look at most of the dem parties elected officials: Biden, Schumer, jefferies (when have you heard from him). They never talk about culture war issues. They respond because they are forced too. However, the media paints them and their colleagues as fighting a culture war. You can’t escape it so you might as well own it
Democrats can still win Arizona but it has to be on the backs of some "culture war" issues. No one votes on abstract chips acts and bipartisan infrastructure bills. Emotion wins elections and drives people to the polls. Guns, immigration, and abortion have all had the pendulum swing from time to time but they always drive turnout across the political spectrum. Democrats still have a chance in Arizona. It's sad that North Carolina, Nevada and Georgia all might be lost causes but Arizona still has to be a top target for Democrats.
To be honest, I didn’t believe so after 2020. I thought Biden was perfect. Don’t be involved in the culture wars. Do a bunch of economic shit for red states. Bring the temperature down. Wow was I wrong.
The problem is, in my mind, trump blocks out the sun. Nothing anyone else does can break through.
That is why I vehemently disagree with George about Biden. I don’t think anyone would be doing substantially better…or worse. This is what the people want.
I dunno about Biden being what the people want (and to be clear, I'm 100% in support of Biden against the return of the Mad Orange King). In a parallel universe, where Biden said after the midterms in 2022: "OK, I'm a 1 term President. Let's get the next generation of Dems on stage and pick the best person to replace me and keep trump out of office" we would have had a Dem presidential candidate where Trump's age and his seemingly escalating dementia was a key issue. But we are where we are. It's true Trump blocks the sun for now, but I fear it is the sun that will look smaller after Trump leaves the stage. The current Republican party is frightened of its MAGA base, and outside of a few congressman in swing districts, they will hew to the MAGA theme to stay in power.
Maybe. I hear you there was a CHANCE we got the next generation but I bet Bernie would run and he would have as close of a chance as to win the presidency as anyone but Kamala.
That being said let’s say it was someone younger. Maybe Kamala. Maybe Pete. Maybe big gretch. Maybe Josh s. Maybe warnock.
Each of these people would have an issue: women, gay, black, old, Jewish, etc. not to mention but to the public. Those would be exploited.
My major point is the following: everyone here agrees that the orange god king is not only old but dangerous AND insane. That is true no matter who runs. What I am trying to say is that the voters don’t care. For every voter it turns off another voter views those character flaws as a POSITIVE. that’s the problem
Commenters (and people who work for) this website will be ironically united with bits of the far-left being very unhappy when Kamala gets 52% in South Carolina and basically wraps up the nomination in 2028.
The thing is - yes, if Biden loses, that probably makes things less stable.
But, if Biden wins and completes his 2nd term, here's the reality of things.
Kamala Harris will be the incumbent first black female VP of a two-term President who's still popular among the party, is in the right age range to run for POTUS (as opposed to a Cheney or Biden 2016 ironically), her background is connected to an important portion of the party base, she's connected to many leading party members, and her opponents will have no meaningful policy differences with her.
Like, Gretchen Whitmer, Josh Shapiro, et al will not be running to the right of Kamala in any real way, and AOC's smart enough not to do a kamikaze run. Maybe Nina Turner will run and get 3% in New Hampshire.
That's the issue for any opponents to Kamala - there's not a real policy campaign to run against her, it'll all be vibes. I also want to make clear I'm not a Kamala 2028 supporter, but I've accepted it's by far, the most likely scenario.
Plus, let's also admit this - there's a 10-20% chance she's already the incumbent POTUS.
Like I said, we are where we are so there's no point in going any further down the counterfactual road where Biden is not the candidate in 2024. As far as the voters go, there's little hope for those voters who already favor Trump. They are lost in the cult. The remaining sliver of undecideds are largely low information voters or voters who see their own personal issues (inflation, immigration, Israel, anti-abortion) as more important than the danger the Mad Orange King represents. I don't know what can be said to convince these people.
The crazy part is even "emotional" issues like "don't vote for the guy who tried a coup last time" doesn't resonate with huge chunk of voters. In a place like AZ, what "emotional" issue will drive the sliver of undecided, low information and independent voters to vote Blue? Abortion rights? (maybe but not all Hispanic voters are motivated on this issue because of religious and cultural background). Immigration? Guns? I'm not sure any of these work in AZ.
The reality is, and you see this in places that fell to fascism like Spain is that life isn't really that different from a wide group of people.
Like, let me be honest here - I'm a getting older, barreling toward middle age white guy with no children living in a blue state. Trump could invade and take over the White House, and as long as Wall Street and Silicon Valley didn't care, my life actually wouldn't be that different.
But, I care because of abstract philosophical reasons. Most people care about the price of gas, their groceries, and specific issues relating to them, not the Constitution.
This was a fascinating podcast. Thank you!
Generally a great discussion. I read the article as well. Here is my main criticism: George Packer admits he has hardly visited Phoenix prior to writing this article. I’m not a journalist. I’m an attorney and I have lived in Phoenix full time since 1983. I don’t expect someone who hasn’t lived here to fully appreciate what has been and is happening but if you are going to write an article of the length written you really need to do better background research. It is hard to believe but Arizona uses less water than 1950 even though the population has increased almost 10 times since 1950. How can that be? Agriculture uses more water per acre than residential development so every acre of agricultural land with water rights (either from ground water or water stored in dams through the Salt River Project) that becomes residential development uses less water than the prior use. That is the key to understanding the water issues in Arizona. There is of course a lot more to it than that but I don’t think Packer fully understands what is happening although his article did correctly distinguish between areas in the Phoenix metro with excess water rights and those which are currently inadequate. Another criticism. You cannot understand Arizona politics unless you understand that prior to MAGA and the Tea Party, Arizona always had a certain crazy factor mixed in with some surprising “progressive “ politics (greatest number of women Governors by far of any state, including the current Governor who defeated another woman, Kari Lake). For example, long prior to the Tea Party there was a concept of a “Kookocracy” in Republican politics including famously former Republican Governor Evan Mecham, who was impeached and convicted after serving barely a year as Governor in the late 1980s by an overwhelmingly Republican legislature because he was so batsh*t crazy that even conservative Republicans wanted him out of power. Again, a good article and discussion but you cannot understand a place as big as Phoenix that has grown so much over the decades without getting into the historical weeds. Why not talk with journalists who have extensive knowledge of Phoenix such as Jon Talton, a great journalist who grew up in Phoenix, wrote for decades at the Arizona Republic and has written extensively on the history of Phoenix.
A good conversation, with the following caveats:
Though Packer is a good writer as always, and adept at crafting eloquent observations from new experiences, he is. . . well, a center-left, Harvard-educated pundit from the East Coast.
That means that no matter how long he did a work trip in Phoenix, everything he says is going to be colored by his day job in woke, tony, hoity-toity Manhattan and/or Massachusetts. Or wherever he lives.
That doesn't just mean he's "liberal"--it means, like the proverbial devout Catholic/Mormon/Muslim (insert religion here), he feels guilt about liberalism. Deep, gnawing, guilt.
Enough to look at the polls, the state of the country, and assume it's probably mainly our fault as liberals that we're in this situation. And that Biden, no matter what he's materially done as president of the United States, is, as an "incapable messenger", to blame--or that Democrats are to blame for not booting him for [??!??]. And that liberals just don't "talk enough to the other side", dontcha know. And stuff.
George Packer is an old-fashioned, genial journalistic type who longs to comprehend the incomprehensible, and rationalize the irrational. (After all, he managed to interview Charlie Kirk for the article, a Hitler Youth-wannabe if there ever was one in modern America.)
Simply stating aloud the obvious fact that a substantial portion of 2024 American voters are bored, antsy, willfully anti-informed, and considering burning the world down in a childish snit by their own damn agency is something he cannot do. It would be too blunt, rude, and honest of him. He would feel guilt. *eyeroll*
(Also, Let's be clear here: Air conditioning is not going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back on global warming. For God's sake.)
That said, I did enjoy the conversation. But I felt my mouth twitch several times during it. Hence this mild rant. :P
Great discussion, but how do I find the link to your music? The closing song?
Tim's playlist is here, Michelle:
https://open.spotify.com/playlist/0dApY6YT48kTh6j9xFDQch?go=1&sp_cid=90f369bc60a409fd28c5569dfb574025&nd=1&dlsi=769afa568444438f
Great discussion. It is important to recognize that some of “The Great Books” or classical education schools are sponsored by Opus Dei. They do not acknowledge this openly.
https://opusdei.org/en-us/article/what-schools-and-other-charities-in-the-united-states-have-a-relationship-with-opus-dei/
Great discussion, thank you both! You understand the tension in AZ between the older libertarian sort of conservatism and the MAGA type. Methinks the fringe (lots of different fringes actually) has always found places in the desert heat. As the population has expanded, those fringe groups become bigger in sheer numbers and harder to dismiss as they've grown.
Also tension as the blue population grows, including migrants from the Pacific Northwest, CA, upper Midwest. These are often middle-to-upper income folks with a habit of voting, which does way more to upset the old red tint the state had, compared to the imagined caravans of migrants from outside the US.
We do have some unexpected coalitions around climate and development, and these give some hope for joint action and/or compromise. Environmentalists and family ranchers/farmers can sync up about the water supply & mining development. Recreation & tourism business can work with both around these same issues.
I'm with ya, George - "can't give up on the future."
My fear is that as the climate tips to extremes, it will drive people towards fundamentalism. They become apocalyptic and want someone to "save" them. They become suspicious and divide into camps. This creates a situation ripe for demagoguery and exploitation. I think we do not fully appreciate how the environment impacts human behavior. Extreme heat and the lack of clean water (or too much water) is, I believe, already beginning to work on people's unconscious psyche. If we do not have good leaders who can help society and communities adapt, then we're screwed.
Tura, thx for your thoughtful comments. A few thoughts for you:
1. We are already in a situation ripe for demagoguery and exploitation, yes? Since the invention of agriculture and the civilzations that it made possible, humans have not fully appreciated not only how the environment impacts our behavior but also how we rely on the ecological services it provides so we can thrive on Planet Earth. And they aren't gonna get this until it's in their face when it will actually be too late.
2. Agree leadership is the limiting factor, because it is a rare quality; most humans are followers. However, most of the current, respected historians of American history that I follow believe political leaders leaders arise to meet circumstances. They cite Washington, Lincoln and FDR as the best presidents because they emerged in a crisis and led the nation. We haven't seen ours yet. We must stay tuned.
Heat makes people very irritable.
Great discussion today. One small quibble: charter schools. As a retired teacher who worked in high poverty schools, I was an early proponent of charters. In my mind these would be laboratories where a population of students, reflective of the community could be taught in a new way. We could test ideas and learn best practices from each other. But, when public dollars went and are going to charters and private schools that do not provide transportation or free lunch or services for special needs, then they are no longer laboratories, but a way to divide. And public schools are suffering due to money being drained from them.
I hate to break this to you but the current voucher/private/charter school movement was born of the desegregation movement in the 1960's as a way to allow more affluent white families to send their children to schools with other white kids.
Much of the anti-public schooling attacks that we have witnessed since the 1980's is 100% based around forced bussing and desegregation and the people pushing these ideas today probably have no idea. It's just what Team Red is in favor of.
I think you need to do some homework on the voucher and charter school movements. Conflating them with the segregation academies is an act of profound ignorance. Spend a few hours with Howard Fuller's "No Struggle No Progress" and then come back and, with the benefit of some actual understanding, join the conversation on public school choice.
I think there were two motivations for charter schools happening at different points in time. Desegregation resulted in white families creating their own schools and they've been eyeing public dollars to help pay for tuition ever since. But there was a later time in which people like Sherie were very interested in charter schools for the reasons she describes. I don't mind the idea of charter schools as Sherie describes. What I mind is when the states do not fund education adequately claiming that there is a finite pot of money for education so that the addition of new charter schools reduces the amount of money available to all the schools.
The anti tax sentiment makes legislators reluctant to raise the money needed to meet modern educational needs. They believe they'll be punished by voters for supporting tax increases. People want great public education for their kids but don't care to pay for it especially when they aren't assured that every dime of taxpayer money goes to their kids' school.
Just curious. Why do you think states do not fun public education adequately? I'll give you a clue: They did until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. Here's another clue: White flight from cities to suburbs.
Part of the reason people like Sherie feel public education is not sufficient is explicitly because States are purposefully defunding public education to pay for situation #1.
FYI, I'm a retired educator. In my state, CA, under Gov Jerry Brown, the state did not defund public education. On the contrary, it remade its school funding system to funnel more money to low-income students, English learners and foster youth. It was called Local Control Funding Formula. I've been out of that loop for quite a few years, but this report published this year says it has improved math and reading scores and brought more resources to students who struggle the most. See https://calmatters.org/education/k-12-education/2024/03/school-finance/.
I got uplift for you Tim. But first off it's "Arizonans." Not "Arizonians." Unless there's a sect of Armenians outside of Prescott I don't know about.
Uplift:
I've been a professional journalist in Arizona covering politics everywhere but Phoenix.
Down in Pima County in 2024, a host of book banners ran on the eye-rolling ticket of "Parents Rights." They ran in Amphi (Oro Valley), Vail, Marana and the formerly Republican Catalina Foothills. They all got smoked. Jacked. Worked. Hosed. Defenestrated.
Kari Lake was up by Trump's margin one week out from the election. Hobbs hung an L on her neck.
Mark Finchem turned to election denial and lost the "bullwark" (if you will) of GOP support in his Legislative District when he ran for Sec State. He lost Saddlebrook. That's like Trump losing The Lakes.
There's more: My old buddy and former boss in Dem politics, put it, Dem turnout was "ass" in 2022. It was the best election Dems have had in 75 years and their voters didn't turn out.
If Democrats didn't turn out in 22 and MAGA lost up and down the ballot, democracy has a fighting chance in an election when Dems do turn out and King MAGA is at the top of the ballot.
Immigration? They pass through. They're not here in big numbers. I walk to get smokes at midnight smack in the middle of Tucson and my biggest fear is white people bumming a cigarette off me.
This state's a toss up.
FINALLY, Bo Nix had a good camp.
Now I want to open a convenience store just so I can name it Midnight Smack.
As an outsider who frequents AZ but avoids Phoenix, I appreciate the analysis.
In regards to Mormon connection to this story, I strongly recommend everyone check out the Mormon Women for Ethical Government (MWEG). I work in the ‘support and save our healthy democracy, civic engagement, thriving community’ space and these ladies are amazing in what they’re doing.
The LDS undercurrent here in Arizona is simply fascinating. By coincidence, tonight is the kickoff meeting of the PAC behind 2020's "Arizona Republicans for Biden"--which is re-engaging in 2024. The leadership and ethical tone of this group are set by its LDS leadership. They talk a great deal like Rusty Bowers does in Packer's story this month in The Atlantic.
Tim - I will be at TNL live Friday in Denver and would love to hear you three react to this revealing 6/19/24 opinion piece in The Hill by Jeremy Etelson on why Biden is losing young D voters. Etelson raises a slew of arguments I think are wrong but they’re interesting because they cross the usual party lines. Do you hear others say these things in focus groups?
https://thehill.com/opinion/4728860-why-biden-is-losing-young-democrats-like-me/
I read the article. Ugh.
I do not doubt these sentiments are coming up in some young focus groups--but ugh.
To hell with that article. With respect to Mr. Etelson, what he wrote is that of someone comprehensively uninformed (anti-informed, really) at best. At worst, it's that of someone looking for an excuse (any excuse) to elect Trump, for thrills, jollies, and an opportunity to watch shit burn.
One generally does not call oneself a liberal, all but call the criminal conviction of Trump rigged, and condemn Biden for "leaving abortion to the courts", and either be serious or expect to be taken seriously.
The dude probably smirked when he sent his article to the Hill; pro bono Trump campaign operatives, claiming to be "real liberals", are a thing. We've seen one or two of them in Congress, not too long ago. :/
(Also, I, too, will be at TNL live. :D )
Such a great conversation.
I guess my biggest disagreement with George is about Biden and his reaction to running again. First, I completely agree with George that my view of what needed to happen after the coup is exactly the same as George: dial the culture wars back, focus on economics in red states, stay out of the ticktock of the media, and operate in a non controversial manner.
Where I differ from George is on the conclusion. I wasn’t wrong because Biden wasn’t the right vessel to execute such an idea but I was wrong because the American public wanted the exact opposite of what I thought (and George) was needed. The American public WANTS the culture war. They want running the presidency to look like WWE (even liberals) than a tea party.
For Biden to be successful he had to TURN UP the temperature, not turn it down. He had to block out Trump (let’s be fair that might not have been possible. I don’t even think Clinton or Obama could do it in this media environment). He had to prevent Trump from coming back into the fold. I, and I think most normal people, thought after J6th trump was done. We were wrong. JB had to end him.
The problem was JB was never that guy. However, I’m not sure anyone else with temperament to end trump above would (1) win in 2020 and (2) win a primary for the Dems in 2024. Dammed if you do, damned if you don’t.
Would love to hear from others
Please don't say the American public wants the culture war. Only the extremes - MAGA and the Far Left - wants it. Also right-wing media. It's their bread and butter.
The rest of us in the center do not.
Sandy the center is so small to not matter. Everyone describes themselves as the center of the American people. Maga thinks they represent “real” America.
Why would the media constantly focus on the culture wars then? Not just the right wing ecosystem but msm. Sandy, they aren’t stupid. CBS, nbc, abc, cnn, msnbc are giving us what people are reading, listening to and watching. If people wanted to hear about policy and non culture war issues they would provide it.
I know a ton of ex republicans like myself and you know what their biggest complaint is of Biden “why isn’t he out there just attacking Trump? That’s what we would be doing.” They don’t want someone to bring down the temperature but bring it up
You are right that cable news is giving the audience what it wants. Policy and non-culture-war issues make for boring television. But in surveys of self-described political ideology, moderates, neither liberal or conservative, are about a third of Americans (https://news.gallup.com/poll/388988/political-ideology-steady-conservatives-moderates-tie.aspx). So I disagree that the center is so small to not matter and that everyone describes themselves as such.
But do the moderates want the culture war? I don't know. I do think many Americans are persuaded by politicians fighting for them cause I see the word "fight" in a lot of politicians' rhetoric. However, cable TV viewers are only abou a third of the audience.
The key to your question/response is “self described.” Think about your friends the ones with the nutty beliefs (I know I have them. We all do). Do they EVER say when you ask them about their politics “oh yeah I’m radical.” The problem is most people think they are moderate. I have interacted on here a lot with you. In my mind you’re a moderate liberal. I’m probably a bit more right than you but close. You know what my wife would describe you as? Rightwing. She would probably think you’re a Republican.
My wife is VERY liberal. We live in sf. If I asked her what she was she would describe herself as a moderate liberal. She is…in sf. If I introduced her to a democrat in Wisconsin she would be RADICAL left wing anarchist.
The reason I use my wife here is that last night we had the FUNNIEST conversation. She is a lawyer. She went to lunch with another lawyer who she likes BUT she represents a bunch of Trumpish clients. She asked me if she could be friends with her. I literally laughed out loud. I was like “you have friends that represent criminals!!! That is what lawyers do!” She responded “somehow this is different.”
Your experience of people was based on self-description as well.
According to the survey I cited, they are asked whether they are liberal, conservative or moderate. A third said moderate.
I myself am a moderate Dem. Having to choose, I'd answer liberal because I've been attached to the Dem party all my life. It's a family thing.
As to your wife, from her perch on the far left, everyone not in her camp looks like the enemy. I wish she understood that the Left is a diverse (not just racially) coalition. Here's a good article on that for her: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/11/09/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology-2/
I agree for lawyers it's different. My dad was a prosecutor and then a defense attorney. When he switched, we kids would ask him how could he now represent the bad guys he used to put away. He said, "Everyone deserves a fair trial." That's the defense's job, to ensure their client's rights are protected. That's a noble responsibility.
Good morning,
I might be a bit naive, but it seems to me that the real purveyors of the culture wars are the media and grifter class on the right. The center mass of Dems, specifically most elected Dem officials, do not push the culture war. They're constantly reacting to it because of the constant and relentless push from the right.
Absolutely agree, Scott.
This is not new - every couple of generations, there's about 1/3 of the population that just can't move on when it comes to change. There was slavery in the 1860's, basic worker's rights and economic justice in the 1920's/1930's, and stuff like civil rights, feminism, etc. in the 1960's/70s.
What happens is either the middle third basically says, 'stop your BS' and closes that 1/3 off from power until they largely die off. But, that was easier when that 1/3 was split because Southern Dixiecrats in the Democratic party and various old-guard right-wing types like your Henry Ford's in the GOP.
Now though, they're united, but the good news is the culture is still changing on them.
But ,a little dirty secret is outside of gay marriage (and maybe recently on abortion, though that might just be better polling reflecting what people actually want), most people don't actually change their views on cultural issues. They just die off - if you look at the history of interraical marriage approval, it took a massive jump in the late 80s/early 90s - because that's when a lot of people who were already middle-aged by time the Civil Rights Movement started and their views weren't going to shift.
Are you familiar with "The Fourth Turning Is Here" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAxBjl7VYOM)? It makes that very argument.
That’s kind of my point. Look at most of the dem parties elected officials: Biden, Schumer, jefferies (when have you heard from him). They never talk about culture war issues. They respond because they are forced too. However, the media paints them and their colleagues as fighting a culture war. You can’t escape it so you might as well own it
Any idea on how can one find out about the tunes at the end of the show?
Tim's playlist is here, Trudius:
https://open.spotify.com/playlist/0dApY6YT48kTh6j9xFDQch?go=1&sp_cid=90f369bc60a409fd28c5569dfb574025&nd=1&dlsi=769afa568444438f
Democrats can still win Arizona but it has to be on the backs of some "culture war" issues. No one votes on abstract chips acts and bipartisan infrastructure bills. Emotion wins elections and drives people to the polls. Guns, immigration, and abortion have all had the pendulum swing from time to time but they always drive turnout across the political spectrum. Democrats still have a chance in Arizona. It's sad that North Carolina, Nevada and Georgia all might be lost causes but Arizona still has to be a top target for Democrats.
This!!!
To be honest, I didn’t believe so after 2020. I thought Biden was perfect. Don’t be involved in the culture wars. Do a bunch of economic shit for red states. Bring the temperature down. Wow was I wrong.
The problem is, in my mind, trump blocks out the sun. Nothing anyone else does can break through.
That is why I vehemently disagree with George about Biden. I don’t think anyone would be doing substantially better…or worse. This is what the people want.
I dunno about Biden being what the people want (and to be clear, I'm 100% in support of Biden against the return of the Mad Orange King). In a parallel universe, where Biden said after the midterms in 2022: "OK, I'm a 1 term President. Let's get the next generation of Dems on stage and pick the best person to replace me and keep trump out of office" we would have had a Dem presidential candidate where Trump's age and his seemingly escalating dementia was a key issue. But we are where we are. It's true Trump blocks the sun for now, but I fear it is the sun that will look smaller after Trump leaves the stage. The current Republican party is frightened of its MAGA base, and outside of a few congressman in swing districts, they will hew to the MAGA theme to stay in power.
Maybe. I hear you there was a CHANCE we got the next generation but I bet Bernie would run and he would have as close of a chance as to win the presidency as anyone but Kamala.
That being said let’s say it was someone younger. Maybe Kamala. Maybe Pete. Maybe big gretch. Maybe Josh s. Maybe warnock.
Each of these people would have an issue: women, gay, black, old, Jewish, etc. not to mention but to the public. Those would be exploited.
My major point is the following: everyone here agrees that the orange god king is not only old but dangerous AND insane. That is true no matter who runs. What I am trying to say is that the voters don’t care. For every voter it turns off another voter views those character flaws as a POSITIVE. that’s the problem
Commenters (and people who work for) this website will be ironically united with bits of the far-left being very unhappy when Kamala gets 52% in South Carolina and basically wraps up the nomination in 2028.
I'd be the first to acknowledge that a lot of the criticism of Harris is deeply rooted in racism and misogyny. But 2028 is a long way out.
The thing is - yes, if Biden loses, that probably makes things less stable.
But, if Biden wins and completes his 2nd term, here's the reality of things.
Kamala Harris will be the incumbent first black female VP of a two-term President who's still popular among the party, is in the right age range to run for POTUS (as opposed to a Cheney or Biden 2016 ironically), her background is connected to an important portion of the party base, she's connected to many leading party members, and her opponents will have no meaningful policy differences with her.
Like, Gretchen Whitmer, Josh Shapiro, et al will not be running to the right of Kamala in any real way, and AOC's smart enough not to do a kamikaze run. Maybe Nina Turner will run and get 3% in New Hampshire.
That's the issue for any opponents to Kamala - there's not a real policy campaign to run against her, it'll all be vibes. I also want to make clear I'm not a Kamala 2028 supporter, but I've accepted it's by far, the most likely scenario.
Plus, let's also admit this - there's a 10-20% chance she's already the incumbent POTUS.
Like I said, we are where we are so there's no point in going any further down the counterfactual road where Biden is not the candidate in 2024. As far as the voters go, there's little hope for those voters who already favor Trump. They are lost in the cult. The remaining sliver of undecideds are largely low information voters or voters who see their own personal issues (inflation, immigration, Israel, anti-abortion) as more important than the danger the Mad Orange King represents. I don't know what can be said to convince these people.
I think we are saying the same thing. Agreed
The crazy part is even "emotional" issues like "don't vote for the guy who tried a coup last time" doesn't resonate with huge chunk of voters. In a place like AZ, what "emotional" issue will drive the sliver of undecided, low information and independent voters to vote Blue? Abortion rights? (maybe but not all Hispanic voters are motivated on this issue because of religious and cultural background). Immigration? Guns? I'm not sure any of these work in AZ.
The reality is, and you see this in places that fell to fascism like Spain is that life isn't really that different from a wide group of people.
Like, let me be honest here - I'm a getting older, barreling toward middle age white guy with no children living in a blue state. Trump could invade and take over the White House, and as long as Wall Street and Silicon Valley didn't care, my life actually wouldn't be that different.
But, I care because of abstract philosophical reasons. Most people care about the price of gas, their groceries, and specific issues relating to them, not the Constitution.
We read (present tense) the Aeneid in my blue state suburban high school.
Thanks for inviting this author. I read his article online the other day and was happy to hear more.