Indeed, indeed. I was driving back from the doctor's this afternoon and I turned on WNYC on the readio to hear what I could hear. And right away there arrives one of those NPR voices -- I know you know what I mean -- telling us that "At this moment we so badly need to be tender to each other." Off goes the radio. No, what "we" -- I mean Democrats and all other folks in the loyal resistance -- "need to be" is tough-minded and shrewd and good and goddamned angry and frankly implacable in our opposition to Trump and his grotesque minions. Tender is fine in the private realm, but in the political sphere it doesn't begin to butter the beans. Politics, at least in this moment, is a contact sport and a form of combat. "Fight, fight, fight," to borrow a phrase.
I agree — to an extent. Which is why I’m going to vote for California’s fight-fire-with-fire Prop 50 redistricting proposition — as I hold my nose. Gerrymandering by any side stinks. California has had it right to leave redistricting to an independent commission. But the excesses of this administration have got to be resisted! Grrr.
It would be very helpful, perhaps indeed necessary, for Democrats to come up with a strong leader. Unfortunately, the way the Constitution has structured our system, if a party doesn’t hold the Presidency, it becomes almost impossible for a leader to take hold and lead the party. It’s not until an election year, with primaries that last 18 months, that a leader if finally chosen who can set the tone. FDR ended up saving democracy, but he did it as President. He couldn’t have accomplished it as Governor of NY, even though he was the same person with the same qualities. This is the strength of a parliamentary system where each political party is never without a leader. Even if Schumer and Jeffries were superb leaders, it would be very difficult to present strength because they are seen, and in truth truly are, legislators. Putin couldn’t have done what he did working in the Russian parliament. He had to gain control of the reins of power first, and then, and only then, could he exert his will.
That’s why it’s going to be so bloody hard to fight Trump. He already has those reins of power and to make it worse, he has a majority in the Supreme Court that enables and supports his moves all the way. If they had ruled consistently against him, given our constitutional structure, we might have a stronger chance of saving our democracy. Right now, it doesn’t look good.
The need to react will destroy the Democrat Party. Do something cry many Democrats. We know we don't have the House or the Senate or the Presidency or the Supreme Court but do something they scream..
The poor Democratic politicians say, Do what? We have no power. So they are forced to over-react blindingly and stupidly. Nothing properly thought out. Its like been stuck in quick sand. The more you struggle the worse it gets.
Smart people wait quietly. They wait patiently. They understand they lost the battle in 2024 but they didn't lose the war.
An 80s Eagles song, All Ready Gone, speaks of people who never realize they hold the key, to their own freedom. It seems possibly relevant to Dems who seriously compare an 80 year old, term limited US Queens builder to Mobutu, one of the most murderous dictators in world history, who ruled with an iron fist, for more than 3 decades. The lack of all rationality is especially mind boggling because neutralizing Trump's most popular policies, would basically only require Dems return to polices long considered Dem dogma, preBiden.
Dems seem willing to commit political suicide protecting 10 million migrants, 9 million and change who would never have been allowed to enter the country, let alone stay, under any other Dem President. These poor people were conned by Biden's WH and NGOs into believing they could stay in the US forever, without a valid asylum claim. The cherry on top, was the assurance American taxpayers would perpetually provide all the necessities they could never provide for themselves, in an expensive knowledge based economy. The con, if not outright evil, is certainly borderline depraved. The one thing it is not, is irreversible.
All over Europe, migrants are being paid to head home. Some wealthy, liberal Scandinavians are offering $35K for self deportation. The money is a drop in the bucket compared to lifetime of welfare benefits. The Irish, who not long ago held parades for new migrants, are now offering them $10K for a quick departure. Many Eastern European nations offer less, but also pay. England, literally, teeters on the brink over mass migration. The stoic Germans are not far behind. It's the first week of the month, so France lost yet another PM, at least partially, for the same reason.
Reasonable Dems might look across the pond at our Western brothers, sense a pattern, then offer a compromise. The US is spending a fortune on deportations, migrant welfare and healthcare. A far better outcome would be to offer Biden migrants $10K to quickly self deport, with the caveat after they leave, and the border remains closed, non criminal migrants, in the US for more than a decade and who have never utilized the US safety net, can become Permanent Resident Aliens.
Toss in crime reform, that is a rerun of Clinton's 100K new cops on the streets, along with mandatory minimums and gun enhancement charges to receive the federal funds, and much of the wind is out of Trump's sails. And Dems no longer need to endure Mobutu nightmares.
Purity or power. Pick one. You can't have both. (unfortunately so many Democrats prefer purity rather than winning elections. Remember Michele Obama going high remarks?)
Democrats do have a conundrum. Now, that is. In the moment. Consider this: the number of women who skew center to left. They tend to be anti-Trumpers. They call out toxic masculinity. However — gasp — what about their predilection to listen and nurture? To me, the right seems, well, just so damn mean. And intolerant. By contrast, we lefties tend to be accepting. Are Dems to purge those virtues from its base? Disempower women, born and bred of the NOW and Me-Too movements? (Good luck with that!) Or, as this one left-center Catholic Christian believes, do we lean into far more enduring strength of compassion?. I don’t know HOW Dems do that. But it’s not by dialing up the macho-meter to the level of Trump. Vought, and Miller.
These things aren't mutually exclusive, Patrick. You can be tough but principled. The absence of order is not compassion run amok; it is mayhem. I know members of the military, at the highest levels, who share your faith but would kick the tar out of the Russian Speznats, if given the opportunity. But great comment, right on point.
Yes, Joe, but... Democracy is by nature messy. We want to feel safe. Like our ever-expanding universe itself, our pluralistic, free market, technologically-driven world tends to more chaos, not less. Systemic reactions -- Mussolini made the trains run on time -- to democracy's inherent mayhem and inefficiencies have stemmed from the wont of order. That said, I don't know how you achieve it without the excesses we're watching unfold today. I do know, however, Trump et al ain't it -- not if you know history.
Responsibility is NOT what most people want. They want authority, money, position, and good looks. Any of the previous four may induce one to be responsible with what one has, but that is no guaranty. Rights without responsibility is chaos. Whose right comes first, whose is most worthy of our support? This is nonsense.
A very excellent overall of the present Left that is pushing the Democrats further left and the medium Democrats towards the Republicans, like it or not. Well Done and written.
Joe--Some excerpts from Jonathan Chait's column in the Atlantic today, after he attended a progressive Democratic Party conference in DC ("Persuasion 2025") over the weekend. Um...Stunning.
"First, these progressive deny that polls showing any left-wing positions as unpopular convey meaningful information. Anat Shenker-Osorio, a progressive strategist, roundly dismissed the relevance of polling as “pollingism,” and rejected the very notion that politicians can win support by heeding public opinion. “
What’s more, where voters do support regressive positions, Democrats should dismiss this as a kind of false consciousness. As various speakers argued, working-class voters facing economic stress tend to lash out at vulnerable targets. “When people are psychologically insecure, they are incapable of being welcoming to people who are different than them,” the activist Erica Payne said.
Attempting to disarm right-wing attacks by abandoning positions that are unpopular with these and other voters is not only unnecessary, but also futile. “You cannot feed your opposition’s narrative,” Anat Shenker-Osorio argued. She is even more absolute on her website: “Conventional wisdom says to meet people where they are. But, on most issues, where they are is unacceptable.”
Rapidly transforming the American public’s beliefs is a daunting task—all the more so if you dismiss their current values as unacceptable. The Democratic Party’s pragmatic wing has been pleading to broaden the tent, ideally before the Trump administration stamps out all opposition. The party’s progressives seem determined to reeducate the public rather than compromise for their votes. This is a seductive approach if the goal is ideological purity. It is a problem only if the party hopes to win elections."
Looks like they won't go quietly, though. The purists are always with us, Joe--and they have an enormous political energy. We should worry that they are an increasing influence in our Democratic Party. The problem is: where is the energy of the moderates who know we need a big tent?
I don't think they're an increasing influence, just noisier--at a time when tolerance has overtaken the party, to the party's detriment. If Yeats is right, and the center doesn't hold--and doesn't treat the left less tolerantly, recruit independents and even some Trumpers with some real substantive policy alternatives--then we're looking at a dark period, even in this country.
Indeed, indeed. I was driving back from the doctor's this afternoon and I turned on WNYC on the readio to hear what I could hear. And right away there arrives one of those NPR voices -- I know you know what I mean -- telling us that "At this moment we so badly need to be tender to each other." Off goes the radio. No, what "we" -- I mean Democrats and all other folks in the loyal resistance -- "need to be" is tough-minded and shrewd and good and goddamned angry and frankly implacable in our opposition to Trump and his grotesque minions. Tender is fine in the private realm, but in the political sphere it doesn't begin to butter the beans. Politics, at least in this moment, is a contact sport and a form of combat. "Fight, fight, fight," to borrow a phrase.
I agree — to an extent. Which is why I’m going to vote for California’s fight-fire-with-fire Prop 50 redistricting proposition — as I hold my nose. Gerrymandering by any side stinks. California has had it right to leave redistricting to an independent commission. But the excesses of this administration have got to be resisted! Grrr.
It would be very helpful, perhaps indeed necessary, for Democrats to come up with a strong leader. Unfortunately, the way the Constitution has structured our system, if a party doesn’t hold the Presidency, it becomes almost impossible for a leader to take hold and lead the party. It’s not until an election year, with primaries that last 18 months, that a leader if finally chosen who can set the tone. FDR ended up saving democracy, but he did it as President. He couldn’t have accomplished it as Governor of NY, even though he was the same person with the same qualities. This is the strength of a parliamentary system where each political party is never without a leader. Even if Schumer and Jeffries were superb leaders, it would be very difficult to present strength because they are seen, and in truth truly are, legislators. Putin couldn’t have done what he did working in the Russian parliament. He had to gain control of the reins of power first, and then, and only then, could he exert his will.
That’s why it’s going to be so bloody hard to fight Trump. He already has those reins of power and to make it worse, he has a majority in the Supreme Court that enables and supports his moves all the way. If they had ruled consistently against him, given our constitutional structure, we might have a stronger chance of saving our democracy. Right now, it doesn’t look good.
I keep waiting for the SCOTUS to say, ok, enough is enough. I am shocked that it hasn’t already. Shocked.
The need to react will destroy the Democrat Party. Do something cry many Democrats. We know we don't have the House or the Senate or the Presidency or the Supreme Court but do something they scream..
The poor Democratic politicians say, Do what? We have no power. So they are forced to over-react blindingly and stupidly. Nothing properly thought out. Its like been stuck in quick sand. The more you struggle the worse it gets.
Smart people wait quietly. They wait patiently. They understand they lost the battle in 2024 but they didn't lose the war.
An 80s Eagles song, All Ready Gone, speaks of people who never realize they hold the key, to their own freedom. It seems possibly relevant to Dems who seriously compare an 80 year old, term limited US Queens builder to Mobutu, one of the most murderous dictators in world history, who ruled with an iron fist, for more than 3 decades. The lack of all rationality is especially mind boggling because neutralizing Trump's most popular policies, would basically only require Dems return to polices long considered Dem dogma, preBiden.
Dems seem willing to commit political suicide protecting 10 million migrants, 9 million and change who would never have been allowed to enter the country, let alone stay, under any other Dem President. These poor people were conned by Biden's WH and NGOs into believing they could stay in the US forever, without a valid asylum claim. The cherry on top, was the assurance American taxpayers would perpetually provide all the necessities they could never provide for themselves, in an expensive knowledge based economy. The con, if not outright evil, is certainly borderline depraved. The one thing it is not, is irreversible.
All over Europe, migrants are being paid to head home. Some wealthy, liberal Scandinavians are offering $35K for self deportation. The money is a drop in the bucket compared to lifetime of welfare benefits. The Irish, who not long ago held parades for new migrants, are now offering them $10K for a quick departure. Many Eastern European nations offer less, but also pay. England, literally, teeters on the brink over mass migration. The stoic Germans are not far behind. It's the first week of the month, so France lost yet another PM, at least partially, for the same reason.
Reasonable Dems might look across the pond at our Western brothers, sense a pattern, then offer a compromise. The US is spending a fortune on deportations, migrant welfare and healthcare. A far better outcome would be to offer Biden migrants $10K to quickly self deport, with the caveat after they leave, and the border remains closed, non criminal migrants, in the US for more than a decade and who have never utilized the US safety net, can become Permanent Resident Aliens.
Toss in crime reform, that is a rerun of Clinton's 100K new cops on the streets, along with mandatory minimums and gun enhancement charges to receive the federal funds, and much of the wind is out of Trump's sails. And Dems no longer need to endure Mobutu nightmares.
Purity or power. Pick one. You can't have both. (unfortunately so many Democrats prefer purity rather than winning elections. Remember Michele Obama going high remarks?)
Democrats do have a conundrum. Now, that is. In the moment. Consider this: the number of women who skew center to left. They tend to be anti-Trumpers. They call out toxic masculinity. However — gasp — what about their predilection to listen and nurture? To me, the right seems, well, just so damn mean. And intolerant. By contrast, we lefties tend to be accepting. Are Dems to purge those virtues from its base? Disempower women, born and bred of the NOW and Me-Too movements? (Good luck with that!) Or, as this one left-center Catholic Christian believes, do we lean into far more enduring strength of compassion?. I don’t know HOW Dems do that. But it’s not by dialing up the macho-meter to the level of Trump. Vought, and Miller.
These things aren't mutually exclusive, Patrick. You can be tough but principled. The absence of order is not compassion run amok; it is mayhem. I know members of the military, at the highest levels, who share your faith but would kick the tar out of the Russian Speznats, if given the opportunity. But great comment, right on point.
Yes, Joe, but... Democracy is by nature messy. We want to feel safe. Like our ever-expanding universe itself, our pluralistic, free market, technologically-driven world tends to more chaos, not less. Systemic reactions -- Mussolini made the trains run on time -- to democracy's inherent mayhem and inefficiencies have stemmed from the wont of order. That said, I don't know how you achieve it without the excesses we're watching unfold today. I do know, however, Trump et al ain't it -- not if you know history.
We build on the spirit and culture of the U.S. military officer corps. Tough, fit, honorable and relentless.
Responsibility is NOT what most people want. They want authority, money, position, and good looks. Any of the previous four may induce one to be responsible with what one has, but that is no guaranty. Rights without responsibility is chaos. Whose right comes first, whose is most worthy of our support? This is nonsense.
A very excellent overall of the present Left that is pushing the Democrats further left and the medium Democrats towards the Republicans, like it or not. Well Done and written.
Joe--Some excerpts from Jonathan Chait's column in the Atlantic today, after he attended a progressive Democratic Party conference in DC ("Persuasion 2025") over the weekend. Um...Stunning.
"First, these progressive deny that polls showing any left-wing positions as unpopular convey meaningful information. Anat Shenker-Osorio, a progressive strategist, roundly dismissed the relevance of polling as “pollingism,” and rejected the very notion that politicians can win support by heeding public opinion. “
What’s more, where voters do support regressive positions, Democrats should dismiss this as a kind of false consciousness. As various speakers argued, working-class voters facing economic stress tend to lash out at vulnerable targets. “When people are psychologically insecure, they are incapable of being welcoming to people who are different than them,” the activist Erica Payne said.
Attempting to disarm right-wing attacks by abandoning positions that are unpopular with these and other voters is not only unnecessary, but also futile. “You cannot feed your opposition’s narrative,” Anat Shenker-Osorio argued. She is even more absolute on her website: “Conventional wisdom says to meet people where they are. But, on most issues, where they are is unacceptable.”
Rapidly transforming the American public’s beliefs is a daunting task—all the more so if you dismiss their current values as unacceptable. The Democratic Party’s pragmatic wing has been pleading to broaden the tent, ideally before the Trump administration stamps out all opposition. The party’s progressives seem determined to reeducate the public rather than compromise for their votes. This is a seductive approach if the goal is ideological purity. It is a problem only if the party hopes to win elections."
Disagree. The left is a sliver. Shrink the tent, kick them out...and then expand it with the great moderate majority.
Looks like they won't go quietly, though. The purists are always with us, Joe--and they have an enormous political energy. We should worry that they are an increasing influence in our Democratic Party. The problem is: where is the energy of the moderates who know we need a big tent?
I don't think they're an increasing influence, just noisier--at a time when tolerance has overtaken the party, to the party's detriment. If Yeats is right, and the center doesn't hold--and doesn't treat the left less tolerantly, recruit independents and even some Trumpers with some real substantive policy alternatives--then we're looking at a dark period, even in this country.
Exactly.
They don’t have to go quietly. Quite the opposite in fact. There’s no Sister Soulja moment without Sister Soulja.