Hah, hah. So, now I'll have to read the whole thing. I thought you were connecting Democrats to the game Risk somehow. I tried Bluesky. It seemed be an exercise in people finding reasons to block each other. They make long lists to use to block people they've never interacted with. Others are preachers who hate anybody who doesn't applaud them.
Great piece. This is tangential, but your intro part gave me a potential answer for something I'd been wondering about. So, I think your answer for the female David Axelrod is Lis Smith, who ran Buttigieg's campaign. I read (and enjoyed) her book, but one thing I found kind of weird is how it made repeated references to the fact that she smokes cigarettes. Like she was obviously trying to shoehorn in mentions of it. But from the perspective of, she needs to make sure people know she's not Tracy Flick, it makes sense.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that part, lol. It's interesting, then, that she's really leaning into, “I'm a DGAF rebel who's a bit of a hot mess but you shouldn't care ‘cause I'm good at winning elections,” as her brand. Maybe that's just the best move open to her given the personal life.
The Tracy Flick thing is basically true and it’s a good point-but the part I keep thinking about is that Tracy Flick didn’t actually have a ‘squeaky clean personal life’ lol. I think ‘well-dressed’ is also debatable
Number 3 is really risky and we are talking about real people here. If everyone does it, then you're good. If no one else does it, then you're screwed. And if screwed means social ostracization and the loss of income you use to support your family, it's not too surprising most wouldn't take that option. The only option I see is waiting for a charismatic democrat to show up and free the party from the prison of its own making.
I missed reading your stuff on twitter. Glad to read this post and get your perspective again.
I mean, I am risk-tolerant in a way most liberals are not. If you notice, I don’t do the progressive song and dance to prove I’m a good person, I’ve never once uttered the phrase “pregnant people” and I still think BIPOC = bisexual person of color but I’ve not faced any real consequences for opting out because I’m immune to shame from the in-group. Most people aren’t as brave, but maybe they should be!
This is one way the conservative coalition has succeeded: offering an alternative status hierarchy and community to those who have chosen 3. In practice, they're just as willing to cancel people who question their unquestionables, which can create incentive gradients for those who have chosen 3 to align with them on everything. (And, unfortunately, my tribe is no better about this, with how much we throw "statist" around.)
I really enjoyed reading this! I do wonder if Democrats would benefit from leaning into their venom? Oftentimes, Democrats choose a fake sort of modesty that voters can see through. They already know most Democratic partisans believe they are better than them, which makes attempts at relatability from politicians fall flat. An overtly rude Democrat might be capable of winning their respect as long as they promise to provide voters something they want. Tracey Flick did win her election by leaning into her worst tendencies, after all.
Tracy Flick’s victory was pyrrhic, but moreover, I don’t think leaning into the elitism will ever work for Democrats because what works for the GOP doesn’t work for Dems because voters hold us to different standards. It’s not really fair, but if we get more assholish, we’ll lose by more.
Besides, what voters want is not really what Democrats support or can bring about. Voters don’t want their taxes raised or their healthcare cut, no immigration, 2019 prices and the 2019 economy, and no crime/homelessness/general disorder. Those expectations aren’t realistic, but it is what it is.
I guess that my concern is that Democratic politicians aren't compassionate or convincing enough to win over skeptical voters that already feel hated by the party's base. Part of why Trump has so much strength with the general public is because he approaches politics in a transactional way that allows voters to separate themselves from him morally. Democrats, on the other hand, approach politics like they are preachers, appealing to our better instincts. And while that oftentimes is true, if Democratic partisans constantly feel like they're getting the raw end of a deal, you can't really scold them into behaving better. This is especially true given how passive and non-confrontational most centrists tend to be.
I don't really have a solution or suggestion beyond radical change, but even then, I don't think that happens until the party apparatus changes. And if everyone in the party buries their heads in the sand to voter registration trends while doubling down on poor messaging, we could just end up being stuck in the second Reagan era.
A little too rambling for my tastes, but clearly heartfelt. Here’s where I think some additional reflection is in order. Mid essay you drop in your group identifier “woman of color” and earlier you state, without evidence, your belief that Republican policies harm vice help.
I think the internal house sorting of dems into affinity groups undermines their ability to connect. Further, there are policies from both groups which have helped / hurt. The aspect of discussion seems woefully absent (base on your assessment that dems are risk averse). We need a strong, rational counter party to the right. Good luck.
As the white buffalo of mansplainers, some words of advice. You need to go full Ramaswamy, wrap yourself in the flag, and then flank the GOP on the right by going even harder against immigration, H1Bs, student visas, and employers who hire illegals than even the GOP has been doing. And get on the Buy American wagon too.
You basically need to pull a Bill Clinton. His genius was in knowing that the neoliberal realignment was here to stay at that point in history, and so he out Reagan’d the GOP on both the economy and crime and welfare reform.
Can a white Democrat do this? Someone like Beshear? Maybe in ‘32, after Newsom and Stacey Abrams get crushed in ‘28 by Vance and Rubio, but not now. For this to work now, it needs to be a Black, Hispanic, or Asian interlocutor.
Because here’s what’s about to happen. Your cringe white Dem allies are about to have a real one. They always do this, like clockwork, and usually after a period of unsustainably high immigration and a surge of dissidence. They go crazy, things fall apart, and they get cast into the political wilderness for a few decades. This happened in 1860, 1896, and 1972. As the party of outsiders, they only dominate when there’s a cap on outsiders, like there was during the early Jacksonian period, the era of the Solid South, and the New Deal era.
So pull a Ramaswamy, wrap yourself in the flag, put Americans first and take this to Iowa or Pennsylvania or Michigan. People will love it there. Or get used to being part of a minority party for a long time to come.
I don't disagree with you, I know perfectly well that Democrats' current vibe is not a winner. And given that I don't speak any Indian languages (I sound like Rachel from Friends), don't know how to cook Indian food, my husband is a ~heritage American~ (lol), and I get called a fascist semi-regularly for views 90% of Americans hold, I'm doing my part, but unfortunately the party does not listen to me. I wish they did, but they don't!
The average human subject should be more like a rule-following theatre kid and if dumbing down politics even further, with MSNBC where Fox was 15 years ago and Fox where Alex Jones was in 2010, is required for this archetype to win, we should despair; paraphrasing Adlai Stevenson paraphrasing Marx, "Theatre kids of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your seats" (alas)
Politicians and activists have to win over the voters who actually exist, not the ones we wish existed. Politics is, as they say, not beanbag, and it's not kind to gauzy idealistic illusions about "what democracy looks like." Democracy is a messy system. The reason we stick with it is that all the other systems are a whole lot worse.
(I should add, this is not me agreeing with the statement that average people should be more like RFTKs. But whether we agree on that is irrelevant. People are what they are, and if we want them to behave differently, we have to convince them to do that. Twitter-shaming turns out to be an ineffective tool for accomplishing this goal.)
Moral scold is never a good image. You may win one or two fights (Prohibition?) but the resentment that most people instinctively feel is REAL
Thank you! This analysis is spot on!
Hah, hah. So, now I'll have to read the whole thing. I thought you were connecting Democrats to the game Risk somehow. I tried Bluesky. It seemed be an exercise in people finding reasons to block each other. They make long lists to use to block people they've never interacted with. Others are preachers who hate anybody who doesn't applaud them.
Great piece. This is tangential, but your intro part gave me a potential answer for something I'd been wondering about. So, I think your answer for the female David Axelrod is Lis Smith, who ran Buttigieg's campaign. I read (and enjoyed) her book, but one thing I found kind of weird is how it made repeated references to the fact that she smokes cigarettes. Like she was obviously trying to shoehorn in mentions of it. But from the perspective of, she needs to make sure people know she's not Tracy Flick, it makes sense.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that part, lol. It's interesting, then, that she's really leaning into, “I'm a DGAF rebel who's a bit of a hot mess but you shouldn't care ‘cause I'm good at winning elections,” as her brand. Maybe that's just the best move open to her given the personal life.
The Tracy Flick thing is basically true and it’s a good point-but the part I keep thinking about is that Tracy Flick didn’t actually have a ‘squeaky clean personal life’ lol. I think ‘well-dressed’ is also debatable
Not everybody knew what she was actually doing!! All they knew is the image she presented
Also she won the election.
Number 3 is really risky and we are talking about real people here. If everyone does it, then you're good. If no one else does it, then you're screwed. And if screwed means social ostracization and the loss of income you use to support your family, it's not too surprising most wouldn't take that option. The only option I see is waiting for a charismatic democrat to show up and free the party from the prison of its own making.
I missed reading your stuff on twitter. Glad to read this post and get your perspective again.
I mean, I am risk-tolerant in a way most liberals are not. If you notice, I don’t do the progressive song and dance to prove I’m a good person, I’ve never once uttered the phrase “pregnant people” and I still think BIPOC = bisexual person of color but I’ve not faced any real consequences for opting out because I’m immune to shame from the in-group. Most people aren’t as brave, but maybe they should be!
This is one way the conservative coalition has succeeded: offering an alternative status hierarchy and community to those who have chosen 3. In practice, they're just as willing to cancel people who question their unquestionables, which can create incentive gradients for those who have chosen 3 to align with them on everything. (And, unfortunately, my tribe is no better about this, with how much we throw "statist" around.)
I really enjoyed reading this! I do wonder if Democrats would benefit from leaning into their venom? Oftentimes, Democrats choose a fake sort of modesty that voters can see through. They already know most Democratic partisans believe they are better than them, which makes attempts at relatability from politicians fall flat. An overtly rude Democrat might be capable of winning their respect as long as they promise to provide voters something they want. Tracey Flick did win her election by leaning into her worst tendencies, after all.
Tracy Flick’s victory was pyrrhic, but moreover, I don’t think leaning into the elitism will ever work for Democrats because what works for the GOP doesn’t work for Dems because voters hold us to different standards. It’s not really fair, but if we get more assholish, we’ll lose by more.
Besides, what voters want is not really what Democrats support or can bring about. Voters don’t want their taxes raised or their healthcare cut, no immigration, 2019 prices and the 2019 economy, and no crime/homelessness/general disorder. Those expectations aren’t realistic, but it is what it is.
I understand what you're saying.
I guess that my concern is that Democratic politicians aren't compassionate or convincing enough to win over skeptical voters that already feel hated by the party's base. Part of why Trump has so much strength with the general public is because he approaches politics in a transactional way that allows voters to separate themselves from him morally. Democrats, on the other hand, approach politics like they are preachers, appealing to our better instincts. And while that oftentimes is true, if Democratic partisans constantly feel like they're getting the raw end of a deal, you can't really scold them into behaving better. This is especially true given how passive and non-confrontational most centrists tend to be.
I don't really have a solution or suggestion beyond radical change, but even then, I don't think that happens until the party apparatus changes. And if everyone in the party buries their heads in the sand to voter registration trends while doubling down on poor messaging, we could just end up being stuck in the second Reagan era.
A little too rambling for my tastes, but clearly heartfelt. Here’s where I think some additional reflection is in order. Mid essay you drop in your group identifier “woman of color” and earlier you state, without evidence, your belief that Republican policies harm vice help.
I think the internal house sorting of dems into affinity groups undermines their ability to connect. Further, there are policies from both groups which have helped / hurt. The aspect of discussion seems woefully absent (base on your assessment that dems are risk averse). We need a strong, rational counter party to the right. Good luck.
As the white buffalo of mansplainers, some words of advice. You need to go full Ramaswamy, wrap yourself in the flag, and then flank the GOP on the right by going even harder against immigration, H1Bs, student visas, and employers who hire illegals than even the GOP has been doing. And get on the Buy American wagon too.
You basically need to pull a Bill Clinton. His genius was in knowing that the neoliberal realignment was here to stay at that point in history, and so he out Reagan’d the GOP on both the economy and crime and welfare reform.
Can a white Democrat do this? Someone like Beshear? Maybe in ‘32, after Newsom and Stacey Abrams get crushed in ‘28 by Vance and Rubio, but not now. For this to work now, it needs to be a Black, Hispanic, or Asian interlocutor.
Because here’s what’s about to happen. Your cringe white Dem allies are about to have a real one. They always do this, like clockwork, and usually after a period of unsustainably high immigration and a surge of dissidence. They go crazy, things fall apart, and they get cast into the political wilderness for a few decades. This happened in 1860, 1896, and 1972. As the party of outsiders, they only dominate when there’s a cap on outsiders, like there was during the early Jacksonian period, the era of the Solid South, and the New Deal era.
So pull a Ramaswamy, wrap yourself in the flag, put Americans first and take this to Iowa or Pennsylvania or Michigan. People will love it there. Or get used to being part of a minority party for a long time to come.
I don't disagree with you, I know perfectly well that Democrats' current vibe is not a winner. And given that I don't speak any Indian languages (I sound like Rachel from Friends), don't know how to cook Indian food, my husband is a ~heritage American~ (lol), and I get called a fascist semi-regularly for views 90% of Americans hold, I'm doing my part, but unfortunately the party does not listen to me. I wish they did, but they don't!
Honestly, I've started to lean into the fascist thing just to save time.
The average human subject should be more like a rule-following theatre kid and if dumbing down politics even further, with MSNBC where Fox was 15 years ago and Fox where Alex Jones was in 2010, is required for this archetype to win, we should despair; paraphrasing Adlai Stevenson paraphrasing Marx, "Theatre kids of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your seats" (alas)
Politicians and activists have to win over the voters who actually exist, not the ones we wish existed. Politics is, as they say, not beanbag, and it's not kind to gauzy idealistic illusions about "what democracy looks like." Democracy is a messy system. The reason we stick with it is that all the other systems are a whole lot worse.
(I should add, this is not me agreeing with the statement that average people should be more like RFTKs. But whether we agree on that is irrelevant. People are what they are, and if we want them to behave differently, we have to convince them to do that. Twitter-shaming turns out to be an ineffective tool for accomplishing this goal.)
Theater kid and rule follower are also stereotypes I did not usually view as interconnected.
Your theater kids followed the rules? We had radically different theaters...