The pitched battle looming over the Supreme Court, along with a jolt to the Democratic leadership at the ballot box last Tuesday, is threatening to shatter the already fragile architecture of the Democratic Party, as an activist rebellion on the left and a lurch to the right in Washington propels the party toward a moment of extraordinary conflict and forced reinvention.This is why I have the tag "Democratic Party in Trumpland."
My main question would be: Is the Democratic Party capable of reinvention? It can only be "forced" to try to reinvent itself. What's it supposed to do? It could crumble apart and die or shrivel into impotence.
More of the article:
And as the Democratic National Committee moves to eliminate superdelegates — the elected officials and party elites who help determine presidential nominees — there is widespread expectation that traditional power brokers should cede more authority to the activists on social media, often millennials and people of color, who are increasingly steering the party’s agenda....Tea-Party-inflected, not Tea-Party-infected. Mustn't refer to people as disease. Add the "l" and speak of them in terms of a vocal intonation expressing a change of mood.
The turmoil on the left mirrors that of Republicans in the first two years of Mr. Obama’s administration, when Democrats controlled all the levers of government and left the Tea Party-inflected Republican Party to thrash around in impotent protest, raging with an energy that eventually propelled it back to power....
I read the whole article in the hope of answering my question, but I really didn't find anything I could quote on the subject. Really, that first sentence, despite its crazy length, pithily sums up everything the authors can find to say.
Posts
94 comments:
The poor Dems are trapped in all of the nastyness and hate imaginable. And the voters have woke up. It is like Lincoln's emancipation proclamation hitting the Civil War after Antietam. There is no going back.
Does any of this remind you of the time of George McGovern or John Anderson? Lots of spirit and noise, very few votes.
i think they're quite capable of reinventing themselves into the New Socialist Party,
Most likely because of their consumption of Ice Cream; Children's Ice Cream.
If a party won't defend Their precious bodily fluids; why should anyone expect them to defend ours?
@Khesanh! Yes it does! I worked for George McGovern when I was 15. My youthful experimentation with Democrats ended in 1976 when I voted for Jimmy Carter. It would be the crowning achievement of Donald Trump to be the rock on which the Democratic Party shatters. I can think of nothing better for the United States of America. Let's have a Democratic Socialist Party to siphon off the passion of the youthful, un-read, and deranged.
The Democratic party isn't run solely by Liberals anymore. It has been taken over by Leftists.
“Fragile architecture”? Only fifteen years ago Ruy Teixeira and John Judis were telling us that the Democrats were destined to be the dominant party for a generation, were they not? I wonder whether the death throes of the Whigs and the Know-Nothings was like this.
Internecine political warfare! I love it.
Maybe, they should draw one clear battle-line:
1. On one side, the "PussyHatters" - these are mostly, white, socially conscious, Latte-drinking, educated, sensitive-types.
2. On the other, the "Antifa Fighters" - these are the more militant, black-mask, wearing, Communist or Bernie Bros, maybe BLM and La Raza could unite here.
From the streets of Georgetown to the West-Side of Beverly Hills, Califormia, these Democrats are gonna rumble!
The Dem's inherent contradictions are surfacing. Putting the Muslims first, put their targets (Jews and Christians) last. Putting Mexicans and Central American peasant voters first, puts Black Lives last. Putting Gays and Lesbian and public paid sex change first,puts sane heterosexuals last.
Just add up the votes in each group. The End!
"a lurch to the right in Washington" What "lurch to the right"? On many issues, Trump is to the left of traditional conservatives. He's a big-spending social liberal. He wants fair trade. He's talking to North Korea, just like lefties always said we should.
"propels the party toward a moment of extraordinary conflict and forced reinvention." What's propelling the party is losing, and the end of the Clinton era.
"My main question would be: Is the Democratic Party capable of reinvention?" It has already been reinvented, putting a veneer of identity politics on its traditional special-interest-handout pseudo-socialism.
"What's it supposed to do?" It's supposed to be the loyal opposition and move to the center. Instead it is gambling that TDS and pure leftism will carry the day, thanks to changing demographics that are creating demand for other people's money from larger constituencies.
"traditional power brokers should cede more authority to the activists on social media, often millennials and people of color, who are increasingly steering the party’s agenda" We should encourage that. Dial up the crazy.
"raging with an energy" Projection: leftists always think we are "raging."
The Egyptian word meaning women and children is not used as, as Wm. Empson speculated, "no good for fighting," but "left wing target audience."
And south of the border they are about to elect a Mexican Bernie Sanders according to the media reports.
If so, if you think the border is bad now, you ain't seen nothing yet!
It seems unnecessarily apocalyptic. Why not just let the local Democratic candidates talk to their base, develop their agenda, and then let it trickle up? The problem is that a very few people are trying to set a national agenda for a large and diverse nation (esp. economically), which is the reverse of representative government. It is not surprising that fundamentally undemocratic politics might be a problem for the "Democratic" party.
They won't have any problem whatsoever if they stop this nonsense and let the winning local candidates caucus to develop winning electoral agendas. Whatever happened to the Big Tent?
Anyone else remember when delegates sent to national political conventions would develop a party platform - by meeting and voting on it?
Perhaps the "fragile architecture of the Democratic Party" is fragile because it's not democratic - not representative - a structure that is intended to control downwards instead of coordinate upwards?
If the Democratic Party exits stage left, it will be replaced by something, and the new thing will very likely have less fragile architecture, at least for a generation or two. There is nothing wrong with the basic strategy of promoting the flow of power and wealth to the central government and then using control of that power and wealth to buy loyalty and votes. The Democrats got locked into a particular manner of executing that strategy, they played it out (perhaps) to exhaustion, and now they must (perhaps) adapt or die. I think it would be in the common interest to root for “adapt.”
Speaking of differences within the Democratic party: Can anyone help me interpret this sentence by Paul Bagala about filling the Supreme Court vacancy: “Everything is at risk: from a woman's right to choose to have an abortion to a baker's right to refuse to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.”
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/29/opinions/democrats-are-about-to-fight-like-crazy-begala/index.html
I think I get the first part: Conceivably a Kennedy replacement (and four conservative others) would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and that could eliminate a womans right to choose an abortion.
But what does he mean with the second part? Is he worried that a Kennedy replacement would vote with the four liberal others to overturn the cake case and eliminate the baker’s right to refuse to make a cake for a same-sex wedding? How likely is that? And why would Begala be concerned if that happened?
Or is he just being stupid? (Or am I just being stupid?)
it's now July 2018; the democratic national convention is 2 years away. Is anyone running? Besides Hillary, i mean.
According to wikipedia, some white guy named John Delaney has declared. Otherwise, NO major candidates have declared.
Wiki gives a list of people "who have expressed interest":
Alec Baldwin, actor, writer, producer, and comedian from New York
Joe Biden, Vice President of the United States 2009–2017;
Cory Booker, U.S. Senator from New Jersey since 2013; Mayor of Newark
Pete Buttigieg, Mayor of South Bend, Indiana since 2012
Julian Castro, U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 2014–2017
Eric Garcetti, Mayor of Los Angeles, California since 2013
Kamala Harris, U.S. Senator from California since 2017
John Hickenlooper, Governor of Colorado since 2011
Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General 2009–2015
John Kerry, U.S. Secretary of State 2013–2017
Terry McAuliffe, Governor of Virginia 2014–2018
Jeff Merkley, U.S. Senator from Oregon since 2009
Deval Patrick, Governor of Massachusetts 2007–2015
Bernie Sanders[note 3], U.S. Senator from Vermont since 2007
Howard Schultz, businessman from New York
In the words of that song from back when: Is That All There Is? Seems pretty late to have only "Expressed Interest" I assume they're waiting for the Blue Wave to wash over the country this fall first? But shouldn't SOMEONE be Making Waves? Or, have they reached the 5 step already? That's okay, with me; i'm not tired of winning yet.
Igna? Chuck? could one of you tell me who our next President will be? thanx!
Yup. https://bloggingheads.tv/videos/53103?in=8:35&out=14:39. Just read the comments. The activists are oblivious to the possibility that they are taking their party off a cliff.
I saw this coming back when The Donald won the presidency and I'm not a particularly keen observer of the political scene. If you are going to have a collation consisting of people whose ideology is that white people are evil and are part of a culture whose very purpose is to oppress everyone except whites in general and white males in particular, then it would seem pretty obvious that whites and particularly white males aren't going to be in charge of the coalition for very long. The people who believe that America is fundamentally evil are taking over the Democrat party, again. Remember back in the 90s? Bill Clinton was a centrist. He was tough on crime and illegal immigration. The whole point of the Democrat Leadership Committee was to wrest control of the party from the radical left. It was created to convince middle-America that the Democrats were not a party of pot smoking communist hippies and left wing terrorists. Now that radical left is taking it back.
Interesting times.
Sounds like the Dems are caught in a political "crossfire hurricane"
Just to help this along: how would you go about separating upper class dilettantes who see cities as giant theme parks for childless adults from people who see cities as places to find jobs and raise families?
I remember back in the 90s the DOJ filed charges against some big chicken processing company, maybe Purdue, not sure, well actually some of their middle managers, for hiring illegals. Some poor guy killed himself over it, which turned out to be an even bigger tragedy since nobody was found guilty. I always figured that happened so that Bill could get some press showing that he was big on law and order and stopping illegal immigration. I want to say it was in 95, which would make sense because that would have put it before his 2nd run, but it was a long time ago.
If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, a woman's "constitutional right" to an abortion may be eliminnateded, but will hardly affect her ability to have one.
Based on the list gilbar proffered, the two potential candidates who might have the best approach are Hickenlooper and Buttigieg. They would also be a helluva vaudeville act.
Let's see what the MegaDonors decide. Follow the Money.
@h — Begala may consider Masterpiece to be a win-in-principle for the “bake the cake” crowd, and there are excellent reasons for him to take that view. The baker didn’t win because SCOTUS ruled there was a right to refuse to bake the cake; the baker won because SCOTUS ruled that the State authorities had expressed open hostility to religion in the course of ruling against him. There also seemed to be some factual disagreement among the Justices about whether the record before the court established that the desired cake was to be customized in some way that could be taken to signify approval of same-sex marriage. Many people reading between the lines believed that if the State authorities hadn’t screwed up the SCOTUS decision would have gone the other way.
"there is widespread expectation that traditional power brokers should cede more authority to the activists on social media, often millennials and people of color, who are increasingly steering the party’s agenda"
They might do well to study Tito and Yugoslavia.
Let's see what the MegaDonors decide. Follow the Money.
Its not that simple any longer. The MegaDonors are losing control of both parties. The old model relied on control of the mass media. Communication from the power center to the populace. You got your information from the newspaper, news casts, and a few magazines, all of which were controlled by mostly left-wing (by the standards of the time) individuals or groups. This allowed the manufacture of "consent." With the advent of the internet that is no longer viable. So now they start threatening jobs and social ostracism to silence dissenters. There wasn't any need to be uncivil since opposition was small and and of no consequence. There may have been plenty of people who disagreed with the ruling class, but since they had no way to effectively unite and fight them, it wasn't a problem.
Precisely, follow the money.
All else is sound and fury, signifying nothing.
What will be will be decided by a cabal of funders, or their trusted agents.
The Democrats are the instrument of the government structure and of their corporatist system, and of the hegemonic cultural caste. The rest are just votes.
From that guardian piece i linked last night, democrats are losing white evangelicals
OMG! from rasmussen
just 40% of Likely U.S. Voters believe America would be better off today if Hillary Clinton had been elected president instead of Donald Trump
So (if my math is right) 1 out of every 5 hillary voters is GLAD SHE LOST!!!
Holy Cow!
Here is a summary of some of the results from a Harvard-Harris poll released at the end of the week. It appears the Democrats are on "the wrong side of history":
68% say economy is strong
68% say their personal financial situation is improving
58% approve of the job Trump is doing on stimulating jobs
57% approve of the job Trump is doing on the economy
63% still favor the DACA compromise Trump offered the Democrats months ago
61% say our border security is inadequate
76% say we need secure borders, not open borders
60% approve building a combination of physical and electronic barriers on the US-Mexico border
51% believe illegal aliens increase crime
70% say we need stricter enforcement of our immigration laws
64% say illegal aliens who come across our border should be sent home
61% say illegal aliens who cross our border with children should be sent home
53% believe that illegal aliens who have crossed our border should be prosecuted
55% oppose catch and release, believe illegal aliens should be held until their hearing
88% believe detained illegal alien parents and children should be held together
80% believe in hiring more immigration judges to speed up the process
55% believe asylum should only be for those who can specifically show their government was persecuting them
73% said Trump acted appropriately by reversing the separation policy
84% are opposed to sanctuary cities
65% favor sanctions/tariffs on Mexico if it implements Lopez-Obrador’s policy of immigration to the US as a right
72% say it is not acceptable for a restaurant to discriminate against someone for their political views
59% approve of how the US government is handling North Korea
74% approved of Trump’s meeting with KJU
61% consider the agreement by Trump with KJU to be a US diplomatic victory
54% say Obama was too lenient when negotiating with China
59% say the Mueller investigation is hurting the country
35% say Mueller has found evidence of Russian collusion
60% say the FBI and CIA need to be investigated
64% approve appointing a special prosecutor to investigate abuses at the FBI
77% say the FBI and DOJ need to turn over all documents requested by Congress
The "silencing" system is more powerful than ever today.
Even kids in college are afraid, correctly, of career consequences.
And the internet is weaker now than before, during the height of the Tea Party, most popular platforms having been captured or much more closely patrolled.
It's time for Hillary to come down from the Cross. They need the wood.
"The Dem's inherent contradictions are surfacing."
I still think Jay Cost's book from a few years ago explains it well.
It's called "Spoiled Rotten," and explains the interest groups that make up the party and how their interests are contradictory.
I agree with buwaya that the funders have been running it but the GOP donors got checkmated by Trump.
Watch Nancy Pelosi. If she gets overthrown, the left is out of control.
Trump had a unique ability to break through, past the cultural-career gatekeepers.
No-one else on the conservative side, even now, three years later, has shown anything like this power.
The hegemony is a phalanx, well armored, fatally armed, impenetrable to the popular rabble. Trump is the armored elephant who appeared, out of the blue, on the side of the canaille. He is crashing through the enemy ranks, followed by the disorganized horde.
The US right is following his lead because there is no-one else that can break through the phalanx of the system.
Trump is not far right. He is an Alphonse D’Amato Republican.
Phil, I disagree. Trump's personal opinions are probably affected by what he has seen the last 40 years.
He has been dealing with crooked politicians and union bosses for decades. Reagan was a union president and knew all about unions.
Trump's personal opinions may have begun as what we would consider "moderate" and they remain so on cultural matters like abortion and gay rights, but he has decided to lead a revolt of the common man.
There is an old tradition of the patrician who leads a revolution.
D'Amato was called "Senator pothole" because he had come up the chain from local office and spent a lot of time on constituent matters It worked well at the time and his opposition, like Trumps now, was far left wing Democrat.
He was not conservative and ran on the Liberal Party ticket, as well as the GOP>
This is nothing more than the long arc of the moral universe bending toward justice.
"...the Democratic Party, as an activist rebellion on the left and a lurch to the right in Washington..."
Lurch to the right? Since when?
My expectation of Trump’s presidency:
1. Destroy the GOPe
2. Destroy the media
3. Destroy the Democrat Party
All is proceeding as I have foreseen.
“Lurch to the right?“
This will be accomplished with a single Dem vote for the next SC Justice.
h, I think Begala was trying to be funny, but the joke doesn't really work.
It seems just a short while ago that the Republicans were in a "civil war" and in danger of breaking up. And here they are fat and happy.
Aside from the election and re-election of Obama (sort of sui generis), the Dems have been falling apart (if winning/losing is the measure, which it really must be, right?) for a decade. Losing ground in Congress, in state legislatures and governors' mansions. And then the utter indignity of losing to Trump.
I think when you get "thumped" at the ballot box, you're supposed to (a) work to understand why, and then (b) adjust course to work your way back into power.
Dems have resolutely failed to do (a), and (b) seems out of the question. I predict many more slack-jawed and teary-eyed lefty anchors and commentators come November.
@buwaya
My assertion is that they didn't bother "silencing" people before the advent of the internet because there was no need. What was a dissenter going to do? Write a letter to a newspaper? Where it was up to the paper's editor to decide if it was going to be published. "Let em yammer all they want, its all just meaningless noise, doesn't effect anything." The fact that dissenting voices are being silenced via intimidation means that the PTB are concerned which means that it must threaten them.
Good luck with that reinvention. Every lefty nob spends astounding levels of energy searching for wrong speak from others. They target their own on an increasing basis.
So any reinvention element will be the (pronounced) racists, homophobes and Nazis of the left.
Perhaps, just perhaps, some form of Phoenix will rise from the ashes. But first there will be fire.
Really, that first sentence, despite its crazy length, pithily sums up everything the authors can find to say.
It seems to me there are things the authors could say.
The Democrat party acts as if reason and accountability are not important to law making. By focusing on feelings, irrational platforms unmoored from practicality are bound to surface.
They could compare and contrast the "Tea Party," which argued for reducing the federal debt and government size, to the Bernies, who think money is free and government power is good.
They could point out poor Nancy Pelosi's travails, who has tried to develop campaigns based on positive aspects of the Democrat platform, as opposed to Trump bashing.
They could point out that knee-jerk leftist responses to Trump actions, while emotionally satisfying, plays to Trump's strengths.
They could point out calls for far left policies came about from internal forces before Trump, in the form of Bernie Sanders. Instead, the article lamely blames the problem on Trump.
The article could do some soul searching that perhaps the constant barrage of mind-reading, often factually questionable and negative Trump articles has emboldened the far left.
The article could ponder that perhaps puppets don't care who is pulling the strings.
Unfortunately, none of this works within the narrative that everything is Trump's fault. So nothing will get fixed.
OK, in fact good.
I would like to point out that without the internet, there is no way that Trump could have been elected.
More reinvention: "Abolish ICE. Abolish Profit."
Keep it up, Dems!
"The article could do some soul searching that perhaps the constant barrage of mind-reading, often factually questionable and negative Trump articles has emboldened the far left."
That's a very good point. The Dems are so caught up in their own echo chamber that they can't begin to fathom that any decent person could support Trump or the Republicans. It will be interesting to see what happens after they swing and miss again in November.
MaxedOutMama speaks truth:
Why not just let the local Democratic candidates talk to their base, develop their agenda, and then let it trickle up?
I imagine this is how it was when the Democrats tolerated Sam Nunn and the Republicans were cool with Mark Hatfield. Politicians would socialize with members of the other party. There were negotiations in the legislatures. Nobody expected to win 100 percent on any issue.
Now all is emotion and hysteria. Little gets done, but with a lot more noise. Rather wearying, actually.
And then there's this movement, the #walkaway campaign. If you look on FB or twitter there are many personal testimonials of lifetime D voters choosing to publicly declare the D party no longer represents them.
https://youtu.be/4Pjs7uoOkag
If you want to see how the Democratic Party got to where it is now look at New York politics in the late ‘90s. Governor: George Pataki, a working class guy from Peekskill, Senator Daniel Moynihan, formerly a Republican and then a “thoughtful Democrat”, Al D’Amato, senator pothole from Long Island. A senator who often voted with the Dems on worker issues . Rudy Giuliani, mayor of NewYork.
Moynihan today would no longer be a Dem, though likely he’d be a Never Trumper today. Pataki and D’amato’s core constituents (white working class) would feel let down by the Dems and become a core Trump supporter. Giuliani....well look at him now.
You can see that Chuckie Schumer is the last vestige of that political reality, having to accommodate the likes of Bill Diblasio and soon to be Representative Ocasio-Cortez. Hell, just look at the political transformation of Kirsten Gillibrand. Wasn’t she once considered a moderate Dem. Now what is she?
So even though New York is a reliable Dem win in Presidential elections its been an evolutionary gain for the Republican Party. The only “loss” has been the Jacob Javitts Republican (were they ever really Republican?)
Add me to the list confused by “lurch to the right“ -- it sounds like they're saying that Democrats in D.C. are lurching to the right. I'd love to know what they mean by that.
Kevin said...
"This will be accomplished with a single Dem vote for the next SC Justice."
To be fair, three Dems voted to confirm Gorsuch. All three are running for reelection this year in Trump states.
@PJ thanks for the explanation of Begala's comment.
In another thread I commented on the use of identify to signify being something one isn't.
Mussolini's Fascists we known for dressing in black, streetfigjting ang using organized physical violence against anyone they disagreed with politically.
Drudge tells us that last night people dressed in black went full streetfigjting mode against a legally permitted march.
These black shirted streetfighters identify, apparently with no sense of irony, as "anti-fascists".
I would still love to have someone explain to me how, ideologically or tactically, the differ ftom Mussolini's Fascist Blackshirts.
"anti" fascist? Bullshit.
Though perhaps points for lack of squeamishness.
John Henry
We could call the "Abolish Profit" idiots the "Bizarro Underpants Gnomes".
@gilbar, interesting list. McAuliffe the snake oil salesman might even win nationally, but I don’t think he would carry Virginia — he sort of stunk up the State House as governor.
One more quote I think deserves more attention: "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders." Hillary Clinton https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hacked-emails-appear-to-reveal-excerpts-of-speech-transcripts-clinton-refused-to-release/2016/10/07/235c26ac-8cd4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html?utm_term=.495c8a6928e9
Is Kyrstin Sinema the future of a New Democratic Party?
If elected Senator from AZ I fear she would move leftward in a manner similar to the other Kirsten.
there is widespread expectation that traditional power brokers should cede more authority to the activists on social media, often millennials and people of color, who are increasingly steering the party’s agenda
Over the last few decades, the DNC has swung back and forth on whether it wants just a few superdelegates, or enough to control the nomination. Maybe the problem isn't who is doing the choosing, but rather who is available to be chosen.
Does Hillary PAC still control Dem party flow of funds? Donor database?
?
“To be fair, three Dems voted to confirm Gorsuch. All three are running for reelection this year in Trump states.”
That was when then. The baseline of the party has shifted so far left that one vote will be considered a rightward lurch.
The real Q is whether the Dems want those three Senators if they must occasionally vote with Trump.
My guess is any who survive will wish they hadn’t.
The turmoil on the left mirrors that of Republicans in the first two years of Mr. Obama’s administration, when Democrats controlled all the levers of government and left the Tea Party-inflected Republican Party to thrash around in impotent protest ...
What's amazing is that if Obama had not been a total dick, and Pelosi a total c-word, the Republican Party would still be thrashing around, whether inflected by the Tea Party, infected by the Tea Party, or merely infused by it.
(Get your tea infuser from Amazon via the Althouse portal!)
I think that Dr K is right - watch their head witch, NancyPelosi. She represents the old top down party, through controlling money and committee assignments. And just lost her #4 to the Insurrection. I see very soon that the Dem caucus in the House changing from a well trained team to more like the herd of cats that the Republicans inevitably face. I see Chuckie Schumer riding this out a lot longer than Pelosi can.
I don't see that this is going to be easy for the Dems. For far too long, they have been the top down party, withprettymuch any apparent straying from the establishment most likely an AstroTurf operation, as we saw with Occupy and BLM. What we are seeing right now appears more organic, more bottom up (though as usual, there seems to be Soros, Steyer, etc money involved). With 70% of the country wanting stricter immigration support, the Dem leadership is finding themselves being forced to support abolishing ICE, which is code for Open Borders. Not something that they rationally want to be doing four months before midterm elections. Those trying to get control of this runaway train, some for a shot at the Presidency in 2 years, like Kirsten Gillbrand, appear to be helping to lock in larger Republican margins in Congress, making, for example, Trump's position on Immigration Reform (and much else) even more likely. They really don't want to be running for election this time represented by MS-13 face tattooed thugs. That is what you get more of with open borders, and, yet, that is where they seem to be finding themselves, with little apparent interior resistance.
“Fragile architecture”. Let’s look at that.
Organized labor just took a hit from the Supreme Court. If the Wsconsin experience is representative, a lot of government employees are going to opt out of the unions. Union dues and in kind cntributions are major cash cows for the Democrats. This is now in jeapordy.
In addition, the economy is improving, employment is increasing, and rightly or wrongly, Trump is getting a lot of the credit. People tend to vote for pocketbook issues. Democrats are promising to reverse the tax cuts and reimpose the regulations because they’re stuck on stupid. That hardly sounds like a winning platform.
Add to that the screaming harpies who seem to be driving the Left. Most people are not insane and the antics of the Left aren’t likely to attract normal people.
EDH said...
Althouse November 20, 2013...
Whatever happened to the "Republicans are committing suicide" meme?
It was all the rage back in September.
There was also "The death of the Republican Party."
EDH said...
Wouldn't it be interesting if the Republicans indeed cleaved into two parties -- the two major parties -- and the Democrats imploded into a fringe party, the MSNBC of political parties.
11/20/13, 4:49 PM
EDH said...
Rather than a doomsday scenario, that cleave yet conquer outcome might be an attractive strategy for all right-of-center Republicans.
11/20/13, 4:55 PM
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2016/11/december-1-well-probably-start-climbing.html?showComment=1479738337392#c297284732709864199
There's a lot of energy in the Socialist left, but I'm not sure it's a populist movement in the same way that the Tea Party was.
In American politics right now, there's a large bloc of voters that's economically to the left of the Republicans, and culturally to the right of the Democrats. They want government services, are suspicious of free trade, and care a lot about domestic jobs and wages. But they're also religious, suspicious of identity politics, and feel jerked around by cultural changes.
Both Bill Clinton and Obama made direct pitches to that bloc (remember "We worship a mighty God in the blue states"?) but governed quite a bit to the left of where they ran. Which made a lot of those voters gettable by a Republican who was economically left of the party, like Trump.
In retrospect, the Tea Party was that bloc of voters becoming unhappy with the Democrats. After Obamacare, they started voting the other way.
Who does Ocasio-Cortez appeal to who isn't already a hard-core Democratic voter? Is Democratic Socialism going to be less focused on identity politics than the regular Democrats, or more? Where's the point where they make a bid for that big bloc of gettable votes?
My thinking on this is heavily influenced by Sean Trende's idea of no permanent majorities in American politics -- the parties are such large coalitions that some bloc will always be gettable by the other side. It's just a question of how much losing that side is willing to take before they're willing to compromise on some dearly held positions and make a play for the swing bloc.
What I want to know about the Socialists is: what's the swing bloc? What's the group that's currently voting for Republicans that's going to be won over by unapologetic socialism and even more aggressive identity politics? It seems like the people who like that are already Democratic activists.
Here's the D platform for the 2018 midterms as best I can tell.
- Abolish ICE
- Higher taxes
- The divinity of MS-13
- Gun control
- Abolish profits
- Open borders
- No R's in restaurants
This is a very powerful and appealing platform as best I can tell.
Here's the R platform for the 2018 midterms as best I can tell.
- Very low unemployment
- Higher wages
- New jobs and factories
- Lower taxes
- Protected borders
This is an awful platform as best I can tell.
Blue wave 2018! Lulz
Lean to the left,
Lurch to the right,
Stand up sit down,
And shut your racist pie hole....
Where it was up to the paper's editor to decide if it was going to be published. "Let em yammer all they want, its all just meaningless noise, doesn't effect anything.
Yes, that is why Trump won. The internet and blogs like this have empowered the peasants.
It will be interesting to see if Crowley runs as an independent. Would he dare ?
Kyrstin Sinema sounds like an attempt to straddle the divide but she was a Green originally so it is probably not genuine.
Her district is north of us and east of much of Phoenix. I see Tempe with the college voters.
Martha McSally has done a better job of straddling with the Tucson college vote.
What is killing the Democrats is that Trump is in the center- the response, unthinking as it is, is to move left even further.
The Democrats have embraced Socialism. Out, loud and proud. Until such time they lose several election rounds they won't rethink their positions. In the meantime when Democrat Senators like Gillibrand are campaigning as if they are running to represent Nuevo Leon instead of New York lots of voters will see that as a problem.
buwaya said...
Precisely, follow the money.
All else is sound and fury, signifying nothing.
What will be will be decided by a cabal of funders, or their trusted agents.
The Democrats are the instrument of the government structure and of their corporatist system, and of the hegemonic cultural caste. The rest are just votes.
I see three groups.
You have the old Oligopoly that owns the media. Redstones, Disneys, Robinsons etc. Standard old European blue blood. This encompasses corporate america almost completely now.
Silicon Valley technocrats. Young technocrats who can build social media and analytics platforms but have little knowledge of where their food and electricity come from.
Soros/Steyer wing. Billionaires that profit off of misery and poverty of the masses. Soros in particular has spent a lifetime destabilizing nations and profiting from the pain of others. Lately he is funding a lawfare effort by getting purely awful people into AG positions who use their power to persecute political enemies.
I see three groups.
These are the Rich Capitalists that the Young Masses are happy to be Exploited by.
Lately he is funding a lawfare effort by getting purely awful people into AG positions who use their power to persecute political enemies.
Soros spent $8 million to elect a left wing Sheriff of Maricopa County and defeat Sheriff Joe.
I understand the new guy is not popular and may not make it past the next election.
Michael K said...
Kyrstin Sinema sounds like an attempt to straddle the divide but she was a Green originally so it is probably not genuine.
Her district is north of us and east of much of Phoenix. I see Tempe with the college voters.
She's had a lot of practice doing that. Her district consists of the purple hairs in Tempe, the lefty Have Lots in Scottsdale, and the Mormon Conservatives who dominate politics out in Mesa and Gilbert.
Further thoughts. Traditionally, the call of socialism is at its strongest when the economy is at its weakest. There are good reasons why the socialists, ranging from the Communists, through the Fascists, Nazis, and through FDR and his New Deal did so well in the 1930s - the Great Depression, and the millions unemployed around the world as a result. Germany was hit extra hard because they had to pay reparations on top of the Depression putting so many out of work. Today though we have a roaring economy, but the Democrats are all discovering that they are socialists now. It makes little sense, with the best employment situation with typically disadvantaged communities in better than a generation. What’s going on there? My theory is that there is one demographic that is suffering during this economic boom. And that is Millenials and late Gen Xers with useless college degrees, and huge nondischargible student loan debt. They did what they were told to do to get ahead, getting a college degree and postponing marriage, and now find that they can’t buy a house, or even, in a lot of cases, get married. Even when they aren’t working as baristas and the like, their debt keeps them in chains. No wonder they want, probably above anything else, student loan forgiveness, and right after that, free college. And with socialism, they stand a decent chance of getting a good paying government job (since for many govt jobs, a BA of any type is much better than a high school diploma). And, note that govt jobs often come with student loan forgiveness.
The problem for the Dems is that they are mostly already Dem stalwarts, if not already socialists. Catering to them will just lead them to lose even more working class voters who see any move towards student loan forgiveness as catering to lazy, whiney, mostly white, college kids, and these whiners would be just fine if they just buckled down, got a real job, quit whining, and worked hard, like everyone else.
@NorthOfTheOneOhOne - you sound like you know a lot about the politics of the Phoenix area. Is the 101 that you are north of the inner PHX beltway? Which would put you out maybe towards Carefree, Cave Creek, and/or New River (or N Scottsdale or N PHX). There are, of course other 101s, such as US 101 that runs up the CA coast. I note that I lived at one point around AZ 101 and AZ 51, and now spend part of the year right by the western loop of the 101.
Interesting Scott Adams Periscope from 6/29/18: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l8sqx5jyg5k
One day this handsome gay hairdresser woke up realizing that the Democrats have spent the last two years completely panicking their constituents that the sky is falling, that they are in imminent physical danger from Trump. This fear is adversely affecting the health and well being of those who buy into it. Sure, Trump scares his constituents too, but with him, he scares them with real dangers, such as MS-13, Jihadists, nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and/or N Korea, etc. the Dems are using fake dangers, often in the form of Fake News to scare their constituents. Adams talks about a bunch of leftists/Dems walking around with fear in their eyes, and likely unable to get a good night’s sleep. And, then there are their leaders, who might mouth the same sorts of fears, but you know that it is fake, because they don’t have that fear in their eyes. They are in on it. They know that it is all a hoax. And that is why this guy did his #WalkAway video, and hasn’t regretted it. He doesn’t agree with Trump on many policy issues, but sleeps at night now. And that, to him, is worth walking away from the reservation.
The Democrats & the Left in general are in crisis because they no longer have an ideological foundation. Marxism is dead. No one on the Left other than old Marxist fossils or Marxist academicians speaks in the operative terms of Marxism -- the primacy of class struggle, "scientific" socialism, the Labor Theory of Value, the shaping of the workers' consciousness through the dialectic of Lordship & Bondage. The left wing of classical liberalism, e.g. the Hubert Humphrey/Walter Mondale wing of the Democratic Party cannot be stretched to accommodate the new Identity Politics without tearing. It retains so much of classical liberalism that it is often now seen as being "conservative" or "right-wing". But, classical liberalism was always like that. That's why the 60s New Left thought the Democrats & the Republicans were mostly the same, & why W.F. Buckley thought that American conservatism was a "wing of [classical] liberalism".
The problem with the Left is that post-modernism is a philosophy of critique first & foremost. It is at root parasitical of that which it critiques. It knows that there are no texts which do not contain the seeds of their own undoing, that there are no systems of morality or governance that are not simply covers for the Will to Power of some sub group. This includes, and here is a gnostic secret shared only with the adepts, the claims to morality & power which they themselves advocate.
The antifa rioters, the de-platforming of the most anodyne conservative & liberal speakers, the constant dialing of the moral rhetoric to 11, & most especially, the tolerance of these behaviors by the "moderates", are all evidence of the fact that the Left is aware that the only weapon they now have in the battle of ideas is to rhetorically flood the field of battle. It is not a battle of ideas. It is a battle of discourses, & discourses are shaped by the exercise of power, not by the exercise of reason.
I'm interested in the possibility that Trump could nominate someone that one or two Republicans refuse to vote for. The nomination would come down to the moderate Democrats up for re-election. They would be in a tremendous bind. If they vote for the nominee they infuriate their base, and allow Trump to get a more conservative Justice than he could get otherwise. If they stick with the party and vote against, party-line, they run a good chance of destroying their re-election prospects. The president might fail to get a nominee now, but thereby hold the Senate and make it easy later.
If he's _really_ an evil genius, tell a couple of Republicans to vote against just to set this up. Then if the Democrats vote against, hold the vote again and change their vote. Do Senate rules allow that?
My theory is that there is one demographic that is suffering during this economic boom. And that is Millenials and late Gen Xers with useless college degrees, and huge nondischargible student loan debt
I think you are right. Four of my five kids have college degrees, three with more than one. Two are lawyers.
I paid for the bachelors degree and the rest was up to them. One owns her own condo, now much appreciated in RE boom. She is the FBI agent with a nice pension coming. Never married, no kids.
The one with no degree, my fireman son, owns a home worth a million dollars in Orange County,
His brother, a successful trial lawyer in the Bay Area is still renting.
The other two are renting.
The home owner is the conservative.
I would suggest that the Congress put half the student loan debt on the colleges.
They had a nice ride. Time to pay. Lay off 10,000 administrators.
Then if the Democrats vote against, hold the vote again and change their vote. Do Senate rules allow that?
I think that the Majority Leader votes no and can then hold a second vote.
I didn't vote for Trump because I thought his capture of the GOP nomination would hurt the Republican Party in the aftermath of the inevitable Hillary! victory. How was the GOP going to recover from selling its soul to a guy who talked about appointing his sister to the Supreme Court, selling Eastern Europe out to Putin, and starting trade wars all over the world?
My bad. It's the Democrats who are immolating themselves. Trump's policies, as distinct from his tweets, are pretty middle-of-the-road Republican. The Democrats are allowing their most radical elements to become the face of their party. "Don't separate parents and children" is a good slogan. "Abolish ICE!" isn't.
Let's see what happens in November. The best thing for Trump would be big Democrat victories in 2018, so he'll be running against the nut-case Dems in 2020. If the nut-cases lose . . . I wonder how the Democratic Party will react.
@Michael K Lay off 10,000 administrators.
. . . in a strong economy in which they will have a good chance to find alternate employment. It’s the right time.
@YH, I hope your post is not wasted at the end of this older thread — I much appreciated it.
Might have beens.
It would have been nice if we had has a president as charismatic as a Bill Clinton, as wise as a GWB and as black as a Michelle Obama who could have figured out that he was President of Desperate Clingers as well as black inner city youth.
Maybe made some nice speeches and proven that the Democratic party and government is not just the means of divvying up the hog trough of TWO TRILLION DOLLARS to his assorted voting blocks.
But no. The Democrats allow an awful lot of people who hate white people and want open borders to get lots of media attention without any (credible) push back.
The thing I hate most about Obama is what a waste of an opportunity he was. He lived down to the negatives his critics ascribed to him.
If the Dems want to win they should appeal to birthers and people who think Joe Arpaio is a martyr for small government, obviously.
The Dems got on the wrong side of trade and immigration and now have to get themselves back on the right side in a more responsible way than the Donald is doing. Also could address the problem of automation (labor-saving technologies) which are also undermining the American standard of living of working families. One idea would be a family friendly six hour day with triple pay for overtime. That would reduce the supply of labor. Also a biometric Social Security card, which is the only realistic way to enforce our immigration laws — much better than a wall, and more humanitarian too. On trade need to distinguish between developed and so-called developing (i.e. low-wage) countries. A "wage-price equalization tax" on imports from the latter would level the playing field on which American workers are expected to compete while leaving in place all the other "comparative advantages" of trade (i.e., those arising from location, resources, specialization, etc).
The Dems are going to have to compete for the allegiance of the working-class majority. It's not about race.
I don't answer polls, and I thought Donald Trump had the potential to be just as big a dictator as Hillary Clinton was aiming for. Her Deep State (even if just the State Department) is SCARY and I figure Trump would be looting the country.
Ahem.
I was totally wrong. So there is this 5-10% sliver of the population which includes Democrats who switched sides. Never Trumpers who changed their minds, and Independents and Conservatives who are invisible to the Sauron Like Gaze of the Media who will get out to vote these next elections.
I personally am a 'drag myself over broken glass to stop a Democrat' Conservative, so I am unreachable to Dem messaging.
The question is: how many more of the independents have the Democrats terminally alienated by howling at the moon, stopping traffic, laughing at Kathy (40 Whacks) Griffin (AHEM Althouse) and egging on 'punch a Nazi', 'Free Speech is Hate Speech' and Antifa.
I would almost feel sorry for the ads the Dems are going to have to face the next few cycles.
The best thing for Trump would be big Democrat victories in 2018, so he'll be running against the nut-case Dems in 2020. If the nut-cases lose . . . I wonder how the Democratic Party will react.
Disagree. I think a good GOP majority in both houses would get some serious work done. We need a number of things that include, bringing back manufacturing so we can make things. Sure tariffs might make things more expensive but good jobs will pay for them.
China is a competitor and the advantage of bringing them into the 21st century is fine but we cannot keep subsidizing them.
Mexico is a failed state. A wall will help but shutting down remittances will make illegal immigration less worth while for Mexico.
Mexico has 90 consulates in the US. Why ?
Obama helped destabilize Honduras by interfering in their election, tryin to install another Chavez. We owe them some help but not mass immigration. Maybe some benign intervention with Marines, for example.
A couple of more additiins to Dr K's list for what a larger Republican majority in Congress would allow:
- Full repeal of the rest of Obamacare.
- Countrywide concealed carry reciprocity. Congress had no excuses for not at least holding hearings on the submitted bills, it likely would have passed, Trump would have signed, and Red State Dems (like Jon Tester here in MT) would have been put on the spot.
John Henry @ 9:49,
If the video clips of Portland are typical, they differ from Mussolini's corps primarily on lacking actual street-fighting skills.
The only guy I see fighting for well paying union jobs is... You fill in the blank, h8rs.
Democrats are fighting for political power for unions to use to bash union members culturally, somebody is actually fighting for their economic best interests.
Post a Comment