Senator Elissa Slotkin, last night on Bill Maher's show, said that what people want is "more alpha energy."

Elissa Slotkin: You're not going to get me to defend democratic messaging. We can have a whole autopsy about that.

Whether you're a Democrat or Republican, the American people want something different out of their government. Can we have a little bit more alpha energy? pic.twitter.com/h8li6EAbmq

— Blue Georgia (@BlueGeorgia) March 28, 2026

"You're not going to get me to defend Democratic messaging. That's not going to be ever something that I'm going to defend. That's part of the problem and why we lost the last election. We can have a whole autopsy about that. I think, for me, what is important, going forward, whether you're a Democrat or Republican, is like: the American people, they're telling us something, they want something different out of their government. They want, they want some alpha energy from their leaders. And they certainly — whether you agree with him or not — are getting that from some of the Republicans. And my plea to my own party is, like, can we have a little bit more alpha energy? Punch and believe in what we believe in. Show people that we give a shit, and be simple about addressing the needs that they care about the most. And that has been a struggle to be a part of that change."

That came at the end of her interview with Maher and felt prepared and tacked on. There was no time left to explore the term "alpha energy," which just felt ridiculous. Was she saying Democrats need to talk and act more like Trump because they need to get elected and the voters are pretty damned stupid and self-interested?

I see Elissa Slotkin was saying "alpha energy" last summer. There's this interview, in the NYT, from July: "Elissa Slotkin Wants Democrats to Reclaim Their 'Alpha Energy'/In a wide-ranging interview, the junior senator from Michigan took stock of her party’s deep-seated woes, warning Democrats not to be 'so damn scared.'" 

You often talk about the need for Democrats to bring back “alpha energy,” along the lines of Michigan sports coaches. What is something Democrats do that is the opposite of alpha energy?

In the Midwest, alpha energy is about emotion. Whether you’re a coach and you know what your team has put into the game, or you’re frustrated that they didn’t give it their all, you’re not speaking from wonky details. You’re speaking about your gut and your emotion. I think Democrats have lost that.

We respond to people’s pain with a long list of wonky policies.

Alpha energy is synonymous with being bold. Call the tough play, take a risk, be bold. And don’t be so damn scared of your own shadow.

Yeah, my first guess was right: She's saying Democrats need to talk and act more like Trump because they need to get elected. 

Did she answer the question "What is something Democrats do that is the opposite of alpha energy?" Only vaguely. They're "speaking from wonky details" and not "speaking about your gut and your emotion." Her statement of the problem is, ironically, lacking in the quality she's saying they need. 

And what is that quality again? And frankly, I think the idea is based on gender stereotypes but mixes up the male and the female up so we're served an unwholesome stew.

"Lloyd Austin retired from military service more than four years ago. The law states that an officer must have left the service at least seven years..."

"... before becoming secretary of defense. But I hope that Congress will grant a waiver to Secretary-designate Austin, just as Congress did for Secretary Jim Mattis.... I respect and believe in the importance of civilian control of our military and in the importance of a strong civil-military working relationship at DoD—as does Austin. We need empowered civilians working with military leaders to shape DoD’s policies and ensure that our defense policies are accountable to the American people."

From "Why I Chose Lloyd Austin as Secretary of Defense/We need a leader who is tested, and matched to the challenges we face in this moment" by Joe Biden (in The Atlantic).

For those who opposed the waiver for Mattis, it is easy — almost mandatory — to oppose the waiver for Austin. Senator Elizabeth Warren said yesterday: "I have great respect for Gen. Austin. His career has been exemplary, and I look forward to meeting him and talking to him more, but I opposed a waiver for Gen. [James] Mattis, and I will oppose a waiver for Gen. Austin."

It's hard to see how Republicans who voted for the waiver for Mattis can deny a waiver for Austin. It will seem as though reciprocity is required and to deny it will open them up to accusations of racism. (Austin is African American.) Their only defense would entail disparaging Trump — he somehow needed special help and lacked options. 

Here's a Wall Street Journal article that I was able to read without a subscription, "Biden’s Pick for Defense Chief Rekindles a Civilian-Military Debate/Gen. Austin will need a congressional waiver, as did Gen. Mattis, posing a test for Democrats." Excerpt:

Some defense experts questioned why Gen. Austin should receive a waiver, given that his expertise is the Middle East and the incoming administration says that China is emerging as the main threat to U.S. interests. Mr. Biden didn’t mention China in his Atlantic article defending his decision to pick Gen. Austin.

That is, what is the special reason that Austin is needed? Is it race? If so, what about gender? I see: "Michèle Flournoy Again Finds Her Shot at the Top Pentagon Job Elusive/President-elect Joe Biden’s decision to instead nominate retired Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III enraged many of the women Ms. Flournoy elevated from the trenches of national security policy" (NYT):