FDR and JFK would be aghast at what passes for policy in their beloved Democratic Party. Although both were upper class they understood that victory for their party depended on working class voters. Current party leaders distain the “deplorable” and “racist” members of the working class.
A laundry list of things for Democrats to keep and to dump if they ever want to win again nationwide.
Keep a woman’s right to choose for the first trimester. Dump abortion until birth unless the mother’s health is at risk or the fetus is not viable.
Keep a concern for climate change and grow nuclear power. Dump intermittent, unreliable renewable energy.
Keep and develop new effective vaccines. Dump vaccine mandates.
Keep equality of opportunity for all. Dump equity of results based on discriminating against men, whites and Asians in a futile attempt to compensate for past discrimination against women and blacks. Recognize that D.E.I. Is unconstitutional.
Keep the protection of gay and lesbian rights. Dump men in women’s sports, private spaces and prisons. Oh, and mutilating children who might grow up to be gay.
Keep an opportunity for selective high value immigration. Dump sanctuary cities and open borders.
Keep helping the homeless find jobs and a place to live. Dump camping in cities, shitting in the streets and allowing open drug use.
Keep a concern for due process in criminal justice. Dump letting shoplifters and other petty thieves off the hook and releasing predators back on the streets without bail to kill and maim again.
Do all of the above and they might find their way back to power.
W. A.: Sure, on what planet do Republicans support a woman’s right to choose? When exactly have they expressed concern about climate change and how to best protect humanity from rising temperatures? And finally where are they promoting vaccines to protect human lives? Do you even read what you write?
We are undergoing a transformation, yes, but I think the destruction of state overreach is better aligned with the founding fathers original vision. I was talking to a now American expat from Russia on election eve, and they said that one of the ways the Russians kept control is that every third person worked for the government. I've also wondered what has happened to our mild mannered Canadian neighbors, and I think the government paying reporters helped usher in their progressive woke policies.
I am coming to the conclusion that a small government with a limited administrative state is necessary for a free society. If the government employs a certain threshold of citizens I don't think society can be free.
Great essay. I have friends just like yours. Educated with college degrees, work interesting careers and who once could respectfully debate worldly topics with fun and good will. Now they depress me. They have transformed into dull cranks where every event with them results in sarcastic and nasty references to Trump, Musk, Vance etc…They are captured and cult like. I have stopped seeing many of them. They don’t want to share one ounce of my optimism or joy for the America we share. I can no longer be weighted down by their doom and gloom.
I don’t understand why people are confused about what the Trump team is doing. The message was loud and clear that they would swiftly deliver transparency and accountability to “we the people”. Almost half of the country doesn’t want that. So they cover their ears and shield their eyes. They cant look or listen. Its too disorienting for them, like someone suddenly turned on a light in a dark room. Instead of applauding that the books are secured and open (citizens have gained rightful access to how their money is being spent or what kind of foreign policy deals are being made) they are scared to death that “common folk” may glean info they cant possibly interpret or understand.
This insulting to those who voted for this team. They claim their disdain is for the Administration when it truly is for the voters who elected them. Hating your fellow citizens because they want their government to function as guaranteed by the Constitution is subversive in my opinion. There is no shame or embarrassment to nudge them to their senses. They are incapable of uniting as long as they embrace their hatred.
The good news is they are losing their crowd. Their media ratings are drying up, their voters are leaving their party rolls and the spigots that fund their propaganda are shutting off. We’ve tried to include them and play nice, but at this point I think many are happy to leave them behind.
I think the answer to one of the author’s implied questions, “why aren’t the Republicans explaining what they’re doing and making a public case for it”, is probably best captured in its distilled essence by Trump’s dismissal of the opposition during his address to the joint session: “I look at the Democrats in front of me and I realize there is absolutely nothing I can say to make them happy or to make them stand or smile or applaud, nothing I can do. I could find a cure to the most devastating disease … and these people sitting right here will not clap, not stand, and certainly not cheer.”
To elaborate, they’ve concluded that there’s no point to persuasion, at least not when it comes to elected Democrats. The corollary to this conclusion is that there’s no upside to patiently explaining their actions either, but plenty of downside since it gives the opposition potential messaging opportunities and could reveal points of attack. There is also the issue that many elected Republicans would probably object if forced to directly confront what’s really happening. If it goes unspoken, it’s easier for them to swallow it and make like the Democrats by pretending it’s not really happening or that the status quo ante can still be restored four years from now.
In effect, the administration is governing a lot like the Biden and Obama administrations did before them. They’re just doing things, some of questionable legality, and then shutting down or out anyone who asks questions and saving their arguments for the courts. A ton of policy is being made administratively or by bully pulpit, without any input from Congress. It’s the Imperial Presidency, now almost fully realized.
Ironically a lot of this is merely copying the playbook of the left. When your aim is to win instead of persuade, you never explain, never apologize, stonewall all questions, and do what you want and then let the courts sort it out afterwards. It’s not a healthy way to govern but it’s effective due to the near impotence of Congress and the size and power of the administrative state. This is simply the first time that a right wing government has embraced the same premises.
I don’t necessarily think that’s a good thing and the author is probably correct to suggest that without properly making a case and winning the public debate, some changes might not stick. On the other hand, I also think we have institutional problems that make that difficult to do in the traditional way. Congress is thoroughly compromised, as is the media. The genius of Trump 2.0 so far has been in part recognizing the weakness of institutions (and the difficulty of capturing them from Trump’s enemies) and subsequently going around them to appeal more directly to the people. In years gone by it would have been unthinkable to ignore and antagonize the mainstream media. Now it’s not only thinkable but, as it turns out, wise, as no one trusts the media anymore and there are alternative methods of reaching huge numbers of voters that aren’t controlled by compromised gatekeepers. The debate the author wants may in fact be happening, just not in the usual mediums.
It’s also all early days yet. The administration is trying to get ahead of the debate and establish facts on the ground that can’t be easily changed, but once they get further along with their goals, then I might expect to see more of an effort to explain things to the public. They want to give what they’re doing a chance to demonstrate some success before they open themselves up to that debate.
This was lucid, and it actually helped me understand the world better. Thank you.
Yes, there has been a lot of destroying going on. People see the “Trump-as-Godzilla” part. But they don’t see the reorientation part, and there has been no coherent explanation of the new plan. No “This is how these institutions have failed you, and this is how our actions will correct that and make people’s lives better.”
In other cases, though, actions seem largely punitive, with hand-wavy justifications that such-and-such should be the purview of the states. For example, federal institutions like the NIH and Dept. of Ed are being shrunk, with no immediate ability to pick up the slack. Where’s the plan THERE?
American elites have decided to dismantle the American empire and retreat to the core. A good historical analogy is the retreat of the Roman Empire from the west to the east. I thought there was a split among the elites but your article convinced this is not the case. The role of the democrats is to show token resistance but the decision has been made.
The author writes "They have a plan and a strategy to address the anger in the electorate, and they’re implementing it"
How do they plan to address the anger in the electorate? You didn't say anything.
It is possible that the Trump administration feels if they induce a recession now, it will pass by the time they come before the voters again. But we haven't had rapid recoveries from cyclical downturns for 40 years, the normal outcome is the "jobless recovery." After all Bush I lost two years after the 1990 recession was over because of the bad economy.
A 50% decline in the stock market is not something you can paper over with vibes. Nor is 10% unemployment. But none of that has happened yet. As far as people's private lives are concerned, there has been little impact of the current administration so far.
FDR and JFK would be aghast at what passes for policy in their beloved Democratic Party. Although both were upper class they understood that victory for their party depended on working class voters. Current party leaders distain the “deplorable” and “racist” members of the working class.
A laundry list of things for Democrats to keep and to dump if they ever want to win again nationwide.
Keep a woman’s right to choose for the first trimester. Dump abortion until birth unless the mother’s health is at risk or the fetus is not viable.
Keep a concern for climate change and grow nuclear power. Dump intermittent, unreliable renewable energy.
Keep and develop new effective vaccines. Dump vaccine mandates.
Keep equality of opportunity for all. Dump equity of results based on discriminating against men, whites and Asians in a futile attempt to compensate for past discrimination against women and blacks. Recognize that D.E.I. Is unconstitutional.
Keep the protection of gay and lesbian rights. Dump men in women’s sports, private spaces and prisons. Oh, and mutilating children who might grow up to be gay.
Keep an opportunity for selective high value immigration. Dump sanctuary cities and open borders.
Keep helping the homeless find jobs and a place to live. Dump camping in cities, shitting in the streets and allowing open drug use.
Keep a concern for due process in criminal justice. Dump letting shoplifters and other petty thieves off the hook and releasing predators back on the streets without bail to kill and maim again.
Do all of the above and they might find their way back to power.
Yes, your points above pretty much sound like what Conservatives (not just Republicans in name) believe. A former Democrat……..
W. A.: Sure, on what planet do Republicans support a woman’s right to choose? When exactly have they expressed concern about climate change and how to best protect humanity from rising temperatures? And finally where are they promoting vaccines to protect human lives? Do you even read what you write?
We are undergoing a transformation, yes, but I think the destruction of state overreach is better aligned with the founding fathers original vision. I was talking to a now American expat from Russia on election eve, and they said that one of the ways the Russians kept control is that every third person worked for the government. I've also wondered what has happened to our mild mannered Canadian neighbors, and I think the government paying reporters helped usher in their progressive woke policies.
I am coming to the conclusion that a small government with a limited administrative state is necessary for a free society. If the government employs a certain threshold of citizens I don't think society can be free.
Great essay. I have friends just like yours. Educated with college degrees, work interesting careers and who once could respectfully debate worldly topics with fun and good will. Now they depress me. They have transformed into dull cranks where every event with them results in sarcastic and nasty references to Trump, Musk, Vance etc…They are captured and cult like. I have stopped seeing many of them. They don’t want to share one ounce of my optimism or joy for the America we share. I can no longer be weighted down by their doom and gloom.
I don’t understand why people are confused about what the Trump team is doing. The message was loud and clear that they would swiftly deliver transparency and accountability to “we the people”. Almost half of the country doesn’t want that. So they cover their ears and shield their eyes. They cant look or listen. Its too disorienting for them, like someone suddenly turned on a light in a dark room. Instead of applauding that the books are secured and open (citizens have gained rightful access to how their money is being spent or what kind of foreign policy deals are being made) they are scared to death that “common folk” may glean info they cant possibly interpret or understand.
This insulting to those who voted for this team. They claim their disdain is for the Administration when it truly is for the voters who elected them. Hating your fellow citizens because they want their government to function as guaranteed by the Constitution is subversive in my opinion. There is no shame or embarrassment to nudge them to their senses. They are incapable of uniting as long as they embrace their hatred.
The good news is they are losing their crowd. Their media ratings are drying up, their voters are leaving their party rolls and the spigots that fund their propaganda are shutting off. We’ve tried to include them and play nice, but at this point I think many are happy to leave them behind.
Great analysis.
I think the answer to one of the author’s implied questions, “why aren’t the Republicans explaining what they’re doing and making a public case for it”, is probably best captured in its distilled essence by Trump’s dismissal of the opposition during his address to the joint session: “I look at the Democrats in front of me and I realize there is absolutely nothing I can say to make them happy or to make them stand or smile or applaud, nothing I can do. I could find a cure to the most devastating disease … and these people sitting right here will not clap, not stand, and certainly not cheer.”
To elaborate, they’ve concluded that there’s no point to persuasion, at least not when it comes to elected Democrats. The corollary to this conclusion is that there’s no upside to patiently explaining their actions either, but plenty of downside since it gives the opposition potential messaging opportunities and could reveal points of attack. There is also the issue that many elected Republicans would probably object if forced to directly confront what’s really happening. If it goes unspoken, it’s easier for them to swallow it and make like the Democrats by pretending it’s not really happening or that the status quo ante can still be restored four years from now.
In effect, the administration is governing a lot like the Biden and Obama administrations did before them. They’re just doing things, some of questionable legality, and then shutting down or out anyone who asks questions and saving their arguments for the courts. A ton of policy is being made administratively or by bully pulpit, without any input from Congress. It’s the Imperial Presidency, now almost fully realized.
Ironically a lot of this is merely copying the playbook of the left. When your aim is to win instead of persuade, you never explain, never apologize, stonewall all questions, and do what you want and then let the courts sort it out afterwards. It’s not a healthy way to govern but it’s effective due to the near impotence of Congress and the size and power of the administrative state. This is simply the first time that a right wing government has embraced the same premises.
I don’t necessarily think that’s a good thing and the author is probably correct to suggest that without properly making a case and winning the public debate, some changes might not stick. On the other hand, I also think we have institutional problems that make that difficult to do in the traditional way. Congress is thoroughly compromised, as is the media. The genius of Trump 2.0 so far has been in part recognizing the weakness of institutions (and the difficulty of capturing them from Trump’s enemies) and subsequently going around them to appeal more directly to the people. In years gone by it would have been unthinkable to ignore and antagonize the mainstream media. Now it’s not only thinkable but, as it turns out, wise, as no one trusts the media anymore and there are alternative methods of reaching huge numbers of voters that aren’t controlled by compromised gatekeepers. The debate the author wants may in fact be happening, just not in the usual mediums.
It’s also all early days yet. The administration is trying to get ahead of the debate and establish facts on the ground that can’t be easily changed, but once they get further along with their goals, then I might expect to see more of an effort to explain things to the public. They want to give what they’re doing a chance to demonstrate some success before they open themselves up to that debate.
This was lucid, and it actually helped me understand the world better. Thank you.
Yes, there has been a lot of destroying going on. People see the “Trump-as-Godzilla” part. But they don’t see the reorientation part, and there has been no coherent explanation of the new plan. No “This is how these institutions have failed you, and this is how our actions will correct that and make people’s lives better.”
In other cases, though, actions seem largely punitive, with hand-wavy justifications that such-and-such should be the purview of the states. For example, federal institutions like the NIH and Dept. of Ed are being shrunk, with no immediate ability to pick up the slack. Where’s the plan THERE?
American elites have decided to dismantle the American empire and retreat to the core. A good historical analogy is the retreat of the Roman Empire from the west to the east. I thought there was a split among the elites but your article convinced this is not the case. The role of the democrats is to show token resistance but the decision has been made.
The author writes "They have a plan and a strategy to address the anger in the electorate, and they’re implementing it"
How do they plan to address the anger in the electorate? You didn't say anything.
It is possible that the Trump administration feels if they induce a recession now, it will pass by the time they come before the voters again. But we haven't had rapid recoveries from cyclical downturns for 40 years, the normal outcome is the "jobless recovery." After all Bush I lost two years after the 1990 recession was over because of the bad economy.
A 50% decline in the stock market is not something you can paper over with vibes. Nor is 10% unemployment. But none of that has happened yet. As far as people's private lives are concerned, there has been little impact of the current administration so far.