Thank you for the commenting on the comments. It is refreshing to hear constructive critique. You have an important and uniquely informed perspective that helps to shed light on the current challenges and opportunities our nation is facing. To step back and look at the patterns, the consequences and both the strengths and weaknesses of historic administration's leadership and decisions could establish the ground on which to build a strategy to propel us forward. Honest self reflection could help to move this beloved nation toward a more mature, effective, stronger democratic republic. I see opportunity in this moment of history, as frightening, disruptive as it is. And I think you have pointed out something very important to help us. Though perhaps a little out of the box, it occurred to me while listening to the recording today that it would be very interesting if you were to have a (another?) live conversation with Heather Cox Richardson. Your two perspectives together could result in some powerful insights and ideas as to how to best meet this moment by looking thoughtfully and critically at our past. Just a random thought.
I am going to offer something enormously controversial - something I have been thinking about since the last pre-election campaign - something I think the Democrats get very wrong - also something I think YOU, Mr. Kasparov, spend too much time pooh-poohing.
While no Democrat may ever get a MAGA vote, it is self-defeating - indeed, worse, dismissive and insulting - to simply ignore and antagonize them (not you personally) by assuming (and often stating) that they are mostly a group of undereducated racist hicks and rubes. I think one of the most important things the Democrats have to do is to ACKNOWLEDGE THEM - tell them that their voices count, that they are Americans (if possibly flawed ones) just as we are, and genuinely and humbly accept that at least SOME of their anger and grievances are legitimate.
Imagine that Bernie Sanders or AOC - who are both "preaching" to crowds that include both Dems and MAGAs - actually openly said something like: "And we acknowledge and hear our fellow Americans on the MAGA side. We hear and acknowledge your anger and grievances. And even if no Democrat ever gets your vote, we will NOT ignore you or reject your voices. All of us are Americans, and only by working to lessen the division between us can we beat the true "common enemies" that are the billionaire class and transnational corporations."
And they can add, "Democrats and MAGA members have more "enemies" in common than we generally acknowledge. Not just billionaires, oligarchs and corporate America. But the "Bigs" - Big Pharma, Big Agra, Big Oil, Big Health, Big Real Estate, etc. These and others are hurting ALL Americans, no matter what Party or political ideology they follow. But the only way we can beat them is to do so as a unified nation. The division and polarization between us was created by those who WANT us divided - who WANT us fighting each other instead of them. We know that MAGA moms and dads rely as much on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as Democratic ones. So let us ALL fight to protect those things - for all of us. We know that MAGA members support our military, and particularly our veterans. So let's ALL fight to protect those vets. We know that the tariffs are disproportionately adversely affecting farmers - the heartland of America, which is heavily populated by MAGA members - so let us all fight to help make things easier for you. We know that the overwhelming majority of MAGA members are peace-loving, patriotic Americans who love our country. So let's throw off the phony, manufactured divisions that have us fighting each other instead of our common enemies, and say with one voice that we support Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans and others."
Imagine the power of an acknowledgement like that to people who have consistently stated that they feel ignored! Imagine the power of ACTIVELY and VERBALLY making a REAL attempt to at least ease the polarization, and get more people acting together. ("Hug a MAGA/libtard today!")
This is the one thing no Democrat has EVER attempted, particularly not openly and verbally. I have NEVER heard a Democratic representative openly acknowledge MAGA members. I hear euphemisms ("We are all Americans. I will be representative/voice for all my constituents,"
etc.) But I have never heard anyone make even the slightest attempt to lessen the division and polarization by actually "addressing" and acknowledging MAGA members and their grievances.
Again, this may not earn a single vote for a Democrat from a MAGA member. And many MAGA members may be too deeply entrenched in culture war issues to care (though even some THEM might be "dislodged" by something like this). But not even TRYING to reach them is not an effective strategy. And Ignoring, dismissing and insulting them is an even LESS effective strategy.
Mr. Kasparov - you have made many comments about "siphoning off" those MAGA members who are not as deeply entrenched as the "25%." But I think we can do better than that. And I don't think we as a nation are going to get back to anything resembling "normalcy" (even without Trump & Co.) if we DON'T make these kinds of attempts to ease the (phony and manufactured) division and polarization between the Democrats and MAGA members.
Another thought — you’re right that Democrats should engage directly with Trump’s voters (as Tim Walz has been doing with his Iowa town halls).
Setting aside tribalism doesn’t mean working in a bipartisan fashion with elected Republicans. They have proven themselves to be untrustworthy as governing partners again and again. Democrats should strive to make elected Republicans irrelevant by engaging directly with those Republican voters who are persuadable and offering genuine solutions.
That is Garry's position, and I agree with it. I simply think we can and should go even further - even if it doesn't bear much fruit. The mere ACTIVE acknowledgement of a large voting group that considers itself ignored and/or dismissed can be a powerful thing.
This view is not controversial. It’s the standard response to the last election. Beto O’Rourke is a poster child for “listen to them and respond to what they tell you”.
The trouble is, it’s based on flimsy evidence and terrible logic.
Statistically, most Americans are flying economically (or at least they were before the election). They even admitted as much in surveys. This includes most Trump voters. They weren’t struggling. They were bored, and they (wrongly) thought it couldn’t hurt to elect someone as preposterously unfit as Trump. They allowed themselves to get excited about culture war propaganda because they didn’t have any real problems to worry about.
For those that were struggling, Trump offered them exactly zero. No plans for healthcare, housing, or anything else that might help Americans. Instead, he promised inflation (via tariffs), and he promised to put deliberately anti-qualified people like RFK in charge of important things like healthcare. He promised to make their lives worse, and at least some of them voted for him anyway.
Responsible adults would never vote for that. But American citizens did vote for it. In most cases, not because of hardship, but because they have become accustomed to behaving like irresponsible children.
If you really want to get America back on track, this type of irresponsible behaviour from adult-aged people should be rejected. Leaders of all types should expect adults to behave like adults. This is true at work, in local communities, in families, and when it comes time to vote.
Democrats should lead a cultural change first. Being a responsible, thoughtful citizen should be central to the American idea. Americans are going to learn some painful lessons from Trump’s chaos. The main thing they need to take away from this is “time to grow up”.
If a few people get sad about receiving some tough love, great. It’s perfectly normal for immature people to feel some pain from their bad decisions. It’s part of what motivates them to learn and do better.
Voting for Trump in the last election was an irresponsible decision, and everyone who did it should feel some shame. And they can channel that shame into learning how to make better decisions from now on.
Very well said. However (and there's always a "however"...lol), even though you may be 99% or even 100% correct, it does not negate the point or idea that I have been trying to make.
Garry's position is that we should "target" those MAGA members who joined MAGA not as a result of election denialism or conspiracy theory or whatever, but for some of the reasons you mention, as well as other minimally-supportive-of-Trump reasons, and try to get them to (as you might put it) "see the error of their ways" (particularly based on the "facts on the ground" and the way Trump's policies are adversely affecting them and those they love and care about) and hopefully take a more centrist (if not "liberal") view of things, stop voting against their own interests, and possibly even "switch sides" (even to a small degree). And the majority of people who have commented here and elsewhere seem to support Garry's concept.
My position is simply that Garry is not taking his concept far ENOUGH; that we should not ONLY try to "siphon off" (Garry's term) the low-hanging fruit he suggests, but that we should take a much broader approach - even if it SEEMS hopeless or futile - and go after every possible MAGA vote we can get. And one cannot do that by solely targeting the "easy pickings"; it requires taking bolder steps, and attempting to be more ACTIVELY inclusive of MAGA. Yes, a huge swath of them are NEVER going to change; for them, it continues to be about "owning the libs" - even if it hurts THEM. But as I have said, it is a CERTAINTY that we will not potentially get more MAGA understanding - and votes - if we do not try. And the Dems have NEVER tried to do so in any meaningful, direct, acknowledging and yes, even supportive manner. This does not mean condoning the mindset or words or actions of a large swath of MAGA. It simply means accepting that they are Americans no less than us, and that at least SOME of their anger and grievances are justified.
For example, it is a statistical fact that the tariffs that HAVE been put in place are disproportionately affecting MAGA members, as much as they "represent" the "heartland" of America, and the tariffs are hugely affecting small farmers. And yes, many, perhaps even most, of them will see this for themselves, blame the "right" people (Drumpf & Co.), and "come to their senses" naturally (as so many are doing, given the number of protesting MAGA members around the country). But some still need a little "push." And that push comes from acknowledging them and their grievances - without necessarily accepting that all of those grievances are legitimate (or properly focused).
I agree that adults have to take responsibility for their own actions - including voting for a wannabe dictator. But does that mean we simply shunt all of those people aside, and pretend they don't exist? That we denigrate, demean and dismiss them? That we simply allow many of them to flounder, when all some of them need is that little "push" that will help them see what they seem to be missing?
I think you and I agree more than we disagree. And I appreciate your well-written and well-thought-out comment. It gives me even more to consider. Thank you.
Yes, we agree more than we disagree. And I’m all for working out a plan that will absolutely bury the current version of the Republican Party, so that a serious, non-corrupt ponservative party can rise in its place.
The core of my argument here is that the best way to do this is via cultural change. Don’t make it about the Democratic Party. Make it about a vision of what it means to be a responsible citizen, and let people draw their own contrasts between this vision and the atrocities of the Republican Party, Fox News, etc.
I say this in part because it will take more than ‘a little push’. Anyone who voted for Trump in the last election was very, very wrong to do so. And they were warned. So their choices are (i) face up to a serious failure of judgement or (ii) excuses and denial. From elected Republicans officials to ordinary citizens and everyone in between, we’ve seen that most people will choose the second option if they can. This is where the whole “people were suffering”/“but her emails”/“But inflation” stories come from: they’re after-the-fact justification for votes that were motivated by something else, and they serve as an excuse when it turns out that (surprise!) those votes were a bad idea.
So, in summary: there are tens of millions of Americans who (i) need to grow up and (ii) will be inclined to resist growing up, because this means feeling some shame. The solution is to create a culture where the social and economic rewards of growing up outweigh the short term shame.
"The core of my argument here is that the best way to do this is via cultural change. Don’t make it about the Democratic Party. Make it about a vision of what it means to be a responsible citizen, and let people draw their own contrasts between this vision and the atrocities of the Republican Party, Fox News, etc."
But this is EXACTLY what has been tried over and over, and has not "softened" anti-LGBT, anti-trans, anti-DEI, anti-"woke," "cancel culture," etc. in much of MAGAland.
"Anyone who voted for Trump in the last election was very, very wrong to do so. And they were warned. So their choices are (i) face up to a serious failure of judgement or (ii) excuses and denial. From elected Republicans officials to ordinary citizens and everyone in between, we’ve seen that most people will choose the second option if they can. This is where the whole “people were suffering”/“but her emails”/“But inflation” stories come from: they’re after-the-fact justification for votes that were motivated by something else, and they serve as an excuse when it turns out that (surprise!) those votes were a bad idea."
This was worth repeating in its entirety, both because it is true, and because it points to an unspoken truth: that a great many MAGAs LIKE what Drumpf is doing; they support anti-trans, anti-DEI, anti-immigrant, anti-woke, etc., so they are NEITHER going to "face up to failure in judgment" NOR provide "excuses and denial." Because they are getting just what they "paid for" - even if it works against their best (economic, etc.) interests.
In a brief "discussion" with one MAGA woman, I noted that Drumpf had not brought down the price of eggs (or groceries in general), even though he promised to do so on "Day 1." Her response? "Libtards talk about 'you voted for cheaper eggs, gas, etc.' While I solely voted for the end of this liberal woke mind virus. I'll pay $10 a fucking egg to keep watching DJT take a blowtorch to this whole diseased temple of thieves, traitors and pedos, burn it to the ground, and piss on the ashes." THAT is the kind of mindset we are dealing with with SOME members of MAGA. BTW, the "liberal woke mind virus" is a meme created by none other than Elon Musk, and it took off like a rocket in ultra-conservative and hardline MAGA circles.
"So, in summary: there are tens of millions of Americans who (i) need to grow up and (ii) will be inclined to resist growing up, because this means feeling some shame. The solution is to create a culture where the social and economic rewards of growing up outweigh the short term shame."
Two things here. First, you bring up another unspoken truth: that so many MAGAs are "dug in" so deep that there is no way for them to "save face" at this point - but instead of trying, they simply dig themselves in deeper.
Second, the reason your proposal will fail (sadly) is that a large swath of MAGA members don't WANT the "culture where the social and economic rewards of growing up outweigh the short term shame." Because besides being too dug in to save face, that culture is the very culture they associate with Democrats, liberals, progressives, trans, LGBT+, woke, DEI, etc.
What needs to happen (but probably won't, and I can't even think of a way to begin the process) is for them to stop allowing Drumpf's hatreds to be their own; to "undo" or at least partially reverse the "permission" Drumpf gave them to be their worst selves (racist, misogynist, hateful, etc.), and feed their own narcissism and its symptoms. This was how Drumpf GREW the MAGA movement. So how do we begin to shrink it?
I don’t agree that my version of cultural change (‘adult-aged people should behave like adults’) has been tried.
You are probably referring to people scolding the MAGA crowd. Most of the scolding took the form of logical arguments or a bit of classist ridicule. I confess I see the hard core MAGA types as the ones who will be brought back to decent civic behaviour last, and probably kicking and screaming all the way. In any case, there has not been much in the way of challenge to be more serious. Did a single person go on Joe Rogan and tell him that his audience are mostly adults, and ask him why he offers up entertainment more suited to credulous teenagers?
And consider the campus protesters on the left. Far too many commentators took the incorrect view that they were deeply engaged with Netanyahu’s atrocities in Gaza, when the truth (in most cases) was that this was a group of overgrown children engaged in silly, righteous posturing. The message to them (especially from Harris) should have been “grow up”. Perhaps call their bluff with an election promise to expand national service opportunities with USAID or the military, and tell them to sign up if they care so much.
Even the general population: was there any backlash to the mindless millions of mainstream Americans who thought the economy was failing, when in fact it was in rude health? Did anyone challenge their fellow Americans to spend 15 minutes on the internet as a basic civic responsibility to inform their votes? All I saw was versions of “OK, they’re wrong, but you need to understand how the poor darlings feel”. Because God forbid you should question the inner wisdom of the voters.
All of these people are damaging their own country. As a step towards fixing their self-destructive behaviour, they need to feel some shame on a personal level. Not so much about any single act or choice, but about their whole lazy, mindless, immature way of being. No free passes because they got swept up in a movement or were influenced by the wrong people. The message is ‘You’re a grown up. Act like one’.
I’ve seen the same morons that you have, revelling in the destructiveness of Trump and indulging the worst of themselves. Listening to them is worse than pointless. They should be shunned until they can be part of a community. This is where culture change at the local level matters. Those idiots get an adrenaline rush from being on TV or their online enclaves. But they have jobs to go to and kids in school etc, and the people in their communities can demand better behaviour every day. Set standards. Shame them if they don’t try to be decent people. Treat them like the spoilt children that they are until they can grow up.
Even if every word you say is true (and I don't think they are, but I don't have time right now to parse this), ALL of this seems to let the Dems COMPLETELY off the hook for their own loss, and the situation we find ourselves in - which is arguably largely self-inflicted.
It doesn't explain why 19 million Democrats who voted for Biden stayed home and did NOT vote for Harris. Had they done so, it is likely (though not absolute) that she would have won (because those votes would have had to have been distributed "properly" demographically).
It also doesn't explain why - beyond not having a primary (for which there was no time, as anyone with half a brain could see) - the Party as a whole, including the DNC and major figures like Obama and Clinton, spent the first four to six weeks of the campaign deliberately undermining her, thus almost assuring that we would lose. (Read the new book, "Fight" to get an in-depth look at just how intense that undermining was.)
And finally, are you saying that there should not have been any protesting against Netanyahu and the Israeli policies that utterly devastated Gaza? That the response to those protests should have been "grow up?" REALLY?!?!?!
> I think one of the most important things the Democrats have to do is to ACKNOWLEDGE THEM - tell them that their voices count, that they are Americans (if possibly flawed ones) just as we are, and genuinely and humbly accept that at least SOME of their anger and grievances are legitimate.
This doesn't buy anything with the MAGA crowd. It's really hard to break through the noise of Fox News, etc.
I thought Harris and Walz ran a great campaign, talking about how they understood the difficulties facing American families and their *detailed* plans to help all American families. But, Trump was lucky with the backlash after Covid. People around the world voted out incumbents, and the same happened here, even though the vote was somewhat close.
"This doesn't buy anything with the MAGA crowd. It's really hard to break through the noise of Fox News, etc." I think you'd be surprised. Again, I'm not saying it would have BROAD efffect, or turn MAGAs into "libtards." (LOL). And while it may be "hard" to break through the noise of Fox, OAN, Newsmax, etc., it is not IMPOSSIBLE. But it is a CERTAINTY that you won't break through if you don't try. :-)
Perhaps. But I never heard her actually do it in this way - actively, openly, verbally, inclusively, etc. If she did, good on her, but it obviously wasn't reported by anyone. And I would think something of this nature WOULD have been reported by SOMEONE. ??
Literally all her ads, campaign speeches. She was very focused on small business, veterans, military - traditionally GOP voters. Her biggest sin - woman of color.
And again, as good as this is, as "broad" as some of the things she is saying may be, this is all still euphemism. I am talking about a clear, DIRECT, humbly attempted engagement with MAGA. Even SHE couldn't get herself to say the word. And keep in mind that some of the things she mentions are things the MAGA crowd may not support - for whatever good o bad reasons. There is plenty of opportunity to speak about those things. But not once has ANYONE taken the opportunity to speak about the SPECIFIC things - the reasons for their anger and grievances, the motivations that move them - and address them directly.
Yes, a small percentage of MAGA members engaged in a violent insurrection. Yes, many MAGA members have racist, misogynist, anti-LBGT and anti-immigrant bents. And for many, it is still al about "owning the libs." But not all.
And if you speak to them as a whole group, those who do NOT have those bents, who did NOT support the insurrection, who may not even be election deniers - those people WILL "hear" what is said, if the approach is honest, humble and direct, and specifically takes into account their concerns and voices.
It is a radical notion, I know. And again, I'm not saying I expect any major changes or differences. But even slight, minor changes in polling and acceptance (of "libtards") is much more likely to lead to Garry's notion of "siphoning" off some of those people and bringing some of them back to their senses - to the "better angels of their natures." Because those "better angels" DO exist. It's just that the Democrats have never even TRIED to appeal DIRECTLY to them.
BTW, I agree that Harris lost for two main reasons: as you note, being both a woman and a person of color was one - though that does not explain why 19 million Democrats who voted for Biden stayed home and did not vote for her. We are now finding out - through the book called "Fight" - written by NBC investigative reporter Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, The Hill's senior political reporter - that the Democrats themselves undermined Harris at almost every step, particularly at the critical beginning of her campaign.
What's truly astounding about the Sanders/AOC "tour" is that they are bringing in crowds as large as 37,000 people - and many of those crowds are in deep red (read "MAGA") cities and towns. As I noted, MAGAs (and their moms and dads) are just as reliant on SS, Medicare and Medicaid as Democrats (and their moms and dads). And the tariffs are hitting MAGAs at a much higher rate than they are hitting Dems (thus far). So MAGA members know what is happening. As well, while they generally support Drump's immigration policies, a majority of REPUBLICANS (including MAGAs) do NOT support the deportations, particularly without due process.
And then there are the town halls that MAGA-elected representatives refuse to appear at, fearing their own constituents, who disagree with their electeds positions and votes on many issues. And these MAGAs are WELCOMING the Democratic leaders who are stepping in to address these town halls.
And MAGAs are out protesting just as much as Dems are - some for the same reasons, some not. But ALL are protesting against one or another of Drumpf's policies.
MAGA is not a monolithic group. Even Garry acknowledges that there are some who joined, if not reluctantly, then certainly not with their whole heart in it. And he feels we should focus on "siphoning off" those voters. With due respect to Garry, I believe he is thinking too small - especially given what is happening "on the ground," as well as in polling, etc. I continue to believe that we can make even greater inroads than Garry believes, by not limiting ourselves to "getting to" the "weaker" MAGAs, but adding an even broader approach. It may bear very little fruit - but it COULD bear more than even Garry thinks. But it is a certainty that if we DON'T try a broader approach, we will never know, and may miss important opportunities.
Many of Sanders’ supporters in 2016 voted for Trump once Sanders had lost in the primary. The failure of Democrats to understand the motivations of these voters and to address their legitimate concerns in 2024 left an opening for that group to swing back. We are still litigating the issues that remain unsolved, or even worsened, since 2016. Rising economic inequality and loss of our communal cohesion, in my view.
1 In 10 Bernie Sanders Supporters Ended Up Voting For Trump
This evidence supports your argument and suggests, in my mind, that the only reason that you have to frame your argument as “enormously controversial” as you open is that the further left has been as captured by tribalism as the right. Successfully opposing Trump will mean setting that tribalism aside.
I do think that Biden and Harris both tried to do some of this but I agree with you that the effort needs to be more bold.
Thank you. I agree with your assessment. And pointing out that ~12% (it was a bit more than 10%) of Sanders voters voted for Trump is an important point. I would provide one caveat, though. I think many Sanders voters (many of whom didn't like Hilary to begin with) were swayed by the Comey letter, which came out just 10 days before Election Day, and WHILE early voting was occurring. I think the Comey letter did the most possible damage at the worst possible time. Still, many Sanders voters might have voted for Trump anyway - and, as you say, the failure of Democrats to consider the motivations of these voters was a huge mistake on their part. And in my opinion, they just kept compounding it.
You’re describing Harris & Walz’s campaign, which I witnessed from Europe, shown on our media. The fact you didn’t see it only tells me that your US media wasn’t doing its job. And that’s a problem that can’t be overcome through a change in messaging.
I'm not exactly sure to whom or what you are responding, but I will simply repeat that Harris & Walz's campaign (which I DID watch, quite closely) did NOT DIRECTLY acknowledge or address the MAGA crowd; it was all done in euphemisms. And as I have noted, THAT is not going to cut it if we want to ACTUALLY reach that 25%-34% of America.
I disagree, as it's not what I saw. The campaign was incredibly open to MAGA's concerns. I believe that what sunk it was the fact that she'd been parachuted in without a primary, which many undecided voters decided was unfair (and it was, though hardly her fault).
But in any case, what Democrats have to cut through to are the people in the swing states who voted for Trump, and the non-voters everywhere, but also especially in the swing states. It's the rather terrifying reality of your voting system.
Why? Because campaigning is gruelling and expensive enough without adding a task you admit yourself is probably pointless. I also believe that what you are proposing is patronising to MAGA - and therefore counterproductive - and poorly judged when it comes to existing Democrats and swing voters, who will not appreciate being neglected in favour of the diehard MAGA base. The non-diehard MAGA voters can be won, and don't need to be patronised: they know how to make up their minds based on what they see and experience.
Some of what Trump is doing has been the dearest wish of conservatives since forever - notably shrinking government. Some has been Trump's dearest wish - tariffs and locking out immigrants. Some are just ways that autocratic-leaning governments work - e.g. kidnapping people off streets, ignoring one court order after another, sending people to unaccountable places of detention, erupting in government departments without legal (i.e. Congressional) go-ahead, etc. Now, I've no doubt that MAGA voters like some of that: it's fast, it sticks it to the liberals and it gets the job done, albeit illegally. But Americans are fair-minded, mostly, and the vision of foreign students with legal visas being kidnapped, and their visas revoked, for exercising the First Amendment, or Musk sending kids to ransack citizen data, or tariffs hurting the economy, or the threat to Medicare, Medicaid and SS isn't something they wanted when they voted for Trump. Above all, the long-term effects - a less secure, less prosperous USA - will filter through to everyone, Trumpist or not.
You know, 48% of Britons voted to remain in the EU, against 52% who voted to Leave, so Britain left. Britain left 4 years ago last January, and buyers' remorse has passed 60%. I believe the same will happen with MAGA. There will always be the diehards, who are a bit like cult members (like diehard Brexiters or MLP fans in France), but time and calm resistance will swing the others back to the centre ground where they can be won over.
"I disagree, as it's not what I saw. The campaign was incredibly open to MAGA's concerns. I believe that what sunk it was the fact that she'd been parachuted in without a primary, which many undecided voters decided was unfair (and it was, though hardly her fault)."
Being open to MAGA concerns is not the same thing as acknowledging and addressing them DIRECTLY. As I said, yes, Harris/Walz talked about ISSUES that some MAGAs care about, etc. But that is still "euphemistic," and NOT "direct." If Harris or Walz had ever DIRECTLY acknowledged MAGA, and openly accepted that some of their concerns and grievances are legitimate (which they are), it would have been front page news ion every newspaper in the U.S. - and maybe further around the world. But that did NOT happen.
As for the lack of primary, while it was certainly an issue, it shouldn't have been, because anyone with half a brain knew that there simply wasn't time for one - and that it would cut hugely into actual campaigning time for the Democratic candidate. Instead of undermining her (read the new book, "Fight") for weeks, Democrats should have been smarter than that. Sadly, too many were not, and she was hobbled right from the starting gate BY HER OWN PARTY.
"I also believe that what you are proposing is patronising to MAGA - and therefore counterproductive..." I don['t see how it would be partonizing, depending on how it is done. Most people can tell when someone is being patronizing, and it could easily have been done honestly and humbly enough for them to realize that it was NOT patronizing.
"...and poorly judged when it comes to existing Democrats and swing voters, who will not appreciate being neglected in favour of the diehard MAGA base."
Who said anything about neglect or favor of one over the other? Simply honestly, humbly and directly acknowledging 25%-34% of American voters is INCLUSIVE, not neglecting. In fact, it is BECAUSE the MAGA members have been neglected that doing this is so necessary (and possibly worthwhile BEYOND Garry's own thinking). And it need not show "favor" to them. "Only a sith thinks in black and white." lol.
Without belaboring the point, I have already acknowledged that some portion of the MAGA base is getting EXACTLY what they voted for, and LIKE some of the arguably heinous things Drumpf is doing. And that some do not, and may therefore be possible to "siphon off" (a Garry has suggested).
My consistent belief through this entire comment thread (started by my lengthy opening comment) has been that I don't think Garry is thinking broadly ENOUGH; that, yes, we can attempt to "target" and "siphon off" the "easy pickings" of MAGAs who may "get it" now. But I believe that that thinking is somewhat "narrower" than it needs to be, and that we don't have time to do ONLY that; that we should at least TRY to make the attempt to reach a BROADER group of MAGA members than just the "low hanging fruit." I don't think we LOSE anything by doing so. And we COULD (however unlikely it may SEEM to us) have a much broader impact and "siphon off" even more MAGA members than Garry proposes.
Why give up the opportunity when we have almost nothing to lose, but potentially a lot to gain? As an aside, did the Remainers ever stop trying to "reach" the Leavers? Did they only try to reach SOME Leavers - conceding defeat with regard to others who they felt were "unreachable?" Did the Remainers simply fold their tents, or stop trying to convince the Leavers that they were wrong? The questions are rhetorical; I have enough British friends to know the answers. So why would you have US do any different when it comes to MAGA?
I've really missed you, Garry, but that's my fault. You've been there all along, fighting the good fight. Somehow, I just failed to re-engage.
Completely agree with you about Obama. I mean...I like the guy, but he really blew it regarding Global politics.
I also agree that while it's great to substantively criticize Trump and Thugs, calling his nameless supporters Morons isn't helpful. People can change if they are shown a reason. Insults in the case of the average voter will only stiffen their resistance.
I believe you are correct about democrats need for self reflection. Learning from our mistakes is the way forward for all of us, including our political leaders. Being public about that is the kind of courage we need today … as individuals, as leaders, and as a society. How else will we find our way out of this madness?
I think the biggest problem with Democrats (and I'm a Democrat) is that at least in the national election, POTUS especially there's a sense with the average not paying attention electorate that we've oversold ourselves. In comparison with the feckless GOP we certainly haven't, yet when a Democrat is elected for "Hope and Change" for example, they might get some of the change but are in whole disappointed but the reasons aren't what we immediately think. Here are the factors that knee-cap Democrats IMO:
1) We suck at messaging. We aren't like the GOP showboats that claim credit for every damn thing good that happens on their watch yelling "Whoohooo! The sun is shining, the birds are singing, kids are eating their vegetables...I did that!" In fact because of the nature of people that would be most likely to be Democrats, there is a natural diffidence, self questioning and tendency toward both complexity and understatement when getting ideas across to people. WE do not do soundbites well and complexity does not play to the crowds sadly.
2) GOP non-stop attacks. Whether they have Congress or part of Congress with a Democrat as POTUS the modus operandi of GOP is scorched earth battle. Whether what D's are trying to do would be a good thing for their state and their constituents, they play relentless hardball attacking in the press at every opportunity and then if that good thing passes in spite of them, they run home or get on Faux News loudly braying that they did this for their constituents knowing full well that very few will check the record. We are poor at correcting this. We've failed to call out the liars, as actual liars, handicapped by our need for order and decorum. Take for example the whatever the hell that speech was (the Not-SOTU) and the Democrat's choice to wear matching outfits and hold signs. Please God make it stop! If they were there at all maybe wear full gorilla suits and throw bananas in response to bullshit or some other absurdity but in fact they should have 100% boycotted it and been outside the chambers on the steps having their own press conference stealing his thunder, but no...norms...even in outrageously abnormal times.
3) Right wing propaganda media-sphere makes to difficult to get word across to people that have given up on MSM. I don't know whether Democrats are unwilling to engage on these platforms (Shout out to Pete Buttigieg) or Fox won't schedule them but we miss a large audience by passing on that platform. Unfortunately they like combative and glib and we don't have much of that in stock right now.
4) Voters that tune in either want reassurance or to be entertained and as a lot we're more college professors than the shameless hucksters and shrieking baboons that make up the trump coalition. Not very reassuring nor entertaining.
How do we get people to tune back in, then how do we communicate about serious issues without making it as dry as toast? These are things that I wonder. For me the thing that has worked for me are personal stories. People's lived experiences as the touchstone to various issues, a more man on the street approach but how we go about this as a political party is the question.
Republicans also have a natural advantage in the Senate due to their popularity in the less populous states.
I think we continually fail to take into account the backlash after Covid, which is probably what swung this election for Trump. That said, it shouldn't have even been close.
Three main things cost Harris the election. First, she is not only female, but a woman of color. If the right wasn't going to vote for a White woman (with credentials up the wazoo), they weren't going to vote for a woman of color (with far lesser credentials).
Second, 19 million Democrats who voted for Biden stayed home and didn't vote. There is no clear understanding of why this occurred. Though it might have had to do with #3.
Third, from the moment she was "chosen" (even setting aside those who felt annoyed at there being no primary - even though there wasn't time for one), the Democratic Party and its leaders deliberately undermined her. This includes Obama, Clinton, the DNC, and many others. This is explained brilliantly (and sadly) in the new book "Fight" by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes.
Let me be blunt Gary: as a black person the FIRST thing that popped in my head from the "Obama was arrogant and unserious." comment was that it was a racist putdown. It reeks of the long-standing slurs "that n-word was too uppity" and "n-words are lazy and don't want to work hard". I don't believe you are racist or intended that statement as a racist insult, but I can tell you what my visceral reaction was reading it then AND now. I'd bet the vast majority of other black folks would see it the same way.
If there is anyone being smug here, it's you. Your arrogance and refusal to acknowledge that your perspective may be flawed are blinding you from seeing how your words could have landed in unexpected ways. That you are not American-born may not give you a deep insight on the white supremacist thread woven into this country's history. Consider that you may want to mull your takes about this a little more instead of doubling down in righteous self-certainty.
Fair to say that “unserious” was a surprising critique to me as well. I would have never used that term to describe Obama. Would “unfortunately naive idealist” be more accurate?
Obama was so frequently knee-capped by Republican obstruction that governing domestically became very hard and nothing could ever get solved. When McConnell stated that nothing was more important to Republicans than making Obama a “one-term President” it clearly showed how partisan polarization was destroying our capacity for self-governance. I don’t think that any of that was Obama’s doing but maybe it’s fair to say that he could have engaged with the hyper-partisanship more effectively? I dunno. Seems like Monday morning quarterbacking to me.
Yes I agree that Obama was too idealistic. I think he believed that since we were in a bad economic crisis, that there would a strong bipartisan consensus to do what was best for the country. That was a mistaken perspective. But he was definitely focused and serious about being the best president as possible.
I found it particularly galling that while calling Obama "unserious", he called GW Bush "a decent man". GWB occurred to me as a smirking and snarky frat boy who allowed himself and by extension the country to get rolled by the likes of Rumsfeld, Cheney, and others in his administration. If there was anybody could be credibly called unserious in that list of former POTUS, it was Bush.
I also saw the egregious slam on Obama's character as not only unnecessary, but frankly discriminatory. Whereas once again a black person has to be nearly angelic in temperament, skills, and qualifications, a underqualified white person who failed massively on the job gets to slide by with little to no criticism or re-assessment. I doubt Gary would see things that way, but again he didn't grow up in this country so I don't think he has strong clarity about the racial dynamics of our country.
This is likely the issue: "That you are not American-born may not give you a deep insight on the white supremacist thread woven into this country's history." Obama isn't a saint but for his presidency and all of the others very specific examples of unproductive or counter-productive action would be better than character traits as failures IMO.
Obama won both his races. Hillary ran her own campaign and lost to Trump. Obama basically played no operational or advisory role in her campaign, and I'm pretty sure that's how she wanted it.
After all the wrongful firings of the civil service, the attacks of waste fraud and abuse, the secretive sharing of federal databases with the Nazi party, and his corrupt relationships with federal agencies, Elon is facing the financial consequences with the disastrous first quarter earnings report of Tesla which is his primary wealth giving asset
PROTESTS ARE WORKING BY WE THE PEOPLE If were not for interest earned by cash and payments by other EV manufacturers Tesla would be in the red for almost $1B 71% reduction in earnings comparing 2024 quarter to this quarter Everyone that the Orange Cheeto touches is somehow destroyed in some way They all hope that they will be different but it never happens
There was a question meme the other day that really struck me:
"The overwhelming majority of those who support Drumpf are three paychecks away from homelessness. But they are 500,000 paychecks away from being a billionaire. So which is more likely to occur?"
Many MAGAs actually believe that they can be like their "fearless leader" and join the billionaire class at some point. It is not simply delusional, it is a sickness.
Thanks Ian great insight Unfortunately and sad to say 50% of Americans on the bell curve are just not very smart They lack the intellectual skills that promote executive functions ie discriminatory thinking, logical thinking skills, and ethical thinking skills This results in a pretty fucked up electorate Kimmel does some interesting "questions on the street" and it's amazing what people come up with Again sad and sickening A country in decline for sure And the Nazis want to ban the Dept of Education!!!
I have always been a fan of yours with huge respect and admiration for your life story and your dogged combat against Vladimir Putin. Also, as a recently invited guest of Uriel and Caitlin to the Heroes in Democracy Gala in NYC I see that your RDI is doing excellent work against other tyrants in the world be they in Iran or Venezuela as well as in my native Zimbabwe. That said I am finding my respect and admiration being tested somewhat when seeing how you seem to be applying RDI principles also to the United States. I got a good giggle over your comment that under Trump we are witnessing “the Putinization of America” but when I read your warning in The Atlantic article (“How America can Avoid Becoming Russia”) I really had to ask myself how seriously to take this: America, democratic from its inception, against Russia (feudalism, communism, oligarchy). Maybe you’re comparing them as oligarchies but even that would be a huge stretch. I think I’ll take this injunction more seriously once Trump starts murdering his opponents and has uppity journalists shot dead in their apartments. When last did you see a televised cabinet meeting in the Kremlin? For that matter, during the Biden term, in the White House? So, sorry Gary, I’m not on board your blanket beating of the drum of Resistance to Trump. I don’t (and won’t ever) own a MAGA cap but given the binary choices of the last three election cycles—and the combined opacity, mendacity and criminality of the Democrats in each case—Trump seemed to be the rational choice in each. Noting, finally, that in referring to people like me you have outbid both Hillary (“Deplorables”) and Biden (“Garbage”) by referring to us as “Traitors”. That’s fine but I do have to ask how you rack that up against your otherwise very nice Substack invitation for commentators to disagree with you but to do so without being “disagreeable”?
I look forward to sticking with this platform to follow its lively interchanges. Cheers.
OK, I'll try to make the case you have misunderstood where Obama went wrong. (I don't disagree that he made mistakes.)
1. Obama’s ineffective foreign policy was hamstrung by Republicans. They conspicuously refused to support any action after Assad used chemical weapons. Obama had intended at least some sort of symbolic strike at the Syrian military. You also have to remember that he was entering a situation complicated by the worst foreign policy blunder of American history: the invasion of Iraq.
2. Obama made a serious error in not punishing Wall Street for the 2008 meltdown. But we'll never know how successful this would have been. Donald Trump shows how difficult it is to prosecute white-collar crime in this country.
3. Obama made a serious error in not punishing the people responsible for torture and other war crimes in Iraq. But in this, he ran up against the popular but perverse version of American exceptionalism: everyone has to follow the rules, except the United States of America.
4. Obama was constrained by race issues. I know it's become popular to pretend we are in a post-racist society, but nobody is saying Trump was born in Germany and isn't a natural born citizen. I think that's where a lot of his compromising attitude came from, but he was dealing with Mitch McConnell, who drank his milkshake on numerous occasions. Obama was aspirational at a time this didn't really match the Zeitgeist.
5. I suppose we can blame Obama for pushing Biden out of the 2016 race in favor of Hillary, but I'd put most of the blame there on Clinton, and in second place the mainstream media. You'll notice that all the stuff about the email server was concocted; compare to treatment of Hegseth's Signal chat. The media is easy to play these days, when MAGA can promise eyeballs if you follow their narrative.
I have a completely different analysis than you. I would rather say that the following three things have gotten us into this pickle:
1) A very effective right wing media apparatus, centered on Fox News and right wing news radio, but also extending all the way out to influential persons such as yourself who have turned the Democratic Party brand somewhat toxic among a large subset of people.
2) A longstanding disregard for the law and the Constitution by the Executive and Congress. Examples: pardoning Nixon, manipulating the intelligence to go to war in Iraq, Gitmo, drone attacks on civilians in other countries (allegedly some of them terrorists), and supporting Israel's ongoing genocidal assault on Gaza.
3) People such as yourself who have a personal dislike for the Democratic Party, and would thus presumably never vote Democrat. While law-breaking and attacks on human rights have taken place under Democratic presidents, it has been generally much less than that under Republican presidents.
I don't necessarily disagree with you that Obama could have handled Syria or the Russian takeover of Crimea better. But, I don't see any connection between those international situations and Trump being elected to office twice.
The idea that Obama was some innocent naif is ridiculous to anyone who has heard him speak. You can certainly disagree with the man's decisions - you obviously do - but the man is very intelligent and he worked hard throughout the presidency (compare with George W. Bush or Trump). I would say that your criticisms of him have nothing to do with experience, but are rather that he didn't act boldly.
I've subscribed, because I think you're very smart, but I have deep reservations about your commitment to liberal democracy, emphasis on liberal. I honestly think you have a natural inclination for the type of government which you experienced in your youth - a powerful executive - and I have found this to be generally the case for ex-patriot Russians. For another example, ex-patriot Russians in Israel are reported to be among the most conservative of Israelis.
What do I mean by conservative? A conservative is a person who has a definite tribe. You are inside the tribe or outside the tribe. Those outside the tribe are not to be considered as having full rights as a human being. To varying degrees, you can do whatever you want with them. In the worst possible case, you can kill them. In the best possible case, you might only discriminate against them.
A liberal believes that all human beings have the same intrinsic rights, even those in other countries or outside of the perceived tribe. That's the difference between a conservative and a liberal. Obviously, you will find exceptions where liberals did conservative things, and conservatives did liberal things.
With regard to your comment about Obama, I agree that there were many failures of his administration, particularly in the area of foreign affairs. However, I don’t ascribe that to arrogance or lack of seriousness. I tend to think that Obama’s personality is one of caution, perhaps over-caution. Not to be too flip, but sometimes it’s better to be Captain Kirk than Mr. Spock.
My heart sank and my confidence in Obama the moment he appointed Geitner to Treasury. To me, this was his worst mistake; I even trace back the Dem’s subsequent defeat to this ONE decision. If Eliz.Warren had been Geitner’s boss and not vice versa, everything might have played out differently. Am I being too simplistic? Is this merely a projection of my own indignation and frustration (and ultimately despair) regarding the banks and subprime victims who speculated and lost their homes? I honestly would like to know what others think. I’ve always been surprised that this is not talked about more and given the weight I give it. To me this was an egregious instance of not being attentive to ordinary people. It concerned not only those who lost materially, it sent a signal that even Obama for his inspirational talk did not care enough: while the rest of us suffered the consequences of the 2008 crash, those responsible were not only not punished but continued to receive obscenely large bonus!
Thank you for the commenting on the comments. It is refreshing to hear constructive critique. You have an important and uniquely informed perspective that helps to shed light on the current challenges and opportunities our nation is facing. To step back and look at the patterns, the consequences and both the strengths and weaknesses of historic administration's leadership and decisions could establish the ground on which to build a strategy to propel us forward. Honest self reflection could help to move this beloved nation toward a more mature, effective, stronger democratic republic. I see opportunity in this moment of history, as frightening, disruptive as it is. And I think you have pointed out something very important to help us. Though perhaps a little out of the box, it occurred to me while listening to the recording today that it would be very interesting if you were to have a (another?) live conversation with Heather Cox Richardson. Your two perspectives together could result in some powerful insights and ideas as to how to best meet this moment by looking thoughtfully and critically at our past. Just a random thought.
It may be a random thought, but it is a good one
I am going to offer something enormously controversial - something I have been thinking about since the last pre-election campaign - something I think the Democrats get very wrong - also something I think YOU, Mr. Kasparov, spend too much time pooh-poohing.
While no Democrat may ever get a MAGA vote, it is self-defeating - indeed, worse, dismissive and insulting - to simply ignore and antagonize them (not you personally) by assuming (and often stating) that they are mostly a group of undereducated racist hicks and rubes. I think one of the most important things the Democrats have to do is to ACKNOWLEDGE THEM - tell them that their voices count, that they are Americans (if possibly flawed ones) just as we are, and genuinely and humbly accept that at least SOME of their anger and grievances are legitimate.
Imagine that Bernie Sanders or AOC - who are both "preaching" to crowds that include both Dems and MAGAs - actually openly said something like: "And we acknowledge and hear our fellow Americans on the MAGA side. We hear and acknowledge your anger and grievances. And even if no Democrat ever gets your vote, we will NOT ignore you or reject your voices. All of us are Americans, and only by working to lessen the division between us can we beat the true "common enemies" that are the billionaire class and transnational corporations."
And they can add, "Democrats and MAGA members have more "enemies" in common than we generally acknowledge. Not just billionaires, oligarchs and corporate America. But the "Bigs" - Big Pharma, Big Agra, Big Oil, Big Health, Big Real Estate, etc. These and others are hurting ALL Americans, no matter what Party or political ideology they follow. But the only way we can beat them is to do so as a unified nation. The division and polarization between us was created by those who WANT us divided - who WANT us fighting each other instead of them. We know that MAGA moms and dads rely as much on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as Democratic ones. So let us ALL fight to protect those things - for all of us. We know that MAGA members support our military, and particularly our veterans. So let's ALL fight to protect those vets. We know that the tariffs are disproportionately adversely affecting farmers - the heartland of America, which is heavily populated by MAGA members - so let us all fight to help make things easier for you. We know that the overwhelming majority of MAGA members are peace-loving, patriotic Americans who love our country. So let's throw off the phony, manufactured divisions that have us fighting each other instead of our common enemies, and say with one voice that we support Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans and others."
Imagine the power of an acknowledgement like that to people who have consistently stated that they feel ignored! Imagine the power of ACTIVELY and VERBALLY making a REAL attempt to at least ease the polarization, and get more people acting together. ("Hug a MAGA/libtard today!")
This is the one thing no Democrat has EVER attempted, particularly not openly and verbally. I have NEVER heard a Democratic representative openly acknowledge MAGA members. I hear euphemisms ("We are all Americans. I will be representative/voice for all my constituents,"
etc.) But I have never heard anyone make even the slightest attempt to lessen the division and polarization by actually "addressing" and acknowledging MAGA members and their grievances.
Again, this may not earn a single vote for a Democrat from a MAGA member. And many MAGA members may be too deeply entrenched in culture war issues to care (though even some THEM might be "dislodged" by something like this). But not even TRYING to reach them is not an effective strategy. And Ignoring, dismissing and insulting them is an even LESS effective strategy.
Mr. Kasparov - you have made many comments about "siphoning off" those MAGA members who are not as deeply entrenched as the "25%." But I think we can do better than that. And I don't think we as a nation are going to get back to anything resembling "normalcy" (even without Trump & Co.) if we DON'T make these kinds of attempts to ease the (phony and manufactured) division and polarization between the Democrats and MAGA members.
Another thought — you’re right that Democrats should engage directly with Trump’s voters (as Tim Walz has been doing with his Iowa town halls).
Setting aside tribalism doesn’t mean working in a bipartisan fashion with elected Republicans. They have proven themselves to be untrustworthy as governing partners again and again. Democrats should strive to make elected Republicans irrelevant by engaging directly with those Republican voters who are persuadable and offering genuine solutions.
That is Garry's position, and I agree with it. I simply think we can and should go even further - even if it doesn't bear much fruit. The mere ACTIVE acknowledgement of a large voting group that considers itself ignored and/or dismissed can be a powerful thing.
This view is not controversial. It’s the standard response to the last election. Beto O’Rourke is a poster child for “listen to them and respond to what they tell you”.
The trouble is, it’s based on flimsy evidence and terrible logic.
Statistically, most Americans are flying economically (or at least they were before the election). They even admitted as much in surveys. This includes most Trump voters. They weren’t struggling. They were bored, and they (wrongly) thought it couldn’t hurt to elect someone as preposterously unfit as Trump. They allowed themselves to get excited about culture war propaganda because they didn’t have any real problems to worry about.
For those that were struggling, Trump offered them exactly zero. No plans for healthcare, housing, or anything else that might help Americans. Instead, he promised inflation (via tariffs), and he promised to put deliberately anti-qualified people like RFK in charge of important things like healthcare. He promised to make their lives worse, and at least some of them voted for him anyway.
Responsible adults would never vote for that. But American citizens did vote for it. In most cases, not because of hardship, but because they have become accustomed to behaving like irresponsible children.
If you really want to get America back on track, this type of irresponsible behaviour from adult-aged people should be rejected. Leaders of all types should expect adults to behave like adults. This is true at work, in local communities, in families, and when it comes time to vote.
Democrats should lead a cultural change first. Being a responsible, thoughtful citizen should be central to the American idea. Americans are going to learn some painful lessons from Trump’s chaos. The main thing they need to take away from this is “time to grow up”.
If a few people get sad about receiving some tough love, great. It’s perfectly normal for immature people to feel some pain from their bad decisions. It’s part of what motivates them to learn and do better.
Voting for Trump in the last election was an irresponsible decision, and everyone who did it should feel some shame. And they can channel that shame into learning how to make better decisions from now on.
Very well said. However (and there's always a "however"...lol), even though you may be 99% or even 100% correct, it does not negate the point or idea that I have been trying to make.
Garry's position is that we should "target" those MAGA members who joined MAGA not as a result of election denialism or conspiracy theory or whatever, but for some of the reasons you mention, as well as other minimally-supportive-of-Trump reasons, and try to get them to (as you might put it) "see the error of their ways" (particularly based on the "facts on the ground" and the way Trump's policies are adversely affecting them and those they love and care about) and hopefully take a more centrist (if not "liberal") view of things, stop voting against their own interests, and possibly even "switch sides" (even to a small degree). And the majority of people who have commented here and elsewhere seem to support Garry's concept.
My position is simply that Garry is not taking his concept far ENOUGH; that we should not ONLY try to "siphon off" (Garry's term) the low-hanging fruit he suggests, but that we should take a much broader approach - even if it SEEMS hopeless or futile - and go after every possible MAGA vote we can get. And one cannot do that by solely targeting the "easy pickings"; it requires taking bolder steps, and attempting to be more ACTIVELY inclusive of MAGA. Yes, a huge swath of them are NEVER going to change; for them, it continues to be about "owning the libs" - even if it hurts THEM. But as I have said, it is a CERTAINTY that we will not potentially get more MAGA understanding - and votes - if we do not try. And the Dems have NEVER tried to do so in any meaningful, direct, acknowledging and yes, even supportive manner. This does not mean condoning the mindset or words or actions of a large swath of MAGA. It simply means accepting that they are Americans no less than us, and that at least SOME of their anger and grievances are justified.
For example, it is a statistical fact that the tariffs that HAVE been put in place are disproportionately affecting MAGA members, as much as they "represent" the "heartland" of America, and the tariffs are hugely affecting small farmers. And yes, many, perhaps even most, of them will see this for themselves, blame the "right" people (Drumpf & Co.), and "come to their senses" naturally (as so many are doing, given the number of protesting MAGA members around the country). But some still need a little "push." And that push comes from acknowledging them and their grievances - without necessarily accepting that all of those grievances are legitimate (or properly focused).
I agree that adults have to take responsibility for their own actions - including voting for a wannabe dictator. But does that mean we simply shunt all of those people aside, and pretend they don't exist? That we denigrate, demean and dismiss them? That we simply allow many of them to flounder, when all some of them need is that little "push" that will help them see what they seem to be missing?
I think you and I agree more than we disagree. And I appreciate your well-written and well-thought-out comment. It gives me even more to consider. Thank you.
Yes, we agree more than we disagree. And I’m all for working out a plan that will absolutely bury the current version of the Republican Party, so that a serious, non-corrupt ponservative party can rise in its place.
The core of my argument here is that the best way to do this is via cultural change. Don’t make it about the Democratic Party. Make it about a vision of what it means to be a responsible citizen, and let people draw their own contrasts between this vision and the atrocities of the Republican Party, Fox News, etc.
I say this in part because it will take more than ‘a little push’. Anyone who voted for Trump in the last election was very, very wrong to do so. And they were warned. So their choices are (i) face up to a serious failure of judgement or (ii) excuses and denial. From elected Republicans officials to ordinary citizens and everyone in between, we’ve seen that most people will choose the second option if they can. This is where the whole “people were suffering”/“but her emails”/“But inflation” stories come from: they’re after-the-fact justification for votes that were motivated by something else, and they serve as an excuse when it turns out that (surprise!) those votes were a bad idea.
So, in summary: there are tens of millions of Americans who (i) need to grow up and (ii) will be inclined to resist growing up, because this means feeling some shame. The solution is to create a culture where the social and economic rewards of growing up outweigh the short term shame.
"The core of my argument here is that the best way to do this is via cultural change. Don’t make it about the Democratic Party. Make it about a vision of what it means to be a responsible citizen, and let people draw their own contrasts between this vision and the atrocities of the Republican Party, Fox News, etc."
But this is EXACTLY what has been tried over and over, and has not "softened" anti-LGBT, anti-trans, anti-DEI, anti-"woke," "cancel culture," etc. in much of MAGAland.
"Anyone who voted for Trump in the last election was very, very wrong to do so. And they were warned. So their choices are (i) face up to a serious failure of judgement or (ii) excuses and denial. From elected Republicans officials to ordinary citizens and everyone in between, we’ve seen that most people will choose the second option if they can. This is where the whole “people were suffering”/“but her emails”/“But inflation” stories come from: they’re after-the-fact justification for votes that were motivated by something else, and they serve as an excuse when it turns out that (surprise!) those votes were a bad idea."
This was worth repeating in its entirety, both because it is true, and because it points to an unspoken truth: that a great many MAGAs LIKE what Drumpf is doing; they support anti-trans, anti-DEI, anti-immigrant, anti-woke, etc., so they are NEITHER going to "face up to failure in judgment" NOR provide "excuses and denial." Because they are getting just what they "paid for" - even if it works against their best (economic, etc.) interests.
In a brief "discussion" with one MAGA woman, I noted that Drumpf had not brought down the price of eggs (or groceries in general), even though he promised to do so on "Day 1." Her response? "Libtards talk about 'you voted for cheaper eggs, gas, etc.' While I solely voted for the end of this liberal woke mind virus. I'll pay $10 a fucking egg to keep watching DJT take a blowtorch to this whole diseased temple of thieves, traitors and pedos, burn it to the ground, and piss on the ashes." THAT is the kind of mindset we are dealing with with SOME members of MAGA. BTW, the "liberal woke mind virus" is a meme created by none other than Elon Musk, and it took off like a rocket in ultra-conservative and hardline MAGA circles.
"So, in summary: there are tens of millions of Americans who (i) need to grow up and (ii) will be inclined to resist growing up, because this means feeling some shame. The solution is to create a culture where the social and economic rewards of growing up outweigh the short term shame."
Two things here. First, you bring up another unspoken truth: that so many MAGAs are "dug in" so deep that there is no way for them to "save face" at this point - but instead of trying, they simply dig themselves in deeper.
Second, the reason your proposal will fail (sadly) is that a large swath of MAGA members don't WANT the "culture where the social and economic rewards of growing up outweigh the short term shame." Because besides being too dug in to save face, that culture is the very culture they associate with Democrats, liberals, progressives, trans, LGBT+, woke, DEI, etc.
What needs to happen (but probably won't, and I can't even think of a way to begin the process) is for them to stop allowing Drumpf's hatreds to be their own; to "undo" or at least partially reverse the "permission" Drumpf gave them to be their worst selves (racist, misogynist, hateful, etc.), and feed their own narcissism and its symptoms. This was how Drumpf GREW the MAGA movement. So how do we begin to shrink it?
I don’t agree that my version of cultural change (‘adult-aged people should behave like adults’) has been tried.
You are probably referring to people scolding the MAGA crowd. Most of the scolding took the form of logical arguments or a bit of classist ridicule. I confess I see the hard core MAGA types as the ones who will be brought back to decent civic behaviour last, and probably kicking and screaming all the way. In any case, there has not been much in the way of challenge to be more serious. Did a single person go on Joe Rogan and tell him that his audience are mostly adults, and ask him why he offers up entertainment more suited to credulous teenagers?
And consider the campus protesters on the left. Far too many commentators took the incorrect view that they were deeply engaged with Netanyahu’s atrocities in Gaza, when the truth (in most cases) was that this was a group of overgrown children engaged in silly, righteous posturing. The message to them (especially from Harris) should have been “grow up”. Perhaps call their bluff with an election promise to expand national service opportunities with USAID or the military, and tell them to sign up if they care so much.
Even the general population: was there any backlash to the mindless millions of mainstream Americans who thought the economy was failing, when in fact it was in rude health? Did anyone challenge their fellow Americans to spend 15 minutes on the internet as a basic civic responsibility to inform their votes? All I saw was versions of “OK, they’re wrong, but you need to understand how the poor darlings feel”. Because God forbid you should question the inner wisdom of the voters.
All of these people are damaging their own country. As a step towards fixing their self-destructive behaviour, they need to feel some shame on a personal level. Not so much about any single act or choice, but about their whole lazy, mindless, immature way of being. No free passes because they got swept up in a movement or were influenced by the wrong people. The message is ‘You’re a grown up. Act like one’.
I’ve seen the same morons that you have, revelling in the destructiveness of Trump and indulging the worst of themselves. Listening to them is worse than pointless. They should be shunned until they can be part of a community. This is where culture change at the local level matters. Those idiots get an adrenaline rush from being on TV or their online enclaves. But they have jobs to go to and kids in school etc, and the people in their communities can demand better behaviour every day. Set standards. Shame them if they don’t try to be decent people. Treat them like the spoilt children that they are until they can grow up.
Even if every word you say is true (and I don't think they are, but I don't have time right now to parse this), ALL of this seems to let the Dems COMPLETELY off the hook for their own loss, and the situation we find ourselves in - which is arguably largely self-inflicted.
It doesn't explain why 19 million Democrats who voted for Biden stayed home and did NOT vote for Harris. Had they done so, it is likely (though not absolute) that she would have won (because those votes would have had to have been distributed "properly" demographically).
It also doesn't explain why - beyond not having a primary (for which there was no time, as anyone with half a brain could see) - the Party as a whole, including the DNC and major figures like Obama and Clinton, spent the first four to six weeks of the campaign deliberately undermining her, thus almost assuring that we would lose. (Read the new book, "Fight" to get an in-depth look at just how intense that undermining was.)
And finally, are you saying that there should not have been any protesting against Netanyahu and the Israeli policies that utterly devastated Gaza? That the response to those protests should have been "grow up?" REALLY?!?!?!
I hope I have that wrong.
> I think one of the most important things the Democrats have to do is to ACKNOWLEDGE THEM - tell them that their voices count, that they are Americans (if possibly flawed ones) just as we are, and genuinely and humbly accept that at least SOME of their anger and grievances are legitimate.
This doesn't buy anything with the MAGA crowd. It's really hard to break through the noise of Fox News, etc.
I thought Harris and Walz ran a great campaign, talking about how they understood the difficulties facing American families and their *detailed* plans to help all American families. But, Trump was lucky with the backlash after Covid. People around the world voted out incumbents, and the same happened here, even though the vote was somewhat close.
"This doesn't buy anything with the MAGA crowd. It's really hard to break through the noise of Fox News, etc." I think you'd be surprised. Again, I'm not saying it would have BROAD efffect, or turn MAGAs into "libtards." (LOL). And while it may be "hard" to break through the noise of Fox, OAN, Newsmax, etc., it is not IMPOSSIBLE. But it is a CERTAINTY that you won't break through if you don't try. :-)
Kamala tried to do this in her campaign.
Yeah, I think you'd have to actually listen to her speeches though? I'm not sure if that stuff ever broke through into the news, etc.
Democrats need to do a better job of getting their messaging into the news cycle. It's an uphill battle though.
The news cycle doesn't chase positive messages - they're boring. See, deportations, tariffs, collapsing markets, egg prices - that's different.
Perhaps. But I never heard her actually do it in this way - actively, openly, verbally, inclusively, etc. If she did, good on her, but it obviously wasn't reported by anyone. And I would think something of this nature WOULD have been reported by SOMEONE. ??
Literally all her ads, campaign speeches. She was very focused on small business, veterans, military - traditionally GOP voters. Her biggest sin - woman of color.
https://youtu.be/U6bv6jYEVAs?feature=shared
And again, as good as this is, as "broad" as some of the things she is saying may be, this is all still euphemism. I am talking about a clear, DIRECT, humbly attempted engagement with MAGA. Even SHE couldn't get herself to say the word. And keep in mind that some of the things she mentions are things the MAGA crowd may not support - for whatever good o bad reasons. There is plenty of opportunity to speak about those things. But not once has ANYONE taken the opportunity to speak about the SPECIFIC things - the reasons for their anger and grievances, the motivations that move them - and address them directly.
Yes, a small percentage of MAGA members engaged in a violent insurrection. Yes, many MAGA members have racist, misogynist, anti-LBGT and anti-immigrant bents. And for many, it is still al about "owning the libs." But not all.
And if you speak to them as a whole group, those who do NOT have those bents, who did NOT support the insurrection, who may not even be election deniers - those people WILL "hear" what is said, if the approach is honest, humble and direct, and specifically takes into account their concerns and voices.
It is a radical notion, I know. And again, I'm not saying I expect any major changes or differences. But even slight, minor changes in polling and acceptance (of "libtards") is much more likely to lead to Garry's notion of "siphoning" off some of those people and bringing some of them back to their senses - to the "better angels of their natures." Because those "better angels" DO exist. It's just that the Democrats have never even TRIED to appeal DIRECTLY to them.
BTW, I agree that Harris lost for two main reasons: as you note, being both a woman and a person of color was one - though that does not explain why 19 million Democrats who voted for Biden stayed home and did not vote for her. We are now finding out - through the book called "Fight" - written by NBC investigative reporter Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, The Hill's senior political reporter - that the Democrats themselves undermined Harris at almost every step, particularly at the critical beginning of her campaign.
BTW, have you tried engaging with MAGAs? Because their grievances keep on changing.
Surprise surprise - there are misogynists among Dems, too. And yes - Obama stabbed her in the back.
I haven’t been following the AOC/Sanders project, but if that’s the message they’re projecting, I agree with you. Just give people an opening.
What's truly astounding about the Sanders/AOC "tour" is that they are bringing in crowds as large as 37,000 people - and many of those crowds are in deep red (read "MAGA") cities and towns. As I noted, MAGAs (and their moms and dads) are just as reliant on SS, Medicare and Medicaid as Democrats (and their moms and dads). And the tariffs are hitting MAGAs at a much higher rate than they are hitting Dems (thus far). So MAGA members know what is happening. As well, while they generally support Drump's immigration policies, a majority of REPUBLICANS (including MAGAs) do NOT support the deportations, particularly without due process.
And then there are the town halls that MAGA-elected representatives refuse to appear at, fearing their own constituents, who disagree with their electeds positions and votes on many issues. And these MAGAs are WELCOMING the Democratic leaders who are stepping in to address these town halls.
And MAGAs are out protesting just as much as Dems are - some for the same reasons, some not. But ALL are protesting against one or another of Drumpf's policies.
MAGA is not a monolithic group. Even Garry acknowledges that there are some who joined, if not reluctantly, then certainly not with their whole heart in it. And he feels we should focus on "siphoning off" those voters. With due respect to Garry, I believe he is thinking too small - especially given what is happening "on the ground," as well as in polling, etc. I continue to believe that we can make even greater inroads than Garry believes, by not limiting ourselves to "getting to" the "weaker" MAGAs, but adding an even broader approach. It may bear very little fruit - but it COULD bear more than even Garry thinks. But it is a certainty that if we DON'T try a broader approach, we will never know, and may miss important opportunities.
Many of Sanders’ supporters in 2016 voted for Trump once Sanders had lost in the primary. The failure of Democrats to understand the motivations of these voters and to address their legitimate concerns in 2024 left an opening for that group to swing back. We are still litigating the issues that remain unsolved, or even worsened, since 2016. Rising economic inequality and loss of our communal cohesion, in my view.
1 In 10 Bernie Sanders Supporters Ended Up Voting For Trump
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545812242/1-in-10-sanders-primary-voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds
This evidence supports your argument and suggests, in my mind, that the only reason that you have to frame your argument as “enormously controversial” as you open is that the further left has been as captured by tribalism as the right. Successfully opposing Trump will mean setting that tribalism aside.
I do think that Biden and Harris both tried to do some of this but I agree with you that the effort needs to be more bold.
Thank you. I agree with your assessment. And pointing out that ~12% (it was a bit more than 10%) of Sanders voters voted for Trump is an important point. I would provide one caveat, though. I think many Sanders voters (many of whom didn't like Hilary to begin with) were swayed by the Comey letter, which came out just 10 days before Election Day, and WHILE early voting was occurring. I think the Comey letter did the most possible damage at the worst possible time. Still, many Sanders voters might have voted for Trump anyway - and, as you say, the failure of Democrats to consider the motivations of these voters was a huge mistake on their part. And in my opinion, they just kept compounding it.
You’re describing Harris & Walz’s campaign, which I witnessed from Europe, shown on our media. The fact you didn’t see it only tells me that your US media wasn’t doing its job. And that’s a problem that can’t be overcome through a change in messaging.
I'm not exactly sure to whom or what you are responding, but I will simply repeat that Harris & Walz's campaign (which I DID watch, quite closely) did NOT DIRECTLY acknowledge or address the MAGA crowd; it was all done in euphemisms. And as I have noted, THAT is not going to cut it if we want to ACTUALLY reach that 25%-34% of America.
I disagree, as it's not what I saw. The campaign was incredibly open to MAGA's concerns. I believe that what sunk it was the fact that she'd been parachuted in without a primary, which many undecided voters decided was unfair (and it was, though hardly her fault).
But in any case, what Democrats have to cut through to are the people in the swing states who voted for Trump, and the non-voters everywhere, but also especially in the swing states. It's the rather terrifying reality of your voting system.
Why? Because campaigning is gruelling and expensive enough without adding a task you admit yourself is probably pointless. I also believe that what you are proposing is patronising to MAGA - and therefore counterproductive - and poorly judged when it comes to existing Democrats and swing voters, who will not appreciate being neglected in favour of the diehard MAGA base. The non-diehard MAGA voters can be won, and don't need to be patronised: they know how to make up their minds based on what they see and experience.
Some of what Trump is doing has been the dearest wish of conservatives since forever - notably shrinking government. Some has been Trump's dearest wish - tariffs and locking out immigrants. Some are just ways that autocratic-leaning governments work - e.g. kidnapping people off streets, ignoring one court order after another, sending people to unaccountable places of detention, erupting in government departments without legal (i.e. Congressional) go-ahead, etc. Now, I've no doubt that MAGA voters like some of that: it's fast, it sticks it to the liberals and it gets the job done, albeit illegally. But Americans are fair-minded, mostly, and the vision of foreign students with legal visas being kidnapped, and their visas revoked, for exercising the First Amendment, or Musk sending kids to ransack citizen data, or tariffs hurting the economy, or the threat to Medicare, Medicaid and SS isn't something they wanted when they voted for Trump. Above all, the long-term effects - a less secure, less prosperous USA - will filter through to everyone, Trumpist or not.
You know, 48% of Britons voted to remain in the EU, against 52% who voted to Leave, so Britain left. Britain left 4 years ago last January, and buyers' remorse has passed 60%. I believe the same will happen with MAGA. There will always be the diehards, who are a bit like cult members (like diehard Brexiters or MLP fans in France), but time and calm resistance will swing the others back to the centre ground where they can be won over.
I will need to partially parse yours reply.
"I disagree, as it's not what I saw. The campaign was incredibly open to MAGA's concerns. I believe that what sunk it was the fact that she'd been parachuted in without a primary, which many undecided voters decided was unfair (and it was, though hardly her fault)."
Being open to MAGA concerns is not the same thing as acknowledging and addressing them DIRECTLY. As I said, yes, Harris/Walz talked about ISSUES that some MAGAs care about, etc. But that is still "euphemistic," and NOT "direct." If Harris or Walz had ever DIRECTLY acknowledged MAGA, and openly accepted that some of their concerns and grievances are legitimate (which they are), it would have been front page news ion every newspaper in the U.S. - and maybe further around the world. But that did NOT happen.
As for the lack of primary, while it was certainly an issue, it shouldn't have been, because anyone with half a brain knew that there simply wasn't time for one - and that it would cut hugely into actual campaigning time for the Democratic candidate. Instead of undermining her (read the new book, "Fight") for weeks, Democrats should have been smarter than that. Sadly, too many were not, and she was hobbled right from the starting gate BY HER OWN PARTY.
"I also believe that what you are proposing is patronising to MAGA - and therefore counterproductive..." I don['t see how it would be partonizing, depending on how it is done. Most people can tell when someone is being patronizing, and it could easily have been done honestly and humbly enough for them to realize that it was NOT patronizing.
"...and poorly judged when it comes to existing Democrats and swing voters, who will not appreciate being neglected in favour of the diehard MAGA base."
Who said anything about neglect or favor of one over the other? Simply honestly, humbly and directly acknowledging 25%-34% of American voters is INCLUSIVE, not neglecting. In fact, it is BECAUSE the MAGA members have been neglected that doing this is so necessary (and possibly worthwhile BEYOND Garry's own thinking). And it need not show "favor" to them. "Only a sith thinks in black and white." lol.
Without belaboring the point, I have already acknowledged that some portion of the MAGA base is getting EXACTLY what they voted for, and LIKE some of the arguably heinous things Drumpf is doing. And that some do not, and may therefore be possible to "siphon off" (a Garry has suggested).
My consistent belief through this entire comment thread (started by my lengthy opening comment) has been that I don't think Garry is thinking broadly ENOUGH; that, yes, we can attempt to "target" and "siphon off" the "easy pickings" of MAGAs who may "get it" now. But I believe that that thinking is somewhat "narrower" than it needs to be, and that we don't have time to do ONLY that; that we should at least TRY to make the attempt to reach a BROADER group of MAGA members than just the "low hanging fruit." I don't think we LOSE anything by doing so. And we COULD (however unlikely it may SEEM to us) have a much broader impact and "siphon off" even more MAGA members than Garry proposes.
Why give up the opportunity when we have almost nothing to lose, but potentially a lot to gain? As an aside, did the Remainers ever stop trying to "reach" the Leavers? Did they only try to reach SOME Leavers - conceding defeat with regard to others who they felt were "unreachable?" Did the Remainers simply fold their tents, or stop trying to convince the Leavers that they were wrong? The questions are rhetorical; I have enough British friends to know the answers. So why would you have US do any different when it comes to MAGA?
I've really missed you, Garry, but that's my fault. You've been there all along, fighting the good fight. Somehow, I just failed to re-engage.
Completely agree with you about Obama. I mean...I like the guy, but he really blew it regarding Global politics.
I also agree that while it's great to substantively criticize Trump and Thugs, calling his nameless supporters Morons isn't helpful. People can change if they are shown a reason. Insults in the case of the average voter will only stiffen their resistance.
Thank you for being a part of the conversation! I've responded to your comment in my latest piece: https://thenextmove.substack.com/p/keeping-the-conversation-moving
Thank you for such a lively debate! I’ve responded to some of your comments here: https://open.substack.com/pub/thenextmove/p/keeping-the-conversation-moving?r=e1fr4&utm_medium=ios
I believe you are correct about democrats need for self reflection. Learning from our mistakes is the way forward for all of us, including our political leaders. Being public about that is the kind of courage we need today … as individuals, as leaders, and as a society. How else will we find our way out of this madness?
Inspiring engagement is the vision of democracy. Thank you for your example of how we can extend this vision of justice and equity!
I think the biggest problem with Democrats (and I'm a Democrat) is that at least in the national election, POTUS especially there's a sense with the average not paying attention electorate that we've oversold ourselves. In comparison with the feckless GOP we certainly haven't, yet when a Democrat is elected for "Hope and Change" for example, they might get some of the change but are in whole disappointed but the reasons aren't what we immediately think. Here are the factors that knee-cap Democrats IMO:
1) We suck at messaging. We aren't like the GOP showboats that claim credit for every damn thing good that happens on their watch yelling "Whoohooo! The sun is shining, the birds are singing, kids are eating their vegetables...I did that!" In fact because of the nature of people that would be most likely to be Democrats, there is a natural diffidence, self questioning and tendency toward both complexity and understatement when getting ideas across to people. WE do not do soundbites well and complexity does not play to the crowds sadly.
2) GOP non-stop attacks. Whether they have Congress or part of Congress with a Democrat as POTUS the modus operandi of GOP is scorched earth battle. Whether what D's are trying to do would be a good thing for their state and their constituents, they play relentless hardball attacking in the press at every opportunity and then if that good thing passes in spite of them, they run home or get on Faux News loudly braying that they did this for their constituents knowing full well that very few will check the record. We are poor at correcting this. We've failed to call out the liars, as actual liars, handicapped by our need for order and decorum. Take for example the whatever the hell that speech was (the Not-SOTU) and the Democrat's choice to wear matching outfits and hold signs. Please God make it stop! If they were there at all maybe wear full gorilla suits and throw bananas in response to bullshit or some other absurdity but in fact they should have 100% boycotted it and been outside the chambers on the steps having their own press conference stealing his thunder, but no...norms...even in outrageously abnormal times.
3) Right wing propaganda media-sphere makes to difficult to get word across to people that have given up on MSM. I don't know whether Democrats are unwilling to engage on these platforms (Shout out to Pete Buttigieg) or Fox won't schedule them but we miss a large audience by passing on that platform. Unfortunately they like combative and glib and we don't have much of that in stock right now.
4) Voters that tune in either want reassurance or to be entertained and as a lot we're more college professors than the shameless hucksters and shrieking baboons that make up the trump coalition. Not very reassuring nor entertaining.
How do we get people to tune back in, then how do we communicate about serious issues without making it as dry as toast? These are things that I wonder. For me the thing that has worked for me are personal stories. People's lived experiences as the touchstone to various issues, a more man on the street approach but how we go about this as a political party is the question.
Excellent and very insightful. Thanks.
Republicans also have a natural advantage in the Senate due to their popularity in the less populous states.
I think we continually fail to take into account the backlash after Covid, which is probably what swung this election for Trump. That said, it shouldn't have even been close.
Three main things cost Harris the election. First, she is not only female, but a woman of color. If the right wasn't going to vote for a White woman (with credentials up the wazoo), they weren't going to vote for a woman of color (with far lesser credentials).
Second, 19 million Democrats who voted for Biden stayed home and didn't vote. There is no clear understanding of why this occurred. Though it might have had to do with #3.
Third, from the moment she was "chosen" (even setting aside those who felt annoyed at there being no primary - even though there wasn't time for one), the Democratic Party and its leaders deliberately undermined her. This includes Obama, Clinton, the DNC, and many others. This is explained brilliantly (and sadly) in the new book "Fight" by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes.
https://www.amazon.com/Fight-Inside-Wildest-Battle-White/dp/006343864X
Very ironic in that most of what pissed people off about COVID, business/school closures etc all happened on trump's watch.
Personal stories that are easy to understand and relate to seem to be the way to go. It’s common sense really.
Let me be blunt Gary: as a black person the FIRST thing that popped in my head from the "Obama was arrogant and unserious." comment was that it was a racist putdown. It reeks of the long-standing slurs "that n-word was too uppity" and "n-words are lazy and don't want to work hard". I don't believe you are racist or intended that statement as a racist insult, but I can tell you what my visceral reaction was reading it then AND now. I'd bet the vast majority of other black folks would see it the same way.
If there is anyone being smug here, it's you. Your arrogance and refusal to acknowledge that your perspective may be flawed are blinding you from seeing how your words could have landed in unexpected ways. That you are not American-born may not give you a deep insight on the white supremacist thread woven into this country's history. Consider that you may want to mull your takes about this a little more instead of doubling down in righteous self-certainty.
Fair to say that “unserious” was a surprising critique to me as well. I would have never used that term to describe Obama. Would “unfortunately naive idealist” be more accurate?
Obama was so frequently knee-capped by Republican obstruction that governing domestically became very hard and nothing could ever get solved. When McConnell stated that nothing was more important to Republicans than making Obama a “one-term President” it clearly showed how partisan polarization was destroying our capacity for self-governance. I don’t think that any of that was Obama’s doing but maybe it’s fair to say that he could have engaged with the hyper-partisanship more effectively? I dunno. Seems like Monday morning quarterbacking to me.
Yes I agree that Obama was too idealistic. I think he believed that since we were in a bad economic crisis, that there would a strong bipartisan consensus to do what was best for the country. That was a mistaken perspective. But he was definitely focused and serious about being the best president as possible.
I found it particularly galling that while calling Obama "unserious", he called GW Bush "a decent man". GWB occurred to me as a smirking and snarky frat boy who allowed himself and by extension the country to get rolled by the likes of Rumsfeld, Cheney, and others in his administration. If there was anybody could be credibly called unserious in that list of former POTUS, it was Bush.
I also saw the egregious slam on Obama's character as not only unnecessary, but frankly discriminatory. Whereas once again a black person has to be nearly angelic in temperament, skills, and qualifications, a underqualified white person who failed massively on the job gets to slide by with little to no criticism or re-assessment. I doubt Gary would see things that way, but again he didn't grow up in this country so I don't think he has strong clarity about the racial dynamics of our country.
This is likely the issue: "That you are not American-born may not give you a deep insight on the white supremacist thread woven into this country's history." Obama isn't a saint but for his presidency and all of the others very specific examples of unproductive or counter-productive action would be better than character traits as failures IMO.
David Rothkopf wrote about this the other day.
https://open.substack.com/pub/davidrothkopf/p/the-american-century-ended-gradually?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=blqp
Obama won both his races. Hillary ran her own campaign and lost to Trump. Obama basically played no operational or advisory role in her campaign, and I'm pretty sure that's how she wanted it.
Poooor Elon and Public Retribution
After all the wrongful firings of the civil service, the attacks of waste fraud and abuse, the secretive sharing of federal databases with the Nazi party, and his corrupt relationships with federal agencies, Elon is facing the financial consequences with the disastrous first quarter earnings report of Tesla which is his primary wealth giving asset
PROTESTS ARE WORKING BY WE THE PEOPLE If were not for interest earned by cash and payments by other EV manufacturers Tesla would be in the red for almost $1B 71% reduction in earnings comparing 2024 quarter to this quarter Everyone that the Orange Cheeto touches is somehow destroyed in some way They all hope that they will be different but it never happens
Must see 7minute Maddow segment showing what the people think of the Nazis and Elon(remember the salute?) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU23jm417-k
For what it’s worth the brilliant Nikola Tesla died penniless in New York in January 1943
There was a question meme the other day that really struck me:
"The overwhelming majority of those who support Drumpf are three paychecks away from homelessness. But they are 500,000 paychecks away from being a billionaire. So which is more likely to occur?"
Many MAGAs actually believe that they can be like their "fearless leader" and join the billionaire class at some point. It is not simply delusional, it is a sickness.
Thanks Ian great insight Unfortunately and sad to say 50% of Americans on the bell curve are just not very smart They lack the intellectual skills that promote executive functions ie discriminatory thinking, logical thinking skills, and ethical thinking skills This results in a pretty fucked up electorate Kimmel does some interesting "questions on the street" and it's amazing what people come up with Again sad and sickening A country in decline for sure And the Nazis want to ban the Dept of Education!!!
Gary
I have always been a fan of yours with huge respect and admiration for your life story and your dogged combat against Vladimir Putin. Also, as a recently invited guest of Uriel and Caitlin to the Heroes in Democracy Gala in NYC I see that your RDI is doing excellent work against other tyrants in the world be they in Iran or Venezuela as well as in my native Zimbabwe. That said I am finding my respect and admiration being tested somewhat when seeing how you seem to be applying RDI principles also to the United States. I got a good giggle over your comment that under Trump we are witnessing “the Putinization of America” but when I read your warning in The Atlantic article (“How America can Avoid Becoming Russia”) I really had to ask myself how seriously to take this: America, democratic from its inception, against Russia (feudalism, communism, oligarchy). Maybe you’re comparing them as oligarchies but even that would be a huge stretch. I think I’ll take this injunction more seriously once Trump starts murdering his opponents and has uppity journalists shot dead in their apartments. When last did you see a televised cabinet meeting in the Kremlin? For that matter, during the Biden term, in the White House? So, sorry Gary, I’m not on board your blanket beating of the drum of Resistance to Trump. I don’t (and won’t ever) own a MAGA cap but given the binary choices of the last three election cycles—and the combined opacity, mendacity and criminality of the Democrats in each case—Trump seemed to be the rational choice in each. Noting, finally, that in referring to people like me you have outbid both Hillary (“Deplorables”) and Biden (“Garbage”) by referring to us as “Traitors”. That’s fine but I do have to ask how you rack that up against your otherwise very nice Substack invitation for commentators to disagree with you but to do so without being “disagreeable”?
I look forward to sticking with this platform to follow its lively interchanges. Cheers.
Ian Hume
Ian—thank you for sharing your thoughts, though we may not see eye to eye. I've responded to your comment in my latest piece: https://thenextmove.substack.com/p/keeping-the-conversation-moving
OK, I'll try to make the case you have misunderstood where Obama went wrong. (I don't disagree that he made mistakes.)
1. Obama’s ineffective foreign policy was hamstrung by Republicans. They conspicuously refused to support any action after Assad used chemical weapons. Obama had intended at least some sort of symbolic strike at the Syrian military. You also have to remember that he was entering a situation complicated by the worst foreign policy blunder of American history: the invasion of Iraq.
2. Obama made a serious error in not punishing Wall Street for the 2008 meltdown. But we'll never know how successful this would have been. Donald Trump shows how difficult it is to prosecute white-collar crime in this country.
3. Obama made a serious error in not punishing the people responsible for torture and other war crimes in Iraq. But in this, he ran up against the popular but perverse version of American exceptionalism: everyone has to follow the rules, except the United States of America.
4. Obama was constrained by race issues. I know it's become popular to pretend we are in a post-racist society, but nobody is saying Trump was born in Germany and isn't a natural born citizen. I think that's where a lot of his compromising attitude came from, but he was dealing with Mitch McConnell, who drank his milkshake on numerous occasions. Obama was aspirational at a time this didn't really match the Zeitgeist.
5. I suppose we can blame Obama for pushing Biden out of the 2016 race in favor of Hillary, but I'd put most of the blame there on Clinton, and in second place the mainstream media. You'll notice that all the stuff about the email server was concocted; compare to treatment of Hegseth's Signal chat. The media is easy to play these days, when MAGA can promise eyeballs if you follow their narrative.
I have a completely different analysis than you. I would rather say that the following three things have gotten us into this pickle:
1) A very effective right wing media apparatus, centered on Fox News and right wing news radio, but also extending all the way out to influential persons such as yourself who have turned the Democratic Party brand somewhat toxic among a large subset of people.
2) A longstanding disregard for the law and the Constitution by the Executive and Congress. Examples: pardoning Nixon, manipulating the intelligence to go to war in Iraq, Gitmo, drone attacks on civilians in other countries (allegedly some of them terrorists), and supporting Israel's ongoing genocidal assault on Gaza.
3) People such as yourself who have a personal dislike for the Democratic Party, and would thus presumably never vote Democrat. While law-breaking and attacks on human rights have taken place under Democratic presidents, it has been generally much less than that under Republican presidents.
I don't necessarily disagree with you that Obama could have handled Syria or the Russian takeover of Crimea better. But, I don't see any connection between those international situations and Trump being elected to office twice.
The idea that Obama was some innocent naif is ridiculous to anyone who has heard him speak. You can certainly disagree with the man's decisions - you obviously do - but the man is very intelligent and he worked hard throughout the presidency (compare with George W. Bush or Trump). I would say that your criticisms of him have nothing to do with experience, but are rather that he didn't act boldly.
I've subscribed, because I think you're very smart, but I have deep reservations about your commitment to liberal democracy, emphasis on liberal. I honestly think you have a natural inclination for the type of government which you experienced in your youth - a powerful executive - and I have found this to be generally the case for ex-patriot Russians. For another example, ex-patriot Russians in Israel are reported to be among the most conservative of Israelis.
What do I mean by conservative? A conservative is a person who has a definite tribe. You are inside the tribe or outside the tribe. Those outside the tribe are not to be considered as having full rights as a human being. To varying degrees, you can do whatever you want with them. In the worst possible case, you can kill them. In the best possible case, you might only discriminate against them.
A liberal believes that all human beings have the same intrinsic rights, even those in other countries or outside of the perceived tribe. That's the difference between a conservative and a liberal. Obviously, you will find exceptions where liberals did conservative things, and conservatives did liberal things.
With regard to your comment about Obama, I agree that there were many failures of his administration, particularly in the area of foreign affairs. However, I don’t ascribe that to arrogance or lack of seriousness. I tend to think that Obama’s personality is one of caution, perhaps over-caution. Not to be too flip, but sometimes it’s better to be Captain Kirk than Mr. Spock.
My heart sank and my confidence in Obama the moment he appointed Geitner to Treasury. To me, this was his worst mistake; I even trace back the Dem’s subsequent defeat to this ONE decision. If Eliz.Warren had been Geitner’s boss and not vice versa, everything might have played out differently. Am I being too simplistic? Is this merely a projection of my own indignation and frustration (and ultimately despair) regarding the banks and subprime victims who speculated and lost their homes? I honestly would like to know what others think. I’ve always been surprised that this is not talked about more and given the weight I give it. To me this was an egregious instance of not being attentive to ordinary people. It concerned not only those who lost materially, it sent a signal that even Obama for his inspirational talk did not care enough: while the rest of us suffered the consequences of the 2008 crash, those responsible were not only not punished but continued to receive obscenely large bonus!
Very good point! Thank you!