In 2022, I had a fairly long one on one conversation with a woman running for congress as a democrat in NY state- she lost by a small margin. She told me that she agreed with me about the excesses of covid restrictions, such as keeping schools closed for over a year and masking children- including toddlers. Her children attended public school and she agreed that there was too much transgender ideology in the readings and the lessons, and she understood why parents didn't like it. She said that as a democrat candidate you are not allowed to question any of the big blue issues- or you wont get DNC money.
Definitely you can't criticize long school closures during covid. Definitely you can't push back on transgender ideology in schools. She said they gave her a list of 10 issues to talk about and that was it, and if you went off script, especially in the primary, you would be cut off from money.
Good points, and Democrats would be wise to consider them. But there is a major underlying elephant in the room that undergirds all "positions" or issues that might involve more pluralism, and that is the post-New Deal/post-Great Society bedrock of Democrat thought that government is essentially a good and positive thing to be celebrated. The mood of the country after the Mortgage Crisis, two wars, out-of-control hideous abuse of the legal and judicial system under Biden, and overreach by virtually every single agency---combined with the utter incompetence of FEMA---has people much, much closer to Reagan's line that the eight most dangerous words: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Aside from a congressman securing a DoD form for my mother-in-law, I cannot recall a single thing government specifically has done for me. Yeah, roads, utilities, etc. And some states are better than others, and some towns better than others. But looking at NY, CA, and IL, no one can say the government is "there to help."
I think this is a major, major hurdle that will not demand Democrats just rebuke the Obama-Biden years, but reject the previous sixty years, just as Republicans did under Trump (which is why they are winning).
If we (you apparently aren't one of us) reject everything we believe in, what's the good of winning? Also, we wouldn't win. Why would someone vote for a Democrat who simply mimicked GOP positions? If it's really impossible to win without becoming a complete DINO, why not just retire from politics?
A majority of the public favors cutting back on public programs - but only the programs they individually don't benefit from. The hard reality is that we're getting what a large majority of people want: lots of government goodies without the taxes to pay for them.
You lost me at "out-of-control hideous abuse of the legal and judicial system under Biden." Being pluralistic doesn't mean accepting Trumpist conspiracy mongers in our midst.
The last 60 years includes Reagan, so this doesn't make much sense. Reagan is also the father of neoliberalism, which the whole current political milieu (including MAGA) is a backlash against, so this also misses the gist of what's currently transpiring in US politics.
And the quickest route to electoral irrelevance is to try to roll back the New Deal. Polls of all political demographics show people overwhelmingly support social support and social insurance programs. They vary only in degree. But, by all means, try, and hand the Dems the keys to perennial victory.
The Democrats should NOT get credit for being sensitive to LGB issues. Actual LGB individuals who disagree with any aspect of woke dogma get the same abusive treatment as do black people, Hispanic people, and any other dissenters. Democrats should also NOT be given credit for being "liberal." The party has been overtaken by authoritarian cultists and is no longer a liberal organization. The main political problem in the U.S. is the tyranny of self-righteous authoritarians who seek to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else, but the Democrats are currently worse than the Republicans in this respect. That is why I didn't vote for them in November, and don't plan to vote for them again.
Gay men, bisexuals and lesbians who do not agree with the Democratic Party's embrace of gender identity ideology in general and its celebration of "trans kids" (a myth) in general will never feel fully at home in the party. And that's if they're just observers. If they want to be active in the party, they're expected to toe the line on all things trans.
Two Democrats who should lead the party if winning is the goal. Dream ticket for normies: John Fetterman + Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and I shouldn't even be saying this as I really like Vance so far. Still, I used to be a Democrat and would love to see them embrace their historical role. It was an important role.
My highest priority (among many) for representation at the national level is being committed to national defense in concert with reliable allies. In that regard, I would particularly hope that the Democrats would do as they attempted to do for the 1952 Presidential election to replace Harry Truman (one of my favorite Democratic Presidents). That was to nominate a retired high-ranking military officer with proven administrative ability and indisputable commitment to the U.S. Constitution.
My understanding is that both parties at the time approached Dwight Eisenhower for the position, and the rest is history. (It is ironic that at the time, he was the president of Columbia University, and history has revealed how much things have changed there and throughout higher academia.)
My dream ticket would be a high-ranking retired officer such a William McRaven, David Petraeus, or James Stavridis, together with a woman highly qualified in international affairs such as Condoleezza Rice or Nikki Haley. (I consider their gender and ancestry to be irrelevant in terms of their ability to protect American interests, but beneficial in terms of their electability.)
You want someone who fought as a captain or below, then. No senior officer gets very close to actual action. And acting as expeditionary insurgent fighters isn't much like war as practiced in say, Ukraine. Senior leadership doesn't do the things we usually associate with generals nowadays.
Except as may have been perverted by the Biden/Harris administration's DEI policy -- and as recognized by officers aspiring to high level command positions -- actual service in combat units is a strong positive factor in promotion to the highest level positions. The officers whom I mentioned as good candidates for the Presidency are like Dwight Eisenhower (and unlike Donald Trump or Kamala Harris) in meeting that criterion.
Although I regard actual combat experience as a relevant credential for higher level government service, I don't regard it as essential. Neither Condoleezza Rice nor Nikki Haley served as military officers, but from my perspective as having done so myself at an admittedly junior level, I recognize their proven ability to support the interests of the United States and all nations in peaceful self-determination.
And for those who regard my advocacy of peace through deterrence (with a proven willingness to use military strength in "outlying" places like Afghanistan and Yemen) I would like to know just what they would prefer as the alternative. Would that be a world "policed" by the United Nations? Or one dominated by countries such as China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran?
You realize that most people associated with the MIC are diehard neocons, right? After all the ludicrous wars of the past 25 years, this is a very unpopular viewpoint. Lots of material to attack them with.
Trump is pretty much the only guy in town even remotely associated with defense who shakes the label of neocon off. And even he is a little questionable on that point.
I'm being nice by not saying "neocon warmonger". Woops. Oh, and I did Iraq in 07/08. I'm not a pacifist by far, but our leadership sucks on this point. For the last 100+ years it's been virtually impossible to be for a strong defense and not interested in manipulating US military dominance into creating a global mercantile empire on the backs of the poor and minorities who actually serve. Smedley Butler had it just right.
Your definition of a "diehard neocon" is -- to me -- as vaguely defined an insult as being labeled a "racist" by ignorant left-wing "anti-racist" ideologues.
In expressing admiration for Dwight Eisenhower as an example of the type of leader who should be nominated by ANY political party for the Presidency, one of his qualities that I am now prompted to specifically acknowledge was his understanding of the potential ability of the MIC (the "military/industrial complex" for the benefit of people not familiar with such jargon) to "play politics" to devote "excessive" resources to the production of weapons systems.
Two components of such a misallocation of scarce taxpayer dollars are (1) producing more and more sophisticated weapons than are "necessary" to deter aggression (however that is measured), and (2) doing so in a way that is not "cost-effective" (particularly by placing excessive emphasis on awarding contracts to companies located in the districts of the most powerful members of Congress).
Having a background in economics as well as military service, I recognize the importance of cost-effectiveness in EVERY government program. But having been one of those lower level officers serving on a front line combat unit myself, I would much rather see too many taxpayer dollars -- rather than too few -- allocated to providing our armed forces with the absolute best equipment, than to see them defeated by enemies that have some combination of numerical superiority (as in the case of the Chinese) or a fanatical desire to die to achieve immortality (as in the case of extreme Islamists).
And as I said in a nearby post -- if you don't like the idea of the U.S. (in conjunction with its allies) maintaining credible military deterrence against aggression -- then what would you prefer?
I was active in Republican Party activities several decades ago. One of my observations that is probably still applicable to all political parties is that the "party faithful" develop the attitude of "my party right or wrong." They work their way up in the party apparatus by supporting any and all of the candidates who end up being nominated.
That makes sense from the strictly partisan standpoint of winning majority control of government. But from the standpoint of clarifying to "casual" voters what policies they could expect by voting straight party tickets, it would be useful for parties to adopt a transparency rule, whereby each element of a party platform would require the approval of some super-majority of party activists -- say, 80% -- and candidates would be expected to support the platform if elected. That figure is consistent with Ronald Reagan's advice that you should be able to cooperate politically with anybody who agrees with you 80% of the time.
I am in nearly complete agreement with the 16 principles of government policy advocated by Ruy Teixeira in his November 7 article on "The Shattering of the Democratic Coalition."
I can't think of many Democrats or Republicans who would agree to even 80 percent of those principles -- which is why I am an independent with a willingness to support the few candidates of either party or no party who are.
How many times are you guys going to write the same article with the same analysis of the problems of the Party and the same prescriptions for turning it around? There is a lot more about your Party that needs fixing before I would consider casting my lot with it.
True, but being an optimist, I do read your "stuff" in the hope that you would have something new and interesting to say. When you don't, it's not unreasonable for me to be disappointed.
I became a paying subscriber in the hope that I might learn something. It's become apparent that you guys just want to repeat the same thing over and over again. It's now apparent that you don't really care if I read your stuff or not. You're not interested in what I might have to say. A perfect example of the attitude that has left you in the current ditch. Can I get a refund on my membership?
Don't bother to issue me a refund but I do think this site is completely mislabeled. Is there anything "liberal" you endorse? When I subscribed, I thought I was going to learn how the center left could trim the more ill advised positions of the left and use language that was more inclusive of cultural conservatives while advancing the basic goals of helping the 1/3 of the nation that has little, environmental protection, maintaining a strong safety net for everyone, being a good neighbor to the rest of the world and racial and sexual equality. Instead I am being lectured by people who don't believe in any of the goals of modern liberals as to how to adopt positions that would have been rejected by FDR in 1936. In order to achieve what?
I joined for an opportunity to engage on issues without being subject to cancellation. I have not been disappointed though I am often puzzled by the authors.
Who, with any critical thought, would want to associate with a party that embraces, even celebrates abortion for any reason, at any time, as often as needed, no questions asked? Just read (not even watch) the description of a typical third trimester abortion (let alone, day of birth), and tell me you have no problems with this (absent the mother's life being at stake). Oh what a dim view this party has of people, to think they can go on relying on this banality of evil. But hey, Trump is Hitler, right, so we're good.
As a voter, I am much less interested in whether Democrats or Republicans win elections, than I am in having some notion of what policies I am voting for. Why would I vote for a pig in a poke? I say this acknowledging that no ideological faction can command a majority and that party affiliation is, in effect, an identity for the reliable Democrats and Republicans on a short term basis anyway. Say what you will about the Democrats, they are at least loyal to their own base. You can't say that about Republican politicians though that may be changing.
I am not enamored of a parliamentary system either where the coalitions are formed after the election and you still don't know what package of policies you are getting for your vote. Consider the the upcoming German election where the CDU leader has said he would form a coalition with the Social Democrats to maintain the freeze against AfD. Why on earth would any conservative or social democrat vote for "their" party knowing the likely outcome. The Social Democrats are still pretending that they and their natural allies among the Greens and the Left can win but I am not sure anyone believes this. And what happens if the combined CDU and Social Democrat vote doesn't produce a majority. Then they are forced into an unnatural coalition like the one that just collapsed.
Lest I be thought to be a whiner that suggests no solution, let me suggest that the problem is that the US (and Germany and anything above the level of Lichtenstein) are simply too big to have a stable government. You get monocultures like Japan that may manage it but that sort of thing is rare today. South Korea is a monoculture but is distinctly not stable. If China were not a dictatorship, it would be an interesting case. I suspect there are unseen coalitions within the CCP that shift around when it comes to policy making.
As I sit in Berlin, I think your views on the German election are correct except I think that having messy coalition governments is not such a bad thing. Maybe there will be a very messy Union/SPD/Green government and they will have a terrible time but, as you say, large countries may be inherently ungovernable.
Divided government has its charms but the ideal would be if the Establishment parties do poorly enough that they can't make a majority, even combined and have to include one of thr "extremist " parties. That would be instability squared. Probably be BSW but what would the price be? Would they pursue their domestic agenda or their foreign policy agenda?
Until the dem party pulls in a Joe Manchin type leader to show the disenfranchised dems that the party is really on their side, the dems will have tough time nationally. Even locally a Manchin type will have a tough time. I group (20-30 in number and over 65 in age)I meet with each week to discuss daily goings on are so far left that they discount what any of we three conservatives in group have to say, even when we can point to 'facts'. My step daughter, when I give her facts, wants to know the source, and instead of reading my source, she looks to see where the source stands on her sturdy scale of 'to the right or to the left'. If it's to the right it's discounted and ignored. So lots of luck in changing the minds of the entrenched.
The difficulty for Democrats is that they are no longer a liberal party, but a Leftist, even Leninist, Party. The positions they hold are part of their identity, therefore not open to compromise. That's especially true now that the base is wealthy professionals. Adopt an unorthodox position and you are not merely an outlier. You're a heretic, and you're no longer really a wealthy professional welcome at dinner parties. It's about remaining a member of the club.
For Democrats to become relevant again they would have to adopt Trump's platform. But because Democrats are so easily triggered into Trump derangement, they will continue to resist.
What would be the point of continuing to work in politics if they are just going to adopt Trump's platform? Why don't you say what you mean which is the the Democrats should simply drop dead?
Name a key element of Trump's platform that is non-Democrat from a perspective of the history of the Democrat party. Most, if not all, of the Trump agenda are goals previously supported by Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden before he became a cabbage on puppet strings in the White House. Democrat went bat-shit crazy with woke BS and pulled the party way left of the American voter. To get back to being a viable party, they are going to have to back to being normal Democrats and that is basically about what Trump is.
Well, let's see, we don't actually know what all he will propose but as of now there are suggestions to 1) Pass tax cuts that substantially favor the very wealthy, 2) Gut efforts to protect the planet from greenhouse gases, 3) open up public lands to development by fossil fuel companies to an extent that would have outraged two Roosevelts and Harold Ickes, 4)Return the U.S. to an isolationist "American First" policy that contradicts much of what FDR fought for 5) Abandon efforts to benefit the poor 1/3 See FDR Second Inaugural Address 6) re-segregate the school system through subsidies to private schools 7) wreck health insurance, 8) undercut social security, the Wagner Labor Relations Act, the Securities Exchange Commission and the independence of the Federal Reserve. I am sure I am missing a number of things. I recognize that he has not done all the bad things that any of his supporters have favored (yet) and denies that he wants to do all these things. I sure hope that Trump begins working to achieve the goals of FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Humphrey, Carter, Clinton and Obama and only junks the "woke BS" but things don't look good for that now.
No wars and to oppose the industrial military complex
Focus on domestic issues rather than funding the global order
Tariffs to support domestic workers
Opposition to politician and government graft and corruption
The only thing that modern Democrat have in common with the past is spending like drunken sailors. This is probably the only real difference between what the Trump agenda is today and what the old Democrats used to support. Trump is committed to cut government spending and that is at least a common GOP platform idea if never acted on because of the necons in the GOP like all the spending.
It seems very obvious that the Party restrictin itself ever more to urban centers and wealthy suburbs has basically written itself out of large swathes of electoral geography, which structually puts itself on back foot.
Rather than wishy washy 'tolerating' of rural / small town District Reps they need to expand and open up, and get back to have a bigger tent. Notably on Cultural issues where really evidently this was pushed too far.
Mr. Baharaeen, your idea of a coalition does not match the current Democratic Party definition of a coalition. You think of a coalition as an alliance of people and groups that share certain values and see the alliance as a way to advance those shared values while receiving support (or at the very least non-interference) from the alliance for their particular parochial interests. The current Democratic Party definition is a cult of people and groups who pledge irrevocable loyalty to the coalition. Because their loyalty, once given, is considered irrevocable, the coalition can demand their total conformity to the values approved by the coalition and can ignore their particular parochial interests, secure in the knowledge that they can never leave the coalition. The thinking is, "What are the [African-Americans, Latinx, LGBTQQ+, AAPI, womyn, etc.] going to do, vote Republican?"
One of the main problems facing the Democratic Party today is its sheer disbelief that the members of their unbreakable and inescapable coalition could, would, and did vote Republican because the Democratic Party ignored not only their particular parochial interests but the interests they perceived as shared by most Americans regardless of party affiliation. It's great that Bernie Sanders thinks the Democratic Party paid too much attention to "cultural" issues, but he still remains an opponent of free markets and capitalism, and that makes him as toxic to the long-term health of the Democratic Party as those who cling to "cultural" issues along withj anti-capitalism.
“There is probably no combination of total viewpoints that commands a majority. To win, your coalition has to be heterodox.”
No, no, no. To win, you have to ensure that the populace is indoctrinated with the correct set of beliefs. This is why anyone who expresses different beliefs must be cancelled, and anyone who expresses different beliefs within the Party must either confess error and be reeducated or be purged. This is also why all the institutions of education and culture must be controlled by people who are totally loyal to the Party and completely conform to all of its approved beliefs; those who do not conform to those beliefs, like parents or customers or audiences, must be ostracized, shut down, or sanctioned as retrograde reactionaries.
The people who demand purity of thought, word and deed are more committed than you, more active than you, and more disciplined than you, and so long as you choose to keep them in your coalition, they will work tirelessly to reshape your coalition - and all of its organizational and individual members - to be good, conformist, obedient Party members according to their definition of the Party.
In 2022, I had a fairly long one on one conversation with a woman running for congress as a democrat in NY state- she lost by a small margin. She told me that she agreed with me about the excesses of covid restrictions, such as keeping schools closed for over a year and masking children- including toddlers. Her children attended public school and she agreed that there was too much transgender ideology in the readings and the lessons, and she understood why parents didn't like it. She said that as a democrat candidate you are not allowed to question any of the big blue issues- or you wont get DNC money.
Definitely you can't criticize long school closures during covid. Definitely you can't push back on transgender ideology in schools. She said they gave her a list of 10 issues to talk about and that was it, and if you went off script, especially in the primary, you would be cut off from money.
Good points, and Democrats would be wise to consider them. But there is a major underlying elephant in the room that undergirds all "positions" or issues that might involve more pluralism, and that is the post-New Deal/post-Great Society bedrock of Democrat thought that government is essentially a good and positive thing to be celebrated. The mood of the country after the Mortgage Crisis, two wars, out-of-control hideous abuse of the legal and judicial system under Biden, and overreach by virtually every single agency---combined with the utter incompetence of FEMA---has people much, much closer to Reagan's line that the eight most dangerous words: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Aside from a congressman securing a DoD form for my mother-in-law, I cannot recall a single thing government specifically has done for me. Yeah, roads, utilities, etc. And some states are better than others, and some towns better than others. But looking at NY, CA, and IL, no one can say the government is "there to help."
I think this is a major, major hurdle that will not demand Democrats just rebuke the Obama-Biden years, but reject the previous sixty years, just as Republicans did under Trump (which is why they are winning).
If we (you apparently aren't one of us) reject everything we believe in, what's the good of winning? Also, we wouldn't win. Why would someone vote for a Democrat who simply mimicked GOP positions? If it's really impossible to win without becoming a complete DINO, why not just retire from politics?
A majority of the public favors cutting back on public programs - but only the programs they individually don't benefit from. The hard reality is that we're getting what a large majority of people want: lots of government goodies without the taxes to pay for them.
You lost me at "out-of-control hideous abuse of the legal and judicial system under Biden." Being pluralistic doesn't mean accepting Trumpist conspiracy mongers in our midst.
Yeap. It's easier to break things down and complain than to build things that work.
In other words, return to something of a Clintonian idea of triangulation. Definitely think that’s feasible. Let’s see how it shakes out.
The last 60 years includes Reagan, so this doesn't make much sense. Reagan is also the father of neoliberalism, which the whole current political milieu (including MAGA) is a backlash against, so this also misses the gist of what's currently transpiring in US politics.
And the quickest route to electoral irrelevance is to try to roll back the New Deal. Polls of all political demographics show people overwhelmingly support social support and social insurance programs. They vary only in degree. But, by all means, try, and hand the Dems the keys to perennial victory.
The Democrats should NOT get credit for being sensitive to LGB issues. Actual LGB individuals who disagree with any aspect of woke dogma get the same abusive treatment as do black people, Hispanic people, and any other dissenters. Democrats should also NOT be given credit for being "liberal." The party has been overtaken by authoritarian cultists and is no longer a liberal organization. The main political problem in the U.S. is the tyranny of self-righteous authoritarians who seek to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else, but the Democrats are currently worse than the Republicans in this respect. That is why I didn't vote for them in November, and don't plan to vote for them again.
Gay men, bisexuals and lesbians who do not agree with the Democratic Party's embrace of gender identity ideology in general and its celebration of "trans kids" (a myth) in general will never feel fully at home in the party. And that's if they're just observers. If they want to be active in the party, they're expected to toe the line on all things trans.
Two Democrats who should lead the party if winning is the goal. Dream ticket for normies: John Fetterman + Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and I shouldn't even be saying this as I really like Vance so far. Still, I used to be a Democrat and would love to see them embrace their historical role. It was an important role.
My highest priority (among many) for representation at the national level is being committed to national defense in concert with reliable allies. In that regard, I would particularly hope that the Democrats would do as they attempted to do for the 1952 Presidential election to replace Harry Truman (one of my favorite Democratic Presidents). That was to nominate a retired high-ranking military officer with proven administrative ability and indisputable commitment to the U.S. Constitution.
My understanding is that both parties at the time approached Dwight Eisenhower for the position, and the rest is history. (It is ironic that at the time, he was the president of Columbia University, and history has revealed how much things have changed there and throughout higher academia.)
My dream ticket would be a high-ranking retired officer such a William McRaven, David Petraeus, or James Stavridis, together with a woman highly qualified in international affairs such as Condoleezza Rice or Nikki Haley. (I consider their gender and ancestry to be irrelevant in terms of their ability to protect American interests, but beneficial in terms of their electability.)
For me, I want a military commander that has seen actual battle. I've had enough of the other.
You want someone who fought as a captain or below, then. No senior officer gets very close to actual action. And acting as expeditionary insurgent fighters isn't much like war as practiced in say, Ukraine. Senior leadership doesn't do the things we usually associate with generals nowadays.
Except as may have been perverted by the Biden/Harris administration's DEI policy -- and as recognized by officers aspiring to high level command positions -- actual service in combat units is a strong positive factor in promotion to the highest level positions. The officers whom I mentioned as good candidates for the Presidency are like Dwight Eisenhower (and unlike Donald Trump or Kamala Harris) in meeting that criterion.
Although I regard actual combat experience as a relevant credential for higher level government service, I don't regard it as essential. Neither Condoleezza Rice nor Nikki Haley served as military officers, but from my perspective as having done so myself at an admittedly junior level, I recognize their proven ability to support the interests of the United States and all nations in peaceful self-determination.
And for those who regard my advocacy of peace through deterrence (with a proven willingness to use military strength in "outlying" places like Afghanistan and Yemen) I would like to know just what they would prefer as the alternative. Would that be a world "policed" by the United Nations? Or one dominated by countries such as China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran?
You realize that most people associated with the MIC are diehard neocons, right? After all the ludicrous wars of the past 25 years, this is a very unpopular viewpoint. Lots of material to attack them with.
Trump is pretty much the only guy in town even remotely associated with defense who shakes the label of neocon off. And even he is a little questionable on that point.
I'm being nice by not saying "neocon warmonger". Woops. Oh, and I did Iraq in 07/08. I'm not a pacifist by far, but our leadership sucks on this point. For the last 100+ years it's been virtually impossible to be for a strong defense and not interested in manipulating US military dominance into creating a global mercantile empire on the backs of the poor and minorities who actually serve. Smedley Butler had it just right.
Your definition of a "diehard neocon" is -- to me -- as vaguely defined an insult as being labeled a "racist" by ignorant left-wing "anti-racist" ideologues.
In expressing admiration for Dwight Eisenhower as an example of the type of leader who should be nominated by ANY political party for the Presidency, one of his qualities that I am now prompted to specifically acknowledge was his understanding of the potential ability of the MIC (the "military/industrial complex" for the benefit of people not familiar with such jargon) to "play politics" to devote "excessive" resources to the production of weapons systems.
Two components of such a misallocation of scarce taxpayer dollars are (1) producing more and more sophisticated weapons than are "necessary" to deter aggression (however that is measured), and (2) doing so in a way that is not "cost-effective" (particularly by placing excessive emphasis on awarding contracts to companies located in the districts of the most powerful members of Congress).
Having a background in economics as well as military service, I recognize the importance of cost-effectiveness in EVERY government program. But having been one of those lower level officers serving on a front line combat unit myself, I would much rather see too many taxpayer dollars -- rather than too few -- allocated to providing our armed forces with the absolute best equipment, than to see them defeated by enemies that have some combination of numerical superiority (as in the case of the Chinese) or a fanatical desire to die to achieve immortality (as in the case of extreme Islamists).
And as I said in a nearby post -- if you don't like the idea of the U.S. (in conjunction with its allies) maintaining credible military deterrence against aggression -- then what would you prefer?
The bad news for your dream ticket is that life is just too easy sitting on the board of Raytheon to make jumping into a presidential race appealing.
I was active in Republican Party activities several decades ago. One of my observations that is probably still applicable to all political parties is that the "party faithful" develop the attitude of "my party right or wrong." They work their way up in the party apparatus by supporting any and all of the candidates who end up being nominated.
That makes sense from the strictly partisan standpoint of winning majority control of government. But from the standpoint of clarifying to "casual" voters what policies they could expect by voting straight party tickets, it would be useful for parties to adopt a transparency rule, whereby each element of a party platform would require the approval of some super-majority of party activists -- say, 80% -- and candidates would be expected to support the platform if elected. That figure is consistent with Ronald Reagan's advice that you should be able to cooperate politically with anybody who agrees with you 80% of the time.
To expand on my comment on a personal basis...
I am in nearly complete agreement with the 16 principles of government policy advocated by Ruy Teixeira in his November 7 article on "The Shattering of the Democratic Coalition."
I can't think of many Democrats or Republicans who would agree to even 80 percent of those principles -- which is why I am an independent with a willingness to support the few candidates of either party or no party who are.
How many times are you guys going to write the same article with the same analysis of the problems of the Party and the same prescriptions for turning it around? There is a lot more about your Party that needs fixing before I would consider casting my lot with it.
No one is forcing you to read our stuff!
True, but being an optimist, I do read your "stuff" in the hope that you would have something new and interesting to say. When you don't, it's not unreasonable for me to be disappointed.
I became a paying subscriber in the hope that I might learn something. It's become apparent that you guys just want to repeat the same thing over and over again. It's now apparent that you don't really care if I read your stuff or not. You're not interested in what I might have to say. A perfect example of the attitude that has left you in the current ditch. Can I get a refund on my membership?
Refund issued
Don't bother to issue me a refund but I do think this site is completely mislabeled. Is there anything "liberal" you endorse? When I subscribed, I thought I was going to learn how the center left could trim the more ill advised positions of the left and use language that was more inclusive of cultural conservatives while advancing the basic goals of helping the 1/3 of the nation that has little, environmental protection, maintaining a strong safety net for everyone, being a good neighbor to the rest of the world and racial and sexual equality. Instead I am being lectured by people who don't believe in any of the goals of modern liberals as to how to adopt positions that would have been rejected by FDR in 1936. In order to achieve what?
https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/the-rise-of-the-neo-universalists
https://substack.com/@johnhalpin/p-49492486
I joined for an opportunity to engage on issues without being subject to cancellation. I have not been disappointed though I am often puzzled by the authors.
Who, with any critical thought, would want to associate with a party that embraces, even celebrates abortion for any reason, at any time, as often as needed, no questions asked? Just read (not even watch) the description of a typical third trimester abortion (let alone, day of birth), and tell me you have no problems with this (absent the mother's life being at stake). Oh what a dim view this party has of people, to think they can go on relying on this banality of evil. But hey, Trump is Hitler, right, so we're good.
As a voter, I am much less interested in whether Democrats or Republicans win elections, than I am in having some notion of what policies I am voting for. Why would I vote for a pig in a poke? I say this acknowledging that no ideological faction can command a majority and that party affiliation is, in effect, an identity for the reliable Democrats and Republicans on a short term basis anyway. Say what you will about the Democrats, they are at least loyal to their own base. You can't say that about Republican politicians though that may be changing.
I am not enamored of a parliamentary system either where the coalitions are formed after the election and you still don't know what package of policies you are getting for your vote. Consider the the upcoming German election where the CDU leader has said he would form a coalition with the Social Democrats to maintain the freeze against AfD. Why on earth would any conservative or social democrat vote for "their" party knowing the likely outcome. The Social Democrats are still pretending that they and their natural allies among the Greens and the Left can win but I am not sure anyone believes this. And what happens if the combined CDU and Social Democrat vote doesn't produce a majority. Then they are forced into an unnatural coalition like the one that just collapsed.
Lest I be thought to be a whiner that suggests no solution, let me suggest that the problem is that the US (and Germany and anything above the level of Lichtenstein) are simply too big to have a stable government. You get monocultures like Japan that may manage it but that sort of thing is rare today. South Korea is a monoculture but is distinctly not stable. If China were not a dictatorship, it would be an interesting case. I suspect there are unseen coalitions within the CCP that shift around when it comes to policy making.
As I sit in Berlin, I think your views on the German election are correct except I think that having messy coalition governments is not such a bad thing. Maybe there will be a very messy Union/SPD/Green government and they will have a terrible time but, as you say, large countries may be inherently ungovernable.
Divided government has its charms but the ideal would be if the Establishment parties do poorly enough that they can't make a majority, even combined and have to include one of thr "extremist " parties. That would be instability squared. Probably be BSW but what would the price be? Would they pursue their domestic agenda or their foreign policy agenda?
Until the dem party pulls in a Joe Manchin type leader to show the disenfranchised dems that the party is really on their side, the dems will have tough time nationally. Even locally a Manchin type will have a tough time. I group (20-30 in number and over 65 in age)I meet with each week to discuss daily goings on are so far left that they discount what any of we three conservatives in group have to say, even when we can point to 'facts'. My step daughter, when I give her facts, wants to know the source, and instead of reading my source, she looks to see where the source stands on her sturdy scale of 'to the right or to the left'. If it's to the right it's discounted and ignored. So lots of luck in changing the minds of the entrenched.
The difficulty for Democrats is that they are no longer a liberal party, but a Leftist, even Leninist, Party. The positions they hold are part of their identity, therefore not open to compromise. That's especially true now that the base is wealthy professionals. Adopt an unorthodox position and you are not merely an outlier. You're a heretic, and you're no longer really a wealthy professional welcome at dinner parties. It's about remaining a member of the club.
For Democrats to become relevant again they would have to adopt Trump's platform. But because Democrats are so easily triggered into Trump derangement, they will continue to resist.
What would be the point of continuing to work in politics if they are just going to adopt Trump's platform? Why don't you say what you mean which is the the Democrats should simply drop dead?
Name a key element of Trump's platform that is non-Democrat from a perspective of the history of the Democrat party. Most, if not all, of the Trump agenda are goals previously supported by Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden before he became a cabbage on puppet strings in the White House. Democrat went bat-shit crazy with woke BS and pulled the party way left of the American voter. To get back to being a viable party, they are going to have to back to being normal Democrats and that is basically about what Trump is.
Well, let's see, we don't actually know what all he will propose but as of now there are suggestions to 1) Pass tax cuts that substantially favor the very wealthy, 2) Gut efforts to protect the planet from greenhouse gases, 3) open up public lands to development by fossil fuel companies to an extent that would have outraged two Roosevelts and Harold Ickes, 4)Return the U.S. to an isolationist "American First" policy that contradicts much of what FDR fought for 5) Abandon efforts to benefit the poor 1/3 See FDR Second Inaugural Address 6) re-segregate the school system through subsidies to private schools 7) wreck health insurance, 8) undercut social security, the Wagner Labor Relations Act, the Securities Exchange Commission and the independence of the Federal Reserve. I am sure I am missing a number of things. I recognize that he has not done all the bad things that any of his supporters have favored (yet) and denies that he wants to do all these things. I sure hope that Trump begins working to achieve the goals of FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Humphrey, Carter, Clinton and Obama and only junks the "woke BS" but things don't look good for that now.
Most of that is hogwash in terms of Trump’s agenda, but that which is accurate Democrats used to support.
What did we used to support that is part of Trump's agenda?
Controlled borders
Inexpensive energy
Small business advocacy
Family values
Opposition to corporate consolidation
Opposition to huge banks and Wall Street control
Working class economic benefits over the wealthy
Minority economic benefits over the wealthy
Low crime
Free speech
Traditional family values
Equality and not racism (DEI killed it)
No wars and to oppose the industrial military complex
Focus on domestic issues rather than funding the global order
Tariffs to support domestic workers
Opposition to politician and government graft and corruption
The only thing that modern Democrat have in common with the past is spending like drunken sailors. This is probably the only real difference between what the Trump agenda is today and what the old Democrats used to support. Trump is committed to cut government spending and that is at least a common GOP platform idea if never acted on because of the necons in the GOP like all the spending.
It seems very obvious that the Party restrictin itself ever more to urban centers and wealthy suburbs has basically written itself out of large swathes of electoral geography, which structually puts itself on back foot.
Rather than wishy washy 'tolerating' of rural / small town District Reps they need to expand and open up, and get back to have a bigger tent. Notably on Cultural issues where really evidently this was pushed too far.
It's The Economy Stupid! Forget Pluralism.
Recession is coming.
Trump froze $615 billion on Biden’s climate/health care law and his bipartisan infrastructure law.
He froze federal grant money worth $1.78 trillion.
Both total $2.4 trillion.
US Budget for 2024 was $6.75 trillion
1/3rd of Federal expenses on hold.
US GDP is $29 trillion.
8% of US economy is suddenly on hold.
And does anyone care about the deficit anymore?
Mr. Baharaeen, your idea of a coalition does not match the current Democratic Party definition of a coalition. You think of a coalition as an alliance of people and groups that share certain values and see the alliance as a way to advance those shared values while receiving support (or at the very least non-interference) from the alliance for their particular parochial interests. The current Democratic Party definition is a cult of people and groups who pledge irrevocable loyalty to the coalition. Because their loyalty, once given, is considered irrevocable, the coalition can demand their total conformity to the values approved by the coalition and can ignore their particular parochial interests, secure in the knowledge that they can never leave the coalition. The thinking is, "What are the [African-Americans, Latinx, LGBTQQ+, AAPI, womyn, etc.] going to do, vote Republican?"
One of the main problems facing the Democratic Party today is its sheer disbelief that the members of their unbreakable and inescapable coalition could, would, and did vote Republican because the Democratic Party ignored not only their particular parochial interests but the interests they perceived as shared by most Americans regardless of party affiliation. It's great that Bernie Sanders thinks the Democratic Party paid too much attention to "cultural" issues, but he still remains an opponent of free markets and capitalism, and that makes him as toxic to the long-term health of the Democratic Party as those who cling to "cultural" issues along withj anti-capitalism.
“There is probably no combination of total viewpoints that commands a majority. To win, your coalition has to be heterodox.”
No, no, no. To win, you have to ensure that the populace is indoctrinated with the correct set of beliefs. This is why anyone who expresses different beliefs must be cancelled, and anyone who expresses different beliefs within the Party must either confess error and be reeducated or be purged. This is also why all the institutions of education and culture must be controlled by people who are totally loyal to the Party and completely conform to all of its approved beliefs; those who do not conform to those beliefs, like parents or customers or audiences, must be ostracized, shut down, or sanctioned as retrograde reactionaries.
The people who demand purity of thought, word and deed are more committed than you, more active than you, and more disciplined than you, and so long as you choose to keep them in your coalition, they will work tirelessly to reshape your coalition - and all of its organizational and individual members - to be good, conformist, obedient Party members according to their definition of the Party.
Single issue litmus tests will lose their salience when we are united and strident on what matters to most voters.