I believe there is another dimension to the problem for Democrats.
As a baby boomer, we in the 60s advocated for women's rights, for gay rights, for unions, for minority rights, for opposition to the Vietnam War (all the things my wife and I are proud of, by the way). All of these issues, though, had an undercurrent that was powerful.
That undercurrent was that we were anti-establishment. Do you remember that term? It was all over the place then. We were "opposed" to establishment views and thoughts.
And on all of those dimensions, we boomer Democrats WON!!!!
But now, there aren't those same big battles. Instead, the battles are over minor issues (e.g., pronoun usage; medical treatments for trans youth).
But that same anti-establishment mind set is there---but now it is there in progressives.
They have no big battles to fight, but they are still anti-what-everyone-in-the-mainstream-believes.
So they do stupid stuff that nobody cares about. Watch the videos of the DNC chair trying to explain voting. Holy cow. And feel oh-so-good about themselves.
Look how many progressives in the past few weeks state LOUDLY that they have to "FIGHT" against everything Trump is doing. Fight, huh?
Think about this: They are not fighting FOR anything. Nobody wants what they are fighting for. But they get their energy not for fighting for something, but for fighting AGAINST Trump. Still in that anti-establishment mode.
And this is why the Democratic Party is doomed. That feeling doesn't go away because of a huge Presidential loss. It is staying with Progressives. It is their "thing." It is their identity. FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT
When we old Democrats fought for something the goal was not just to fight, but it was to win. Now, for Progressives, the fight IS the thing.
My wife and I are proud Democrats. We have switched our official affiliation to Independents, but in our hearts we are Democrats. But there is no Democratic Party any longer to be affiliated with. Progressives own it. And they would rather fight and feel right about standing up to the "establishment" than win and make things better for everyone.
The unraveling of USAID is going to hurt the whole NGO-media ecosystem upon which Democrats depend. MSM isn't saying much other than portraying it as an exercise in cutting spending but it is revealing massive corruption whereby taxpayer money was being funneled to media outlets and NGOs to influence domestic politics. Meanwhile, Zelensky is saying that Ukraine got less than half the money allocated and wondering where it went. I am not going to vouch for his honesty but it does raise some questions. It appears at this point that significant numbers of politicians and family members were on the take too. Reaction of Democrats is to demonize Elon Musk but he doesn't care. Autistic guys with f-you money are like that.
Sorry Ruy Teixeira, but it may take even more than your wise counsel for Americans to get out of their heads that image of Chucky Schumer and what looks like a 50 year college reunion of Democrats holding hands and chanting something incoherent to the effect that "We're going to win!!"
Yes, David Hogg as the party's new chair is just 24 years old, but one is left to wonder why these fossils chose him and whether it has anything to do with the fact his misguided, immature and, yes, wrong headed views pose no challenge to their own irrelevant political orthodoxy and hold on the party's reign of power, in the most generous interpretation of the word "power."
They are thinking that he is the key to bringing back young men. That said, the progressive brand is heavily female, so it is kind of similar to Christian rock from the 80s, and about as awkward.
Good points. Ironically, Hogg is further evidence of Democrats' embrace of identity politics; image above substance. They can't quit shooting themselves in the foot.
The women who constitute the majority of the Democratic Party want non-threatening men. Unfortunately, not many guys aspire to that role of cultural dhimmitude.
However, I think they have a much, much bigger problem. DOGE is exposing DECADES of corruption under both Democrats and Republicans---except Trump is not viewed as a "Republican" by voters, so he stands apart from this. The heinous discoveries of grotesque spending by USAID to teach trans knitting to Afghans is going to obviously be exposed as a total kickback-money laundering scheme for both parties. Now DOGE is into Medicare. Dems will suffer hugely there. Then Musk will go to DOD and the CIA. Republicans will get hit hard in both, but in all this ONLY Trump looks good because he is the one willing to wade into these Augean Stables and clean them out.
In previous discussions and my own substack (Larry Schweikart) I have argued that Democrats were suffering from multiple civil wars which they cannot win, particularly the illegal criminal invaders vs. inner city residents, and the "Green" vs. AI/tech that they have already lost. But the new revelations about massive---truly massive---government fraud and kickbacks is only beginning to seep in.
I think Republicans will generally benefit from this, even though many of these piggies are at the trough too, only because Trump is doing the exposing. But by 2026? DOGE will finally be at the Treasury and the IRS. And if you think people are mad now . . .
There is supposedly a lot of Medicare fraud but it is provider stuff. Big corporate medicine like hospital chains, labs, and the like. Everyone hates insurance companies but it would be worse without them. They are the enforcement arm. Employers ride heard on them. Medicare?
As we might say in the South, bless your pea-picking heart. Your analysis of the Democratic party's delusion and disconnection with real America is spot on. Still, your prescription looks too much like a fatal dose of phenobarbital that runs counter to progressive culture. While the border and energy abundance might seem natural and logical, they're too invested in unreliable and more expensive renewables like wind, growing unpopular with projects being canceled even off the costs of blue states. The name-calling will never change because of their deeply embedded disregard for the deplorable. They'd instead run to new bubbles at BlueSky. But you really lose them over casting aside DEI, which conflicts with their warped and foundational worldview of grievance and retribution. Furthermore, Democratic congressional hysteria and calls to violence over protecting corrupt foreign aid programs are symptomatic of the delusion in Congress. You're right, of course, but . . . good luck.
I think we have seen 3 big eras in our lifetimes, and we just abruptly ended one with the election.
The first was the Civil Rights Era, which lasted through the 60s and 70s. Liberalism was ascendant, however guns and butter fiscal and monetary policy turned into stagflation by the late 1970s and the era ended with the election of Ronald Reagan.
The second was the Free Markets era, which began with Reagan. Deregulation, which began under Carter, lowered prices and helped foster non-inflationary growth. The era ended with the real estate bubble and crash of 2008.
The third was the Great Awokening era, which began with Obama. A peculiar type of authoritarian leftism took over, where society policed language and only one ideology was permitted to be expressed. The Great Awokening began unraveling with COVID and probably ended with Trump's election.
I don't know what follows, but I expect a big part of it will be an end to one-sided globalism.
The Great Awokening is not over in my city, county or state legislature, but instead is accelerating.
Thank you for mentioning leftist authoritarianism, which is the main thing that pisses people off about the Democrats, that and the insane content of what they are authoritarian about.
I am in the deep blue NYC suburbs, and I am seeing it fade. The BLM-era town board members who spent their time on town virtue-signaling projects were voted out, people took down their "In This House We Believe" signs and I even saw some Trump signs this time around, which we did not see in 2016 or 2020.
Glad to hear it! I live in Portland. The metro area here as well as several other metro areas shifted to the left in the last election, undoing gains made in electing moderate Dems at the midterms. Oregon is one of the top ranked destinations for kids seeking "gender affirmative care," as Portland is home to at least two of the hospitals that perform "gender" surgeries on kids. The Dems here have little sense of how Americans think or feel outside of the local zone. They believe that we have a free press nationally that is reporting the facts, and that the majority of the country shares their values.
Gender critical centrist gay Democrat and Portlander here. The Portland City Council has actual Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) on it, and other members of the Council enjoy DSA support. They have a radical agenda that ignores the needs and desires of the hundreds of thousands of hard working voter taxpayers who do not hold degrees from fancy colleges and who do not have radical politics.
Furthermore, the city is facing a deficit that is estimated to be about $100 million. What are the city counselors doing? Getting riled up about climate change and immigration, two areas where Portland city government can make little or no difference at the local, regional, state or national level.
Yes, it is difficult to feel much hope for the city at this point. And even worse, the state is gerrymandered by the Dems to maintain their majorities or supermajorities in the legislature. Most of the people in the state are without representation for their values, lifestyles or means of earning a living.
One silver lining here is the DNC won’t determine the next Democratic candidate for president. I think the top contenders (Shapiro, Beshear, Polis, maybe Whitmer) all understand where Democrats need to go to win elections.
The DNC fiasco doesn’t bode well for party organization, however.
I've heard and read that, after Paul Kirk became DNC chair in the wake of Reagan's second big win, he commissioned a study to find out why Democrats had lost so badly. But when the results showed swing voters found Democrats too far to the left, he ordered all the copies of the study destroyed. The DNC didn't want to know what was holding the party back.
If this is true, it's a mistake the party is repeating four decades later. The good news is, as with the founding of the DLC in 1985, there are groups of Democrats pushing back against the left: the Blue Dogs, Welcome PAC, The Liberal Patriot. Hopefully these pragmatists can win their battle in one election cycle, rather than the two that passed between the start of the New Democrat movement and the election of a New Democrat to the White House.
This is a great piece. There is nothing I disagree with.
In summary, for Democrats to be popular again, they need to adopt most of Trump's platform.
I would add something else to this. Democrats need to stop with the scripted plastic candidates... afraid to speak because their party has taken up word policing and negative branding by taking every utterance out of context to make memes and narratives in their character assassination strategy. Trump is authentic. Do you see him give full access to the press while initially signing all those executive orders on inauguration day? Jesus that is so far from what we would have seen from any Democrat in the White House. And that is a problem... because the people are done with the scripted plastic two-faced candidate model.
Ruy, are you sure you do not want to run the Dem Party? The last few weeks has been a cornucopia of Dems doubling down on lousy political policy, and worse optics. Surely, at some point, a prospective Dem Presidential candidate, will be unable to ignore the fastball, hanging over the plate, and announce a "We have Lost our Way" speech.
Even well intentioned, 10 million new arrivals, without a single extra housing unit, doctor or bilingual teacher was one of the worst policies in US history. Enticed by the open border, migrants arrived into a US, lacking not just housing, but any orderly and cost effective process, to morph them into actual Americans. Americans have never desired a permanent lower, caste, driving down US working class wages, but we are well on our way, to creating one. The US should take a page from uber liberal Sweden, and humanely offer new arrivals a generous check, to return home. The move will save taxpayers money, in the long run.
As for criminal migrants, the first Dem to fully condemn Party members that, inexplicably, still fight deportation of even, convicted migrant sex predators, will be lightyears ahead of other prospective Dem candidates. Dems with children, should be cheering the Laken Riley legislation, and promising never again. Americans want and need orderly immigration, not the criminal and chaotic variety.
Agreeing with current tax payer indignation, over USAID, while pleading not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, would be a winner. USAID may be a tiny portion of the budget, Americans are still seething. Procuring food and medicine, is one thing. Attempting to stuff LGBTQ and DEI culture, down the throats of the 2nd and 3rd world, at millions of dollars a pop, is another. As countries develop, they naturally become more tolerant, but it cannot be imposed from the outside, especially in theocracies. Bonus points for condemning the Politico fiasco.
Wealth and stability, always generate more tolerance, but the 2nd and 3rd world cannot develop, into tolerant 1rst world nations, without cheap and abundant energy. AI will allow poverty stricken nations to more quickly advance, but its' vast energy needs will require an "all of the above" approach. To insist otherwise, is fantasy. To that end, the US, which produces the cleanest oil and gas on the planet, by far, should produce energy at maximum capacity. The world needs alternative energy, applicable to the masses, not just expensive alternatives, in small amounts, only the 1rst world can afford.
As bad as things appear now, DOGE revelations, are going to make things much, much worse, for Dems. Their only hope will be a sharp Right turn. The first 2028 Dem Pres Primary candidate, to take the plunge, will take the lead, and probably, never lose it. Progressives will come unglued, but what will be their alternative, JD Vance?
Maybe on energy we should focus on eliminating subsidies to fossil fuel and enforcing the environmental laws against air and water pollution? After all, Trump says he wants the cleanest air and water in the world. Maybe Dems should write off Iowa but get a lot of votes elsewhere by joining with the oil companies to work to phase out the ethanol mandate?
Sorry but there is no mention of Musk and his illegal take over of the federal government. Until that is shut down and he is thrown out? Democrats should not cooperate on one single thing.
Musk "subsidies" have been known for ages. I know it's hard for you to believe, but most working people think that a man who has created multiple companies and thousands of jobs is someone to be admired. Democrats - who picked their presidential candidate based on who the billionaire donor class dictated - are just being hypocrites and phonies.
Oil and gas are subsidized because they are the backbone of US food production and national security. Americans cannot fathom a country without enough affordable food, but without cheap oil and gas, it would happen in a matter of months. The effect on the rest of the world would be worse. Near famine or actual famine, would not be far behind, in poorer parts of the planet.
The job of a military is to prepare for war well enough, they never need to fight one. Our military runs, not just on their stomachs , but on our ability to move troops and munitions quickly, should the need arise. And then to keep them moving, if necessary. That transpires, mainly, via petroleum.
I assume it is someone's estimate of lost severance fees on extraction on public land. Of course the boom in recent production has been on private land.
Exemption from sales taxes happen because most if not all states have a separate gas tax. This is assessed per gallon so there's a revenue hit with better gas mileage and raising taxes are very unpopular.
OK now can you write one not about how the Democratic Party will survive but how people who are Democrats can survive when the places where we work shut down and we lose our health insurance and can’t get a new insurer because the repeal of the ACA means that now insurers can deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and 60 year olds are walking, talking pre-existing conditions, and the stock market crashes and takes our 401Ks with it and there’s no social security. How will those people who are Democrats survive?
To survive the next four years, Dems need to break their obsession with "protecting trans people" and start taking sex realists' critique of gender identity ideology seriously.
Who is protecting the real women who do not want to share female-only spaces with biological men who identify as women? A starting point for the Dem's evolution on this issue would be to abandon the biological falsehood that trans women are women and trans men are men. Can't they just be trans men and trans women?
Who is protecting the right of real girls and women to play female-only sports without having male teammates and/or male opponents? Trans activists like to say that critics are erasing trans people. Well, trans female athletes are erasing biological females. Boys and men are stealing victories from girls and women, thereby rendering meaningless the hard work that went into training. The difference between winning and losing can be the difference between getting that women's college sports scholarship and watching it go to an undeserving biological male.
Who is protecting the sissy boys and tom boys who are at great risk of being socially and medically transitioned instead of being left alone so they can become the gay men and lesbians they were meant to be? Research shows that most children with gender problems will get over them during adolescence and embrace their gay sexual orientation. Hey, trans allies, leave those kids alone!
Who is protecting children from gender-affirming care they cannot possibly possess the capacity to consent to? No child can understand what it means to transition socially, much less embark on a regimen of chemical transition. Gender-affirming health professionals lack the objectivity to prioritize their patients' interests over their ideological beliefs about gender ideology. Then there's the fact that pediatric gender medicine is not the "gold standard" trans activists have said it is. Europe is putting the brakes on it to protect kids.
Millions of Americans who are not white Christian nationalist MAGA zealots have very real and legitimate concerns about the excesses of trans activism. The Democratic Party cannot simply write them off as transphobic haters forever, no matter how urgently trans activists tell them to.
I like all these, but I question the wisdom of (I), which is something that *ought* to be right, in a better world, but I think is pretty clearly *not* right in the world we live in.
Indeed, I think the recent election elucidates how much politics is now defined by the attention economy, and how the attention economy rewards theatrics and drama over the rhetoric of reasoned moderation.
Consider two propositions:
I.) "My opponent is a well-intended person, and though I supported his policy X, disagree with him about Y, and I'm going to build up the middle class by enacting tax breaks on...zzzz...."
II.) "I will solve your problems on DAY ONE!!!! My opponent supports EATING THE DOGS!!!!"
Which one, all else being equal, garners a politician more votes in this environment? I think the election pretty conclusively showed that the answer is (II), as uncomfortable as that might be to admit. I think the Democrats need to not only call the opposition names and mock them relentlessly, but do it in ways that are theatrical and entertaining, and that leverage virality and meme-ability. Otherwise it all gets lost in the noise of social media.
It pains me to type that, because that's not the type of discourse I *want* defining politics. But I think it is unfortunately what we're stuck with it until we evolve out of this attention economy, and the social deformations it causes in our society.
I believe there is another dimension to the problem for Democrats.
As a baby boomer, we in the 60s advocated for women's rights, for gay rights, for unions, for minority rights, for opposition to the Vietnam War (all the things my wife and I are proud of, by the way). All of these issues, though, had an undercurrent that was powerful.
That undercurrent was that we were anti-establishment. Do you remember that term? It was all over the place then. We were "opposed" to establishment views and thoughts.
And on all of those dimensions, we boomer Democrats WON!!!!
But now, there aren't those same big battles. Instead, the battles are over minor issues (e.g., pronoun usage; medical treatments for trans youth).
But that same anti-establishment mind set is there---but now it is there in progressives.
They have no big battles to fight, but they are still anti-what-everyone-in-the-mainstream-believes.
So they do stupid stuff that nobody cares about. Watch the videos of the DNC chair trying to explain voting. Holy cow. And feel oh-so-good about themselves.
Look how many progressives in the past few weeks state LOUDLY that they have to "FIGHT" against everything Trump is doing. Fight, huh?
Think about this: They are not fighting FOR anything. Nobody wants what they are fighting for. But they get their energy not for fighting for something, but for fighting AGAINST Trump. Still in that anti-establishment mode.
And this is why the Democratic Party is doomed. That feeling doesn't go away because of a huge Presidential loss. It is staying with Progressives. It is their "thing." It is their identity. FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT
When we old Democrats fought for something the goal was not just to fight, but it was to win. Now, for Progressives, the fight IS the thing.
My wife and I are proud Democrats. We have switched our official affiliation to Independents, but in our hearts we are Democrats. But there is no Democratic Party any longer to be affiliated with. Progressives own it. And they would rather fight and feel right about standing up to the "establishment" than win and make things better for everyone.
I came into politics opposing the war and it looks like I am going out that way too.
The unraveling of USAID is going to hurt the whole NGO-media ecosystem upon which Democrats depend. MSM isn't saying much other than portraying it as an exercise in cutting spending but it is revealing massive corruption whereby taxpayer money was being funneled to media outlets and NGOs to influence domestic politics. Meanwhile, Zelensky is saying that Ukraine got less than half the money allocated and wondering where it went. I am not going to vouch for his honesty but it does raise some questions. It appears at this point that significant numbers of politicians and family members were on the take too. Reaction of Democrats is to demonize Elon Musk but he doesn't care. Autistic guys with f-you money are like that.
Sorry Ruy Teixeira, but it may take even more than your wise counsel for Americans to get out of their heads that image of Chucky Schumer and what looks like a 50 year college reunion of Democrats holding hands and chanting something incoherent to the effect that "We're going to win!!"
Yes, David Hogg as the party's new chair is just 24 years old, but one is left to wonder why these fossils chose him and whether it has anything to do with the fact his misguided, immature and, yes, wrong headed views pose no challenge to their own irrelevant political orthodoxy and hold on the party's reign of power, in the most generous interpretation of the word "power."
They are thinking that he is the key to bringing back young men. That said, the progressive brand is heavily female, so it is kind of similar to Christian rock from the 80s, and about as awkward.
Good points. Ironically, Hogg is further evidence of Democrats' embrace of identity politics; image above substance. They can't quit shooting themselves in the foot.
The women who constitute the majority of the Democratic Party want non-threatening men. Unfortunately, not many guys aspire to that role of cultural dhimmitude.
Hogg is as much of a school shooting survivor as I am. I was just further out of range. He is coached by his FBI agent father
It's obvious that right now Democrats can only pray Trump fails, as Julian Epstein says here: https://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/2025/02/05/so-pathetic-long-time-dem-operative-says-dems-fear-trumps-success-as-theyll-have-nothing-to-sell-to-the-public/
However, I think they have a much, much bigger problem. DOGE is exposing DECADES of corruption under both Democrats and Republicans---except Trump is not viewed as a "Republican" by voters, so he stands apart from this. The heinous discoveries of grotesque spending by USAID to teach trans knitting to Afghans is going to obviously be exposed as a total kickback-money laundering scheme for both parties. Now DOGE is into Medicare. Dems will suffer hugely there. Then Musk will go to DOD and the CIA. Republicans will get hit hard in both, but in all this ONLY Trump looks good because he is the one willing to wade into these Augean Stables and clean them out.
In previous discussions and my own substack (Larry Schweikart) I have argued that Democrats were suffering from multiple civil wars which they cannot win, particularly the illegal criminal invaders vs. inner city residents, and the "Green" vs. AI/tech that they have already lost. But the new revelations about massive---truly massive---government fraud and kickbacks is only beginning to seep in.
I think Republicans will generally benefit from this, even though many of these piggies are at the trough too, only because Trump is doing the exposing. But by 2026? DOGE will finally be at the Treasury and the IRS. And if you think people are mad now . . .
There is supposedly a lot of Medicare fraud but it is provider stuff. Big corporate medicine like hospital chains, labs, and the like. Everyone hates insurance companies but it would be worse without them. They are the enforcement arm. Employers ride heard on them. Medicare?
As we might say in the South, bless your pea-picking heart. Your analysis of the Democratic party's delusion and disconnection with real America is spot on. Still, your prescription looks too much like a fatal dose of phenobarbital that runs counter to progressive culture. While the border and energy abundance might seem natural and logical, they're too invested in unreliable and more expensive renewables like wind, growing unpopular with projects being canceled even off the costs of blue states. The name-calling will never change because of their deeply embedded disregard for the deplorable. They'd instead run to new bubbles at BlueSky. But you really lose them over casting aside DEI, which conflicts with their warped and foundational worldview of grievance and retribution. Furthermore, Democratic congressional hysteria and calls to violence over protecting corrupt foreign aid programs are symptomatic of the delusion in Congress. You're right, of course, but . . . good luck.
I think we have seen 3 big eras in our lifetimes, and we just abruptly ended one with the election.
The first was the Civil Rights Era, which lasted through the 60s and 70s. Liberalism was ascendant, however guns and butter fiscal and monetary policy turned into stagflation by the late 1970s and the era ended with the election of Ronald Reagan.
The second was the Free Markets era, which began with Reagan. Deregulation, which began under Carter, lowered prices and helped foster non-inflationary growth. The era ended with the real estate bubble and crash of 2008.
The third was the Great Awokening era, which began with Obama. A peculiar type of authoritarian leftism took over, where society policed language and only one ideology was permitted to be expressed. The Great Awokening began unraveling with COVID and probably ended with Trump's election.
I don't know what follows, but I expect a big part of it will be an end to one-sided globalism.
The Great Awokening is not over in my city, county or state legislature, but instead is accelerating.
Thank you for mentioning leftist authoritarianism, which is the main thing that pisses people off about the Democrats, that and the insane content of what they are authoritarian about.
I am in the deep blue NYC suburbs, and I am seeing it fade. The BLM-era town board members who spent their time on town virtue-signaling projects were voted out, people took down their "In This House We Believe" signs and I even saw some Trump signs this time around, which we did not see in 2016 or 2020.
Glad to hear it! I live in Portland. The metro area here as well as several other metro areas shifted to the left in the last election, undoing gains made in electing moderate Dems at the midterms. Oregon is one of the top ranked destinations for kids seeking "gender affirmative care," as Portland is home to at least two of the hospitals that perform "gender" surgeries on kids. The Dems here have little sense of how Americans think or feel outside of the local zone. They believe that we have a free press nationally that is reporting the facts, and that the majority of the country shares their values.
Gender critical centrist gay Democrat and Portlander here. The Portland City Council has actual Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) on it, and other members of the Council enjoy DSA support. They have a radical agenda that ignores the needs and desires of the hundreds of thousands of hard working voter taxpayers who do not hold degrees from fancy colleges and who do not have radical politics.
Furthermore, the city is facing a deficit that is estimated to be about $100 million. What are the city counselors doing? Getting riled up about climate change and immigration, two areas where Portland city government can make little or no difference at the local, regional, state or national level.
Yes, it is difficult to feel much hope for the city at this point. And even worse, the state is gerrymandered by the Dems to maintain their majorities or supermajorities in the legislature. Most of the people in the state are without representation for their values, lifestyles or means of earning a living.
One silver lining here is the DNC won’t determine the next Democratic candidate for president. I think the top contenders (Shapiro, Beshear, Polis, maybe Whitmer) all understand where Democrats need to go to win elections.
The DNC fiasco doesn’t bode well for party organization, however.
I've heard and read that, after Paul Kirk became DNC chair in the wake of Reagan's second big win, he commissioned a study to find out why Democrats had lost so badly. But when the results showed swing voters found Democrats too far to the left, he ordered all the copies of the study destroyed. The DNC didn't want to know what was holding the party back.
If this is true, it's a mistake the party is repeating four decades later. The good news is, as with the founding of the DLC in 1985, there are groups of Democrats pushing back against the left: the Blue Dogs, Welcome PAC, The Liberal Patriot. Hopefully these pragmatists can win their battle in one election cycle, rather than the two that passed between the start of the New Democrat movement and the election of a New Democrat to the White House.
This is a great piece. There is nothing I disagree with.
In summary, for Democrats to be popular again, they need to adopt most of Trump's platform.
I would add something else to this. Democrats need to stop with the scripted plastic candidates... afraid to speak because their party has taken up word policing and negative branding by taking every utterance out of context to make memes and narratives in their character assassination strategy. Trump is authentic. Do you see him give full access to the press while initially signing all those executive orders on inauguration day? Jesus that is so far from what we would have seen from any Democrat in the White House. And that is a problem... because the people are done with the scripted plastic two-faced candidate model.
Ruy, are you sure you do not want to run the Dem Party? The last few weeks has been a cornucopia of Dems doubling down on lousy political policy, and worse optics. Surely, at some point, a prospective Dem Presidential candidate, will be unable to ignore the fastball, hanging over the plate, and announce a "We have Lost our Way" speech.
Even well intentioned, 10 million new arrivals, without a single extra housing unit, doctor or bilingual teacher was one of the worst policies in US history. Enticed by the open border, migrants arrived into a US, lacking not just housing, but any orderly and cost effective process, to morph them into actual Americans. Americans have never desired a permanent lower, caste, driving down US working class wages, but we are well on our way, to creating one. The US should take a page from uber liberal Sweden, and humanely offer new arrivals a generous check, to return home. The move will save taxpayers money, in the long run.
As for criminal migrants, the first Dem to fully condemn Party members that, inexplicably, still fight deportation of even, convicted migrant sex predators, will be lightyears ahead of other prospective Dem candidates. Dems with children, should be cheering the Laken Riley legislation, and promising never again. Americans want and need orderly immigration, not the criminal and chaotic variety.
Agreeing with current tax payer indignation, over USAID, while pleading not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, would be a winner. USAID may be a tiny portion of the budget, Americans are still seething. Procuring food and medicine, is one thing. Attempting to stuff LGBTQ and DEI culture, down the throats of the 2nd and 3rd world, at millions of dollars a pop, is another. As countries develop, they naturally become more tolerant, but it cannot be imposed from the outside, especially in theocracies. Bonus points for condemning the Politico fiasco.
Wealth and stability, always generate more tolerance, but the 2nd and 3rd world cannot develop, into tolerant 1rst world nations, without cheap and abundant energy. AI will allow poverty stricken nations to more quickly advance, but its' vast energy needs will require an "all of the above" approach. To insist otherwise, is fantasy. To that end, the US, which produces the cleanest oil and gas on the planet, by far, should produce energy at maximum capacity. The world needs alternative energy, applicable to the masses, not just expensive alternatives, in small amounts, only the 1rst world can afford.
As bad as things appear now, DOGE revelations, are going to make things much, much worse, for Dems. Their only hope will be a sharp Right turn. The first 2028 Dem Pres Primary candidate, to take the plunge, will take the lead, and probably, never lose it. Progressives will come unglued, but what will be their alternative, JD Vance?
Maybe on energy we should focus on eliminating subsidies to fossil fuel and enforcing the environmental laws against air and water pollution? After all, Trump says he wants the cleanest air and water in the world. Maybe Dems should write off Iowa but get a lot of votes elsewhere by joining with the oil companies to work to phase out the ethanol mandate?
Sorry but there is no mention of Musk and his illegal take over of the federal government. Until that is shut down and he is thrown out? Democrats should not cooperate on one single thing.
Musk is uncovering massive fraud. Democrats are fighting for the status quo. Who do you think the majority of Americans will support?
Bwhahah.. The fraud is the subsidies for Musk's companies that could not exist without them.
Musk "subsidies" have been known for ages. I know it's hard for you to believe, but most working people think that a man who has created multiple companies and thousands of jobs is someone to be admired. Democrats - who picked their presidential candidate based on who the billionaire donor class dictated - are just being hypocrites and phonies.
🤣😅😆😄😃😀
Cite your source (Elon's tweets don't count).
Re federal subsidies for renewable energy. It took me a few minutes to find this data on fossil fuel industry subsidies.
How much are fossil fuel subsidies in the US?
In 2022, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimated that US fossil fuel subsidies were $757 billion
This includes $3 billion in explicit subsidies and $754 billion in implicit subsidies
The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated that fossil fuel consumption subsidies in 2023 were $620 billion
Who provides fossil fuel subsidies?
The federal government provides subsidies through the tax code
States also provide subsidies through measures like sales tax exemptions
Oil and gas are subsidized because they are the backbone of US food production and national security. Americans cannot fathom a country without enough affordable food, but without cheap oil and gas, it would happen in a matter of months. The effect on the rest of the world would be worse. Near famine or actual famine, would not be far behind, in poorer parts of the planet.
The job of a military is to prepare for war well enough, they never need to fight one. Our military runs, not just on their stomachs , but on our ability to move troops and munitions quickly, should the need arise. And then to keep them moving, if necessary. That transpires, mainly, via petroleum.
What are implicit subsidies?
And is your point that we should raise raise gas and food prices? Great platform, run on that.
I assume it is someone's estimate of lost severance fees on extraction on public land. Of course the boom in recent production has been on private land.
Exemption from sales taxes happen because most if not all states have a separate gas tax. This is assessed per gallon so there's a revenue hit with better gas mileage and raising taxes are very unpopular.
OK now can you write one not about how the Democratic Party will survive but how people who are Democrats can survive when the places where we work shut down and we lose our health insurance and can’t get a new insurer because the repeal of the ACA means that now insurers can deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and 60 year olds are walking, talking pre-existing conditions, and the stock market crashes and takes our 401Ks with it and there’s no social security. How will those people who are Democrats survive?
To survive the next four years, Dems need to break their obsession with "protecting trans people" and start taking sex realists' critique of gender identity ideology seriously.
Who is protecting the real women who do not want to share female-only spaces with biological men who identify as women? A starting point for the Dem's evolution on this issue would be to abandon the biological falsehood that trans women are women and trans men are men. Can't they just be trans men and trans women?
Who is protecting the right of real girls and women to play female-only sports without having male teammates and/or male opponents? Trans activists like to say that critics are erasing trans people. Well, trans female athletes are erasing biological females. Boys and men are stealing victories from girls and women, thereby rendering meaningless the hard work that went into training. The difference between winning and losing can be the difference between getting that women's college sports scholarship and watching it go to an undeserving biological male.
Who is protecting the sissy boys and tom boys who are at great risk of being socially and medically transitioned instead of being left alone so they can become the gay men and lesbians they were meant to be? Research shows that most children with gender problems will get over them during adolescence and embrace their gay sexual orientation. Hey, trans allies, leave those kids alone!
Who is protecting children from gender-affirming care they cannot possibly possess the capacity to consent to? No child can understand what it means to transition socially, much less embark on a regimen of chemical transition. Gender-affirming health professionals lack the objectivity to prioritize their patients' interests over their ideological beliefs about gender ideology. Then there's the fact that pediatric gender medicine is not the "gold standard" trans activists have said it is. Europe is putting the brakes on it to protect kids.
Millions of Americans who are not white Christian nationalist MAGA zealots have very real and legitimate concerns about the excesses of trans activism. The Democratic Party cannot simply write them off as transphobic haters forever, no matter how urgently trans activists tell them to.
I like all these, but I question the wisdom of (I), which is something that *ought* to be right, in a better world, but I think is pretty clearly *not* right in the world we live in.
Indeed, I think the recent election elucidates how much politics is now defined by the attention economy, and how the attention economy rewards theatrics and drama over the rhetoric of reasoned moderation.
Consider two propositions:
I.) "My opponent is a well-intended person, and though I supported his policy X, disagree with him about Y, and I'm going to build up the middle class by enacting tax breaks on...zzzz...."
II.) "I will solve your problems on DAY ONE!!!! My opponent supports EATING THE DOGS!!!!"
Which one, all else being equal, garners a politician more votes in this environment? I think the election pretty conclusively showed that the answer is (II), as uncomfortable as that might be to admit. I think the Democrats need to not only call the opposition names and mock them relentlessly, but do it in ways that are theatrical and entertaining, and that leverage virality and meme-ability. Otherwise it all gets lost in the noise of social media.
It pains me to type that, because that's not the type of discourse I *want* defining politics. But I think it is unfortunately what we're stuck with it until we evolve out of this attention economy, and the social deformations it causes in our society.