Ben Meiselas pops on on my youtube list quite a lot, while I'm watching chess or cycling videos. I must click on enough of his stuff for it to keep being suggested to me.
But he's not really my cup of tea. Ever since the primaries he's been announcing several times a week that Trump is failing. It's not sufficiently contemplative for me.
bc: Criticizing a side for “othering” by what seems to be to be “othering” of another sort isn’t a winning proposition.
Criticizing Nazis for "othering" Jews by politely refraining from "othering" Nazis is surely a losing proposition -- if the audience is mainly Nazi supporters. People might support the Nazis for all sorts of reasons other than Jew hatred, you see.
I'm sorry to tell you, bc, that those of my fellow Americans who are indifferent to, never mind approving of, the Gestapo tactics of Dear Leader's brown-shirted (literally!) masked thugs will always be "others" to me. If they choose to shrug off fascism, how would you advise people like me to reason with them?
Whatever your advice might be, I say this much is true: they are more likely to listen to you than to me. We godless America-hating soshulist anit-fascists are automatically suspect. Assuming you are anti-fascist yourself, maybe you should caution them about "othering". Maybe you can point out to them that the fascism is part of a package deal with the tax cuts for billionaires (and whatever else) they voted for. If it turns out that doing that gets you "othered" by them, welcome to the club.
Well! I'd barely heard of this Ben Meiselas guy before, but it looks like he may be getting the message across - bigger audiences than Joe Rogan apparently. What do any ObWi people think of him?
Give me a shiny plane and I’ll let you build a base in Idaho.
The request for a training facility was made in 2017, shortly after the Obama administration approved selling current versions of the F-15 Strike Eagle to Qatar. Like most military base construction, there's a ton of hoops to jump through. Not long ago the final environmental impact statement was finished, so they announced the training facility. Badly. Horribly. Using terms that don't describe things accurately.
Singapore already has a training facility at the same air base for their F-15 pilots and mechanics. And a facility at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona for their F-16 pilots and mechanics. Both planes are supersonic; neither Singapore nor Qatar are big enough (in square miles) to support a supersonic practice range. Mountain Home is close to the Utah Test and Training Range, and Luke to the Nevada Test Site, where low-level supersonic flights are allowed. And it's easier to house a few of the exact planes you're buying in the US than try to ferry some in over great distances.
Meanwhile, someone watching Trump's speech in Israel just called me; apparently he turned to Keir Starmer and called him the President of Canada. That should go in a showreel along with the war he settled between Cambodia and Armenia. Talking of calling a spade a spade and getting it across to the wider electorate...
Every other President in my lifetime has represented himself as serving in the interests of all Americans: this one is for his people only.
He's not even doing that, at least if equate "his people" with people who voted for him. His tariff war is seriously damaging for a variety of farmers. Cutting the ACA market subsidies will do particular damage in red states that haven't expanded Medicaid. The Medicaid cuts are going to exacerbate the financial problems facing rural hospitals.
When I was on the budget staff for my state's legislature, from time to time I heard members from rural areas say, "The Front Range urban corridor has declared war on rural Colorado." My job was understanding the state's cash flows. I was always tempted to say, "No, they haven't. You'll know they've declared war when the subsidies for your schools, roads, health care, electricity, and phone service stop."
. The call a thug a thug post was about how DEM POLITICIANS need to speak, not individual MAGA voters , The communication needs to be directed toward independents, new voters, nonvoters, people who previously haven't followed politics much etc to keep them from failing for the Noise Machine bullshit.
Yes, it is true that the cult isn't ideological of philosophical in nature. It is the result of decades of smears, defamation, lies, and other "Othering" techniques intended to polarize for the purpose of creating a base that will vote R no matter how bad R policies are out of a conviction that everyone who isn't an R is an existential threat to real true good American values. Remember wedge issues? Framing complex issues as simplified good versus evil dichotomies? Republican party leaders did that purposefully to convince Republican voters that the Democratic party had bad values and was a threat to their good values. While Rove was creating polarization through good/bad framing . other Republicans were spreading outright defamation such as the Swift Boat Liars. It was all Othering. Tactical, not philosophical. And the hate and fearmongering directed by the Republican party toward the rest of America has been going on for years and years and years.
Of course the whole time the Republican party/Faux/etc propaganda network was in high gear, the propagandists used faux victimization whenever anyone criticized them. How dare anyone call the Swift Boat Liars liars? How dare anyone criticize the content produced by Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin. That's cancel culture! It has been normal for decades for elected Republicans to engage in the promotion of hate and division while Dems were not supposed to object because to do so was supposedly to be engaging in divisiveness.
If people want to spend time talking actual policy with MAGA voters they can do so and maybe they will be able to break through sometimes. But the evidence of voting patterns shows that r voters usually vote R even when they are aware that they are voting for policies they oppose. Heck they kept on voting R even when their majour news sources Faux and Newsmax were revealed as liars. They even re-elected TRump even though Trump instigated a violent attack on Congress. Most R voter vote R no matter what. Some examples: in an interview with the head of the farmers' soybean special interest group, the head said that Trump's tariffs were bad but he'd vote for Trump again. Walz spent time talking to white union guys who nodded and agree on lots of issues but said they were voting for Trump. Biden bailed out union pensions, supported strikes, raised union wages, and lost the white male union vote. I read an interview with a R pol from Louisiana who was mourning the toxic wastes that had been spread around the state by floods. He told the reporter that he knew the state party was bad on environment issues, but he had to vote R because Republicans, he said, were Christians.
Othering is when a group of people is smeared with a false negative generalization. Kirk was othering when he said that white people were targeted for attack by roaming bands of black men. Elected Republicans nationwide are othering now when they say the No Kings Day even is a "hate America" event. Othering is when the Republican party decided to claim to be "pro-life" as opposed to the babykilling Democrats.
Othering is so common from Republicans and their media that it is normative. And no it is not othering them to say that--because othering is a false generalization, not an accurate one.
So how should a Dem politician run for office in this toxic polarized society created by Republican propaganda? Step one is to communicate reality clearly to the people not in the cult. Give voters a choice and make the choice obvious. Do it with humor as when Dem Sen Wyden said that Cosplay Cop Kristie was afraid of a man in a chicken suit or do it with moral outrage like Pritzker or stand up in public and say, in effect, bring in on while flooding the zone with lawsuits like WA Governor Ferguson. But do not treat propaganda from the Republicans as if it is good faith ideas for discussion.
I agree: what Pro Bono said. And on his last bullet point, about the SCOTUS, it's going to be interesting to see if this makes any difference (my guess is not, but I suppose it could give a bit of cover in case any of the disgraceful 6 is starting to feel uncomfortable)
* I doubt the folks saying that are really gonna want to live in a world where it’s “all torn down”.
BIllionaires and centi-billionaires excepted. They have, as the colloquial expression goes, fuck you money. They’ll be fine no matter what.*
I'm sure that they think that. But how fine they will be is likely to depend on whether they manage to flee the country in time. Because, if they stay and it's all torn down, they are going to present an irresistible target.
Sure, they can hire guys with guns to defend them. But the thing is, those guys with guns are going to want to be paid. AND they are going to want somewhere to spend that pay. If it's all torn down, that's going to be problematic.
*what this tells me about the other side is that influential people on it are unconcerned with reality.*
I wonder about that. Is it that they are unconcerned with reality? Or are they (at least many of them) just as caught up in the alternate reality as any Faux News viewer?
Certainly there are some there who will ignore anything that looks like an inconvenient fact. Not to mention those who are simply delusional. But the (mis)information bubble there is both very real and very pervasive.
By my iights, this administration is doing damage to this country that will take generations, literally generations, to repair. Some of it may never be repaired.
If that prompts the "it all sucks anyway, just tear it down" response, I'd say that is profoundly nihilistic. And, I doubt the folks saying that are really gonna want to live in a world where it's "all torn down".
BIllionaires and centi-billionaires excepted. They have, as the colloquial expression goes, fuck you money. They'll be fine no matter what.
I'd add to Pro Bono's list the decline in our standing internationally, and the consequences *for everybody in the world*, not to exclude us, that are gonna follow on from that.
Trump has, in nine months, pissed away what took 80 years to build. Who is going to trust this country after this mess? Foreign relations at this point are devolving into pure transactional scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours deal making.
Give me a shiny plane and I'll let you build a base in Idaho. It ain't show friends, it's show business. Right? That's where we are headed, or perhaps already are. It's not a good basis for anything like national security.
The administration is deeply and thoroughly corrupt, and they are corrupting the country.
I understand the reasoning that the best vote-winning arguments are ones which appeal to voters' legitimate self-interest. But there are other things which must be said loud and often:
this Administration is not normal. Every other President in my lifetime has represented himself as serving in the interests of all Americans: this one is for his people only.
Troops are the streets should be there only to address an urgent crisis, not because the President has been confused by old videos.
Everyone who is not reasonably suspected of serious crime should be immune from being dragged from their bed by government agents.
corruption is rampant in this Administration.
election procedure should not be a partisan matter.
The Supreme Court has abandoned any shred of legitimacy. During the Biden administration it adopted a "major questions doctrine" to stop him doing things which the literal text of the law allowed. For Trump, the Court is using its emergency docket to allow him, without explanation, to do things which the literal text of the law and the Constitution disallow. The Court must be radically reformed.
First, bc, thank you for chiming in. I always appreciate what you have to say, if only to keep myself honest.
Some of the stuff on Ackman's list make sense to me (immigration), some seem motivated more by a specific agenda of Ackman's (Israel / Gaza), some seem to ignore a broader context (withdrawal from Afghanistan, inflation). And for Ackman, specifically, as for much of the technorati, my sense is that a significant factor for him and them is "I want to do cool tech stuff and the feds won't get out of my way!".
But many or most are legitimate concerns, even if they either aren't concerns of mine personally, or I land in a different place than Ackman does regarding them.
My question for Ackman, and for supporters of Trump generally, is less "Why did you vote for him?" and more "Why are you still supporting him?".
Why are they still supporting him? Ackman I understand, Trump is gonna give the tech bros free rein. Ackman's gonna have fun and make a lot of money.
But I don't get rank and file MAGA. As far as I can tell, they're getting screwed. And yet, they love him.
1) Immigration. Immigration was higher in Trump's first term than in Bidens. Ackman is wrong.
2) Trump in his first term showed himself to be indifferent to the national debt. Ackman is wrong.
7) The USA has been a net fossil fuel exporter since 2019. Ackman is wrong.
I could go on - there are very few valid points. Yes, it's important to understand why people voted for Trump. But what this tells me about the other side is that influential people on it are unconcerned with reality. I hope that most of the electorate thinks otherwise.
I liked that Ryan Powers article. It's possible that my calls for civility can be misinterpreted as a call for "etiquette" or "decorum". I'm very aware of how often we misunderstand each other (two countries separated by a common language etc). In fact, I approve wholeheartedly of taking hard, tough action against the enemies of democracy, and of calling a spade a spade. If someone (Trump, Vance anybody else, including Ds) lies, I favour calling it lies. If a policy which e.g. directly contradicts what the ruling party said they would do while campaigning is introduced by stealth, I approve of calling it out and doing what's necessary to impede it. If attempts to subvert voting rights (gerrymandering etc) are made, I approve of doing what's necessary to impede them. And if unconstitutional actions are made by the government, I approve of demonstrating and taking other necessary actions (law suits, states' rights related etc) to oppose them. I agree that the Dem national leadership have been lily-livered and hidebound in their opposition by obsolete norms and assumptions.
What I mean by civility is the opposite of Ubu's behaviour. You don't have to insult and demean people to openly and factually describe what they're doing, including how and why. Calling dishonest, corrupt politicians dishonest and corrupt when you can support the accusation is a moral and practical imperative. Where my call for what I call civility particularly applies is in two situations: 1. when arguing and debating with people who defend the actions of those in power, in which case it is perfectly possible to factually describe what is happening without insulting them (e.g. demonstrating that lies are lies), and 2. when arguing and debating with people who might otherwise be considered on the same side as oneself, when there are occasional doctrinal differences but their basic intentions are otherwise congruent with one's own. In this second case, the irresistible case of the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea springs to mind; as well as being an illustration of a kind of narcissism of small differences, such infighting is counter-productive and does one's opponents' work for them.
Where American politics is concerned, I only wish there were more journalists and Dem politicians prepared to call a spade a spade, in such a way as to get their message truly across to the wider electorate. And I wish that there were platforms on which they could do so. Wit and creativity (like the dancing costumed protesters in Portland) really help in this, when enabled. And even Gavin Newsom's attempt at wit is better than nothing!
Ok, I forgot that the comments now read in an opposite direction, so a lot has been posted since I started writing this (in spurts, given my crazy schedule). That link by GftNC was particularly interesting, especially the description of how limited the ideologues really are on either side. So the following didn't take all of that into account.
"I think it’s worth exploring how to communicate with MAGAs because, even when King Pussygrabber strokes out on the toilet at three in the morning, we won’t be over the madness. We will still have the MAGA voters, the Republican party’s commitment to the election tactics of Othering and engineered polarization, and the extensive well-funded Republican hate/fear propaganda bubble (Faux, etc) which, for many people, substitutes for news and shapes their voting behavior."
Well, with respect, I probably wouldn’t start like this. Criticizing a side for “othering” by what seems to be to be “othering” of another sort isn’t a winning proposition. And dialing up the rhetoric to 11 isn’t likely to do any good either. And claiming the other side “lies” when the issues are often nuanced only makes each side more entrenched. You could substitute in MSNBC for Faux, Democrat for Republican, woke Democrats for MAGA, and post this on a right-wing site and it would fit right in. And that, IMHO, is the problem.
I’d say the first thing to do is to try to understand the other side. And not the talking heads on TV, but real people of good faith. Why did so many vote for Trump? What policies were behind that decision? Or what was it about Biden/Harris that voters didn’t find attractive? You can argue that the election was lost by not being loud enough, or confrontational enough, or tough enough, but I think that misses the mark.
IMHO, a lot of people that voted for Trump/Vance were not anywhere close to the cartoonish MAGA voter you describe. There were so many reasons to vote for or not vote for Trump, just as there were so many reasons to vote for or not vote for Harris. And many of those reasons deserve respect. To claim otherwise is to have blinders on. You can hate a position, but hating the person holding that position is an entirely different matter.
Take just one former Democrat, Bill Ackman, and his voiced reasons for voting for Trump over Harris.
I chose him simply because he has a list handy that I read some time ago. I may not agree with all of his reasons (and you won’t either) but I think his reasons deserve respect on the whole. And this is his list. I think there are several more that could be added, but IMO, numbers 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 22, 24 , 28, 31, 33 were quite resonant with those that voted for Trump (not necessarily in that order). Ackman was not “born” or “made” in the sense you describe.
I am deliberately not responding to the specific examples in your post, Wonkie (i.e. Calloway, Walz, healthcare truth, Portland). I just didn’t want you to think those arguments were lost on me. I can acknowledge some validity in what you say. I just didn’t want any differences I have to detract from the tenor of my response.
wj - As so often, we wonder just what definition of “elite” is being used here.
He covers that earlier: The real answer is that the most powerful liberal institutions – the Democratic establishment, major donors and the professional class around them – are captive to outdated etiquette.
It'sthe DNC and those with input into the strategy side.
In elite liberal spaces, the expectation is always the same: stay quiet, exit gracefully, never make a scene. Yet nonviolent unruliness has power precisely because it breaks the code of composure. Psychologists call this the “expectancy violations theory”: when behavior defies what’s anticipated, it commands outsized attention and carries significant weight. That impact is magnified when it comes from insiders with status or access.
This dynamic suggests that liberalism’s best strategy is to subvert its own norms. Critics may argue that spectacle undermines substance, or that breaking etiquette diminishes the credentials that lend Democrats authority. But in today’s attention economy, spectacle is often how substance gets noticed. Breaking strict decorum is not the enemy of liberalism; it may be the very tool that keeps it alive.
Worth a read. Someone will hopefully send it to Chuck Schumer.
russell - I also disagree with nous’ thought that health care “codes” as a management issue. At the policy level, it does. At the level of “do I have to choose between health insurance and rent” it does not.
Then we agree, because that is what I was trying to get at with my: It doesn’t register for workers as a policy thing so much as it does a wages and benefits thing. The voters that the Dems are losing are going to tune out as soon as the conversation starts focusing on the details of health policy, same as rank-and-file union members start getting sore feet and shuffling as soon as the rep with the bullhorn starts babbling on about the importance of changing the language in Article 5 Part 3 of the CBA.
Keep the language focused on struggles and outcomes and whose side you are fighting on. And if there are cleavage lines over policy choices, focus on the need for solidarity.
And it has the huge merit that it will classify as elite a whole bunch of people that today's self-important elitists will be horrified to be classed with.
Until they lose it, or can't afford it. Especially if they or someone they care about has an expensive and / or chronic illness.
I also disagree with nous' thought that health care "codes" as a management issue. At the policy level, it does. At the level of "do I have to choose between health insurance and rent" it does not.
IMO (D)'s do well to hammer the hell out of this one.
I second wjca's thought that most people aren't really motivated by the whole "threat to democracy" thing. "People Like Me" might be, most people aren't. The connection between that and their daily life is not always clear.
I'd go so far as to say if you give a lot of people a choice betwen democracy and a basic level of personal and financial security, they would choose the latter without a second thought.
"Democracy" is kind of abstract. "My job is going away" is not. "I can't afford insulin" is not. "My hospital closed and the nearest one now is an hour away (or two hours away, or not even in my state)" is not. "I can't afford to not work, but I can't afford to pay for care for my kid" is not. "I work a full time job and have to take care of my disabled kid / my parent with Alzheimers / my partner who had a stroke" is not.
The price of eggs is too small bore. Have you lost your job? Are you clinging to a job you don't really like because you don't know if you can find another one? Do you make enough to buy a house? Do you make enough to start a family? Do you have a kid that needs any kind of special ed? Trump just took that away. Can your kids afford to go to college without taking on six figures of debt? If they don't go to college, can they find a job - not just a "job", but a career, a path in life - that will give them a decent quality of life?
Does your life feel stable? Can you see a path forward for yourself and your family, if you have one? Can you see a path forward to the life you thought you might have?
How worried are you about your future?
When I listen to folks, especially young folks (which for me at this point is basically anybody 45 or younger) this is the stuff that nags at them.
(D)'s should absolutely give zero ground on basic human rights. Women'sLGBTQ, trans people, black people, Latinos, immigrants of any stripe.
Defend them all. Do not give an inch.
But that needs to happen in a context that makes people understand that those folks' rights are not being defended at the expense of everybody else. That the (D)'s are not forgetting the folks who aren't "marginal" - not a member of a non-mainstream demographic.
I.e., to more or less stereotype it, people who might self-describe as more or less a plugger. Someone trying to do the right things, trying to "play by the rules". Someone who isn't trying to change the world, they're just trying to take care of themselves and their family. And who nonetheless finds themselves lying awake at night trying to figure out how to make it work.
(D)'s should be able to chew gum and walk at the same time. They should be able to say "those people who aren't like you are no threat to you, they're just living their lives" AND ALSO say "we see how tentative life is for you, here is what we will do to help that".
Not either / or.
It's a really unsettled time, people are worried, and everything Trump does makes it worse. Hammer that, every single day.
If you aren't rich, Donald J Trump is making your life worse. Less secure.
Are you rich? What exactly are you getting out of this administration?
Hammer that.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Mother-in-law defense”
Ben Meiselas pops on on my youtube list quite a lot, while I'm watching chess or cycling videos. I must click on enough of his stuff for it to keep being suggested to me.
But he's not really my cup of tea. Ever since the primaries he's been announcing several times a week that Trump is failing. It's not sufficiently contemplative for me.
On “Let’s start calling a thug a thug”
bc: Criticizing a side for “othering” by what seems to be to be “othering” of another sort isn’t a winning proposition.
Criticizing Nazis for "othering" Jews by politely refraining from "othering" Nazis is surely a losing proposition -- if the audience is mainly Nazi supporters. People might support the Nazis for all sorts of reasons other than Jew hatred, you see.
I'm sorry to tell you, bc, that those of my fellow Americans who are indifferent to, never mind approving of, the Gestapo tactics of Dear Leader's brown-shirted (literally!) masked thugs will always be "others" to me. If they choose to shrug off fascism, how would you advise people like me to reason with them?
Whatever your advice might be, I say this much is true: they are more likely to listen to you than to me. We godless America-hating soshulist anit-fascists are automatically suspect. Assuming you are anti-fascist yourself, maybe you should caution them about "othering". Maybe you can point out to them that the fascism is part of a package deal with the tax cuts for billionaires (and whatever else) they voted for. If it turns out that doing that gets you "othered" by them, welcome to the club.
--TP
On “The Mother-in-law defense”
Well! I'd barely heard of this Ben Meiselas guy before, but it looks like he may be getting the message across - bigger audiences than Joe Rogan apparently. What do any ObWi people think of him?
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2025/oct/11/podcaster-ben-meiselas-on-taking-on-the-maga-media-and-winning-the-ratings-battle
On “Let’s start calling a thug a thug”
The request for a training facility was made in 2017
Noted, and a fair call. I stand corrected.
What are your thoughts about the unilateral defense agreement with Qatar?
"
Give me a shiny plane and I’ll let you build a base in Idaho.
The request for a training facility was made in 2017, shortly after the Obama administration approved selling current versions of the F-15 Strike Eagle to Qatar. Like most military base construction, there's a ton of hoops to jump through. Not long ago the final environmental impact statement was finished, so they announced the training facility. Badly. Horribly. Using terms that don't describe things accurately.
Singapore already has a training facility at the same air base for their F-15 pilots and mechanics. And a facility at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona for their F-16 pilots and mechanics. Both planes are supersonic; neither Singapore nor Qatar are big enough (in square miles) to support a supersonic practice range. Mountain Home is close to the Utah Test and Training Range, and Luke to the Nevada Test Site, where low-level supersonic flights are allowed. And it's easier to house a few of the exact planes you're buying in the US than try to ferry some in over great distances.
On “The Mother-in-law defense”
Meanwhile, someone watching Trump's speech in Israel just called me; apparently he turned to Keir Starmer and called him the President of Canada. That should go in a showreel along with the war he settled between Cambodia and Armenia. Talking of calling a spade a spade and getting it across to the wider electorate...
On “Let’s start calling a thug a thug”
Every other President in my lifetime has represented himself as serving in the interests of all Americans: this one is for his people only.
He's not even doing that, at least if equate "his people" with people who voted for him. His tariff war is seriously damaging for a variety of farmers. Cutting the ACA market subsidies will do particular damage in red states that haven't expanded Medicaid. The Medicaid cuts are going to exacerbate the financial problems facing rural hospitals.
When I was on the budget staff for my state's legislature, from time to time I heard members from rural areas say, "The Front Range urban corridor has declared war on rural Colorado." My job was understanding the state's cash flows. I was always tempted to say, "No, they haven't. You'll know they've declared war when the subsidies for your schools, roads, health care, electricity, and phone service stop."
"
. The call a thug a thug post was about how DEM POLITICIANS need to speak, not individual MAGA voters , The communication needs to be directed toward independents, new voters, nonvoters, people who previously haven't followed politics much etc to keep them from failing for the Noise Machine bullshit.
Yes, it is true that the cult isn't ideological of philosophical in nature. It is the result of decades of smears, defamation, lies, and other "Othering" techniques intended to polarize for the purpose of creating a base that will vote R no matter how bad R policies are out of a conviction that everyone who isn't an R is an existential threat to real true good American values. Remember wedge issues? Framing complex issues as simplified good versus evil dichotomies? Republican party leaders did that purposefully to convince Republican voters that the Democratic party had bad values and was a threat to their good values. While Rove was creating polarization through good/bad framing . other Republicans were spreading outright defamation such as the Swift Boat Liars. It was all Othering. Tactical, not philosophical. And the hate and fearmongering directed by the Republican party toward the rest of America has been going on for years and years and years.
Of course the whole time the Republican party/Faux/etc propaganda network was in high gear, the propagandists used faux victimization whenever anyone criticized them. How dare anyone call the Swift Boat Liars liars? How dare anyone criticize the content produced by Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin. That's cancel culture! It has been normal for decades for elected Republicans to engage in the promotion of hate and division while Dems were not supposed to object because to do so was supposedly to be engaging in divisiveness.
If people want to spend time talking actual policy with MAGA voters they can do so and maybe they will be able to break through sometimes. But the evidence of voting patterns shows that r voters usually vote R even when they are aware that they are voting for policies they oppose. Heck they kept on voting R even when their majour news sources Faux and Newsmax were revealed as liars. They even re-elected TRump even though Trump instigated a violent attack on Congress. Most R voter vote R no matter what. Some examples: in an interview with the head of the farmers' soybean special interest group, the head said that Trump's tariffs were bad but he'd vote for Trump again. Walz spent time talking to white union guys who nodded and agree on lots of issues but said they were voting for Trump. Biden bailed out union pensions, supported strikes, raised union wages, and lost the white male union vote. I read an interview with a R pol from Louisiana who was mourning the toxic wastes that had been spread around the state by floods. He told the reporter that he knew the state party was bad on environment issues, but he had to vote R because Republicans, he said, were Christians.
Othering is when a group of people is smeared with a false negative generalization. Kirk was othering when he said that white people were targeted for attack by roaming bands of black men. Elected Republicans nationwide are othering now when they say the No Kings Day even is a "hate America" event. Othering is when the Republican party decided to claim to be "pro-life" as opposed to the babykilling Democrats.
Othering is so common from Republicans and their media that it is normative. And no it is not othering them to say that--because othering is a false generalization, not an accurate one.
So how should a Dem politician run for office in this toxic polarized society created by Republican propaganda? Step one is to communicate reality clearly to the people not in the cult. Give voters a choice and make the choice obvious. Do it with humor as when Dem Sen Wyden said that Cosplay Cop Kristie was afraid of a man in a chicken suit or do it with moral outrage like Pritzker or stand up in public and say, in effect, bring in on while flooding the zone with lawsuits like WA Governor Ferguson. But do not treat propaganda from the Republicans as if it is good faith ideas for discussion.
"
I agree: what Pro Bono said. And on his last bullet point, about the SCOTUS, it's going to be interesting to see if this makes any difference (my guess is not, but I suppose it could give a bit of cover in case any of the disgraceful 6 is starting to feel uncomfortable)
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/13/us/politics/originalism-trump-supreme-court-unitary-executive.html?unlocked_article_code=1.tE8.z6ee.Bseton8hbgR1&smid=url-share
"
* I doubt the folks saying that are really gonna want to live in a world where it’s “all torn down”.
BIllionaires and centi-billionaires excepted. They have, as the colloquial expression goes, fuck you money. They’ll be fine no matter what.*
I'm sure that they think that. But how fine they will be is likely to depend on whether they manage to flee the country in time. Because, if they stay and it's all torn down, they are going to present an irresistible target.
Sure, they can hire guys with guns to defend them. But the thing is, those guys with guns are going to want to be paid. AND they are going to want somewhere to spend that pay. If it's all torn down, that's going to be problematic.
"
*what this tells me about the other side is that influential people on it are unconcerned with reality.*
I wonder about that. Is it that they are unconcerned with reality? Or are they (at least many of them) just as caught up in the alternate reality as any Faux News viewer?
Certainly there are some there who will ignore anything that looks like an inconvenient fact. Not to mention those who are simply delusional. But the (mis)information bubble there is both very real and very pervasive.
"
What Pro Bono said.
By my iights, this administration is doing damage to this country that will take generations, literally generations, to repair. Some of it may never be repaired.
If that prompts the "it all sucks anyway, just tear it down" response, I'd say that is profoundly nihilistic. And, I doubt the folks saying that are really gonna want to live in a world where it's "all torn down".
BIllionaires and centi-billionaires excepted. They have, as the colloquial expression goes, fuck you money. They'll be fine no matter what.
I'd add to Pro Bono's list the decline in our standing internationally, and the consequences *for everybody in the world*, not to exclude us, that are gonna follow on from that.
Trump has, in nine months, pissed away what took 80 years to build. Who is going to trust this country after this mess? Foreign relations at this point are devolving into pure transactional scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours deal making.
Give me a shiny plane and I'll let you build a base in Idaho. It ain't show friends, it's show business. Right? That's where we are headed, or perhaps already are. It's not a good basis for anything like national security.
The administration is deeply and thoroughly corrupt, and they are corrupting the country.
"
I understand the reasoning that the best vote-winning arguments are ones which appeal to voters' legitimate self-interest. But there are other things which must be said loud and often:
"
First, bc, thank you for chiming in. I always appreciate what you have to say, if only to keep myself honest.
Some of the stuff on Ackman's list make sense to me (immigration), some seem motivated more by a specific agenda of Ackman's (Israel / Gaza), some seem to ignore a broader context (withdrawal from Afghanistan, inflation). And for Ackman, specifically, as for much of the technorati, my sense is that a significant factor for him and them is "I want to do cool tech stuff and the feds won't get out of my way!".
But many or most are legitimate concerns, even if they either aren't concerns of mine personally, or I land in a different place than Ackman does regarding them.
My question for Ackman, and for supporters of Trump generally, is less "Why did you vote for him?" and more "Why are you still supporting him?".
Why are they still supporting him? Ackman I understand, Trump is gonna give the tech bros free rein. Ackman's gonna have fun and make a lot of money.
But I don't get rank and file MAGA. As far as I can tell, they're getting screwed. And yet, they love him.
"
1) Immigration. Immigration was higher in Trump's first term than in Bidens. Ackman is wrong.
2) Trump in his first term showed himself to be indifferent to the national debt. Ackman is wrong.
7) The USA has been a net fossil fuel exporter since 2019. Ackman is wrong.
I could go on - there are very few valid points. Yes, it's important to understand why people voted for Trump. But what this tells me about the other side is that influential people on it are unconcerned with reality. I hope that most of the electorate thinks otherwise.
On “The Mother-in-law defense”
I liked that Ryan Powers article. It's possible that my calls for civility can be misinterpreted as a call for "etiquette" or "decorum". I'm very aware of how often we misunderstand each other (two countries separated by a common language etc). In fact, I approve wholeheartedly of taking hard, tough action against the enemies of democracy, and of calling a spade a spade. If someone (Trump, Vance anybody else, including Ds) lies, I favour calling it lies. If a policy which e.g. directly contradicts what the ruling party said they would do while campaigning is introduced by stealth, I approve of calling it out and doing what's necessary to impede it. If attempts to subvert voting rights (gerrymandering etc) are made, I approve of doing what's necessary to impede them. And if unconstitutional actions are made by the government, I approve of demonstrating and taking other necessary actions (law suits, states' rights related etc) to oppose them. I agree that the Dem national leadership have been lily-livered and hidebound in their opposition by obsolete norms and assumptions.
What I mean by civility is the opposite of Ubu's behaviour. You don't have to insult and demean people to openly and factually describe what they're doing, including how and why. Calling dishonest, corrupt politicians dishonest and corrupt when you can support the accusation is a moral and practical imperative. Where my call for what I call civility particularly applies is in two situations: 1. when arguing and debating with people who defend the actions of those in power, in which case it is perfectly possible to factually describe what is happening without insulting them (e.g. demonstrating that lies are lies), and 2. when arguing and debating with people who might otherwise be considered on the same side as oneself, when there are occasional doctrinal differences but their basic intentions are otherwise congruent with one's own. In this second case, the irresistible case of the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea springs to mind; as well as being an illustration of a kind of narcissism of small differences, such infighting is counter-productive and does one's opponents' work for them.
Where American politics is concerned, I only wish there were more journalists and Dem politicians prepared to call a spade a spade, in such a way as to get their message truly across to the wider electorate. And I wish that there were platforms on which they could do so. Wit and creativity (like the dancing costumed protesters in Portland) really help in this, when enabled. And even Gavin Newsom's attempt at wit is better than nothing!
On “Let’s start calling a thug a thug”
Ok, I forgot that the comments now read in an opposite direction, so a lot has been posted since I started writing this (in spurts, given my crazy schedule). That link by GftNC was particularly interesting, especially the description of how limited the ideologues really are on either side. So the following didn't take all of that into account.
"I think it’s worth exploring how to communicate with MAGAs because, even when King Pussygrabber strokes out on the toilet at three in the morning, we won’t be over the madness. We will still have the MAGA voters, the Republican party’s commitment to the election tactics of Othering and engineered polarization, and the extensive well-funded Republican hate/fear propaganda bubble (Faux, etc) which, for many people, substitutes for news and shapes their voting behavior."
Well, with respect, I probably wouldn’t start like this. Criticizing a side for “othering” by what seems to be to be “othering” of another sort isn’t a winning proposition. And dialing up the rhetoric to 11 isn’t likely to do any good either. And claiming the other side “lies” when the issues are often nuanced only makes each side more entrenched. You could substitute in MSNBC for Faux, Democrat for Republican, woke Democrats for MAGA, and post this on a right-wing site and it would fit right in. And that, IMHO, is the problem.
I’d say the first thing to do is to try to understand the other side. And not the talking heads on TV, but real people of good faith. Why did so many vote for Trump? What policies were behind that decision? Or what was it about Biden/Harris that voters didn’t find attractive? You can argue that the election was lost by not being loud enough, or confrontational enough, or tough enough, but I think that misses the mark.
IMHO, a lot of people that voted for Trump/Vance were not anywhere close to the cartoonish MAGA voter you describe. There were so many reasons to vote for or not vote for Trump, just as there were so many reasons to vote for or not vote for Harris. And many of those reasons deserve respect. To claim otherwise is to have blinders on. You can hate a position, but hating the person holding that position is an entirely different matter.
Take just one former Democrat, Bill Ackman, and his voiced reasons for voting for Trump over Harris.
https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1844802469680873747
I chose him simply because he has a list handy that I read some time ago. I may not agree with all of his reasons (and you won’t either) but I think his reasons deserve respect on the whole. And this is his list. I think there are several more that could be added, but IMO, numbers 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 22, 24 , 28, 31, 33 were quite resonant with those that voted for Trump (not necessarily in that order). Ackman was not “born” or “made” in the sense you describe.
I am deliberately not responding to the specific examples in your post, Wonkie (i.e. Calloway, Walz, healthcare truth, Portland). I just didn’t want you to think those arguments were lost on me. I can acknowledge some validity in what you say. I just didn’t want any differences I have to detract from the tenor of my response.
On “The Mother-in-law defense”
wj - As so often, we wonder just what definition of “elite” is being used here.
He covers that earlier: The real answer is that the most powerful liberal institutions – the Democratic establishment, major donors and the professional class around them – are captive to outdated etiquette.
It's the DNC and those with input into the strategy side.
"
In elite liberal spaces
As so often, we wonder just what definition of "elite" is being used here.
"
In line with this discussion, Ryan Powers' op ed at the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/oct/12/democrats-etiquette-dangerous-democracy
In elite liberal spaces, the expectation is always the same: stay quiet, exit gracefully, never make a scene. Yet nonviolent unruliness has power precisely because it breaks the code of composure. Psychologists call this the “expectancy violations theory”: when behavior defies what’s anticipated, it commands outsized attention and carries significant weight. That impact is magnified when it comes from insiders with status or access.
This dynamic suggests that liberalism’s best strategy is to subvert its own norms. Critics may argue that spectacle undermines substance, or that breaking etiquette diminishes the credentials that lend Democrats authority. But in today’s attention economy, spectacle is often how substance gets noticed. Breaking strict decorum is not the enemy of liberalism; it may be the very tool that keeps it alive.
Worth a read. Someone will hopefully send it to Chuck Schumer.
"
russell - I also disagree with nous’ thought that health care “codes” as a management issue. At the policy level, it does. At the level of “do I have to choose between health insurance and rent” it does not.
Then we agree, because that is what I was trying to get at with my: It doesn’t register for workers as a policy thing so much as it does a wages and benefits thing. The voters that the Dems are losing are going to tune out as soon as the conversation starts focusing on the details of health policy, same as rank-and-file union members start getting sore feet and shuffling as soon as the rep with the bullhorn starts babbling on about the importance of changing the language in Article 5 Part 3 of the CBA.
Keep the language focused on struggles and outcomes and whose side you are fighting on. And if there are cleavage lines over policy choices, focus on the need for solidarity.
"
Pretty much everything russell says @ - oh, no time stamp. His longer comment anyway.
On “Brought to you by your latest captain of industry”
And it has the huge merit that it will classify as elite a whole bunch of people that today's self-important elitists will be horrified to be classed with.
On “The Mother-in-law defense”
Shorter me:
Pick any Trump policy or action. Call attention to it.
Then ask the question "How is that making your life better"?
Unless you're rich or wanna-be rich, it's not. And even if you're just wanna-be rich, it likely is not.
"How is [insert Trump policy here] making YOU'RE life better"?
I can't think of a single Trump policy or action that passes that test.
"
Until they lose it, or can't afford it. Especially if they or someone they care about has an expensive and / or chronic illness.
I also disagree with nous' thought that health care "codes" as a management issue. At the policy level, it does. At the level of "do I have to choose between health insurance and rent" it does not.
IMO (D)'s do well to hammer the hell out of this one.
I second wjca's thought that most people aren't really motivated by the whole "threat to democracy" thing. "People Like Me" might be, most people aren't. The connection between that and their daily life is not always clear.
I'd go so far as to say if you give a lot of people a choice betwen democracy and a basic level of personal and financial security, they would choose the latter without a second thought.
"Democracy" is kind of abstract. "My job is going away" is not. "I can't afford insulin" is not. "My hospital closed and the nearest one now is an hour away (or two hours away, or not even in my state)" is not. "I can't afford to not work, but I can't afford to pay for care for my kid" is not. "I work a full time job and have to take care of my disabled kid / my parent with Alzheimers / my partner who had a stroke" is not.
The price of eggs is too small bore. Have you lost your job? Are you clinging to a job you don't really like because you don't know if you can find another one? Do you make enough to buy a house? Do you make enough to start a family? Do you have a kid that needs any kind of special ed? Trump just took that away. Can your kids afford to go to college without taking on six figures of debt? If they don't go to college, can they find a job - not just a "job", but a career, a path in life - that will give them a decent quality of life?
Does your life feel stable? Can you see a path forward for yourself and your family, if you have one? Can you see a path forward to the life you thought you might have?
How worried are you about your future?
When I listen to folks, especially young folks (which for me at this point is basically anybody 45 or younger) this is the stuff that nags at them.
(D)'s should absolutely give zero ground on basic human rights. Women'sLGBTQ, trans people, black people, Latinos, immigrants of any stripe.
Defend them all. Do not give an inch.
But that needs to happen in a context that makes people understand that those folks' rights are not being defended at the expense of everybody else. That the (D)'s are not forgetting the folks who aren't "marginal" - not a member of a non-mainstream demographic.
I.e., to more or less stereotype it, people who might self-describe as more or less a plugger. Someone trying to do the right things, trying to "play by the rules". Someone who isn't trying to change the world, they're just trying to take care of themselves and their family. And who nonetheless finds themselves lying awake at night trying to figure out how to make it work.
(D)'s should be able to chew gum and walk at the same time. They should be able to say "those people who aren't like you are no threat to you, they're just living their lives" AND ALSO say "we see how tentative life is for you, here is what we will do to help that".
Not either / or.
It's a really unsettled time, people are worried, and everything Trump does makes it worse. Hammer that, every single day.
If you aren't rich, Donald J Trump is making your life worse. Less secure.
Are you rich? What exactly are you getting out of this administration?
Hammer that.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.