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?
You can tell the difference between the Dems with close union ties and allies and the ones who have never been a part of a union and only have ties to people in management.
Healthcare codes as a management concern. It doesn't register for workers as a policy thing so much as it does a wages and benefits thing. Policy details don't land with working class voters because those decisions are made by other people. What matters is whether they are feeling like government is fighting for workers or for the big people.
I really think it's that simple. Low information voters don't listen to policy discussions, and they don't trust people who spend all their time talking about that stuff. It's a cultural divide.
Nobody cares that if could/should be better. But raise the price of what they already have substantially? Take it away altogether? Whole different kettle of fish.
The decision that the Democrats face, it seems to me, amounts first to whether to attack on all fronts, or to pick one (or, at most two) fronts. My sense is that, while they find themselves in a target-rich environment, they will do better to pick one. The general public is not going to spend the time and effort to understand multiple issues. So focus, focus, focus.
The next question is: which issue? Obvious choices being 1) health care and the impact that Republican policy, as displayed in their budget, will have: skyrocket costs and even making it largely unavailable in places. The fact that those places are generally rural (i.e. deep red) areas is a bonus. 2) ICE and what it is doing to everything from local businesses to food prices.
What they should not do is put all there efforts into fighting Trump's threat to democracy in America and our form of government overall. Granted, it's enormously important issue. But it simply doesn't resonate with the voters (and potential voters) that Democrats need to reach. That doesn't mean ignoring the issue. By all means support those pushing it. But don't make it focus. It's satisfying harassment if you are a non-MAGA activist, but it won't influence existing Republican Representatives (except, maybe, to do dumb things) and it won't win votes next year.
One wildcard is the military. A lot of enlisted military live pretty much paycheck to paycheck. And their next paycheck, in a few days, isn't happening at the moment. Democrats are pushing a special bill to at least pay them, even if not other government employees. But since the Speaker is keeping the House in recess** that can't happen. The military is stationed in relatively compact areas. So messages targetting those locales would be worthwhile. The military leans conservative, but being unable to feed their families is something that way overwhelms that inclination. And it's something they won't forget.
To repeat: focus, focus, focus.
** The actual reason may be something else. But a plausible explanation is the newly elected Representative from Arizona. When the House comes back into session, she gets sworn in; until that she technically isn't yet a member. That matters because she would be the last signature necessary for the discharge petition which will lead to making the Epstein files public. The longer Johnson can stall, the longer he and, more to the point, Trump have to lean on the handful of Republican Representatives who have signed the petition. I have no idea what's in there, but the desperation to keep it quiet is palpable.
I think wj is absolutely right, nobody using the word knows what definition of "elite" anybody else uses. In the case of Rory Stewart, it can be quite hard to imagine how he wouldn't know he was part of "the elite", having been educated (as he was) at Eton and Balliol. It is of course a point in his favour that he only attended one meeting of the Bullingdon Club having realised how appalling their prevailing behaviour was, but on the other hand I believe they make a bit of a fetish of only selecting the "right kind" of members, which would mark you out as being a member of what many people (like Etonians for example) understand "the elite" to be. The only thing that would perhaps make sense is that he imagines the elite to be about money: he is right when he says that Oxford professors are not what most people these days consider "rich". Of course, before they started the immensely popular podcast, neither was he, although I believe he and Campbell are now!
I sympathise with novakant's view of Campbell, it took me a long time to get over his behaviour on Iraq etc. And I have never forgotten how he stormed onto the C4 News, with no notice, and tried to browbeat Jon Snow about the Dodgy Dossier. Watching it again makes me very much miss the calibre of those kinds of journalists (JS, not AC).
It's almost tragic to see how Campbell seems to be incapable of understanding that the problems we face now regarding a post-truth public have their root in the handling of the Iraq war by the US/UK.
Though he seems to have some opinions that I might agree with, I refuse to listen to or read Campbell because of his role in the Iraq war and his lack of contrition and insight since. To put it bluntly, he's just an arrogant f@ck who can get away with anything and still be a member of the media/political elite. Like Blair.
In fact, that might one good definition of elite: you just stay at the top whatever you do.
I think one of the great (and often overlooked) issues in this kind of discussion is: What is your definition of "elite"? Is it how much money you have (regardless of whether you earned it, inherited it, or maybe won the lottery)? Is it how much you make (whether you hang on to it or not)? Or is it how much education you have (regardless of whether you actually use anything you learned)? Or maybe something else?
Granted there is some correlation among the first three. But they are certainly far from identical. And yet anytime the term comes up in discussion, everybody seems to assume that everybody else is working from the same definition. Or should be.
And that is at the root of any suggestion that someone doesn't recognize their own membership in "the elite.". Almost certainly the other person is coming from a different definition of the term. Under their definition, they might well be correct.
That's how an Oxford professor can believe that he isn't a member of the elite -- he doesn't make enough. While someone who uses the level of education as the governing criteria will think that of course he is part of the elite. Different definitions.
P.S. It belatedly occurs to me that the converse also applies. Some people consider themselves part of the elite. While lots of others strongly disagree. (Only consider the term nouveau-riche.) Again, different definitions.
Aha, got it, thanks lj and Michael. I wasn't even sure the links would copy over, and the graphs, tables etc didn't, but at least I'll know what to look out for in the future. I haven't abandoned the idea of front page posts, lj, but a) this seemed appropriate to put in this thread, and b) I'm wary of there being too many new posts because I've always found the meandering, semi-discursive nature of our long threads one of the most appealing aspects of ObWi - like a bunch of friends sitting around chewing the fat.
The Portland Frog.
We’ve been talking about communication to reduce polarization and fight fascism. I think that at this moment in time, the smartest communicator I know of is the Portland Frog.
Why? Because he exposed the Trump admin as lying crisis actors and he did it in a way that is easy to understand, accessible to the non-political citizen, and catchy enough to get the attention of the MSM. What's going on with the Portland Frog standing off against ICE? Among Portland Protests, It’s Frogs and Sharks and Bears, Oh My! - The New York Times
I raised the question of whether MAGAs were born or made. I think that the comment about authoritarian personality types is very relevant: There are people who are natural born followers of a leader who is perceived to be strong. They care less about where they might be led than they do for the comfort of feeling that someone big and mean is in charge and will keep them safe.
No one is a natural born follower of a leader who is an idiot.
Republican influencers are trying hard to convince the MAGAs that King Pussygrabber and Cruelty Barbie are defending us against an existential threat. The longer Portland activists can keep things silly, the harder it will be to keep up the lying. Protest frogs vs. MAGA media influencers: the info war over ICE in Portland and Chicago
I am concerned about the upcoming No Kings Day. I am concerned about the leftwing wannabe heroes who do stupid and destructive things like blocking traffic, setting fires, and throwing things. If those jerks aren’t Republicans, then they should be because that’s who they’re helping. I hope the Portland Frog inspires people all over the US to make the NO Kings Day event be a day of silliness, music, and fun. Fuck Fascists with fun!
I’ll be down in Olympia WA where protests are always like that.
Best wishes to you all wherever you go and stay safe
I've gone ahead and pulled the comment out of spam. Right now, 3 links is the threshold, and yours had a bunch more than that, but if it has 3 or more, it should hold it in a moderation queue, though yours was classified as spam, possibly because it had 10+ links. This can be a problem with copy and paste from articles that have multiple embedded links because those will just transfer over.
Akismet uses aldorithms to figure out what is or is not spam, and will change those, especially after there is some sort of spam surge, but they don't say what the algorithms are and I think they are constantly shifting.
Also, there is the time difference. I'm in bed when a lot of discussion gets going, so it's going to be about 6 or 7 hours before I can do anything, if I notice. When Typepad did this, I had the spam folder open so I could free comments when they popped up, but yours is the first to have done that. Fortunately, I don't think we have the problem that we had with typepad where comments would get lost, so people would repost them. Generally, if you don't see something, it did get to the blog, so a quick note reminding me rather than multiple reposts is best.
With the Leslie article, it might be better as a front page post. I know that there is an expectation of adding some additional information, but that is a self imposed expectation that has arisen rather than something that has to be there. If you want to do that, send it to my email (libjpn@gmail) and I'll put it up.
Meanwhile, the NYT editorial board at least tells it like it is. Too bad the Rs have so bought into the fake news/MSM lie that they think they can safely ignore it:
@GftNC, your long comment went into the spam folder. I'll leave it up to the real editors to fish it out.
The initial "awaiting approval" is because there are more than two links. Why WordPress classifies something as spam is a mystery, they don't reveal how it works.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
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.
On “Brought to you by your latest captain of industry”
This seems exactly right to me. Thanks for this, it crystalizes a lot of things in my thinking.
On “The Mother-in-law defense”
You can tell the difference between the Dems with close union ties and allies and the ones who have never been a part of a union and only have ties to people in management.
Healthcare codes as a management concern. It doesn't register for workers as a policy thing so much as it does a wages and benefits thing. Policy details don't land with working class voters because those decisions are made by other people. What matters is whether they are feeling like government is fighting for workers or for the big people.
I really think it's that simple. Low information voters don't listen to policy discussions, and they don't trust people who spend all their time talking about that stuff. It's a cultural divide.
"
Nobody cares that if could/should be better. But raise the price of what they already have substantially? Take it away altogether? Whole different kettle of fish.
"
Democrats always focus on health care.
Nobody cares.
"
The decision that the Democrats face, it seems to me, amounts first to whether to attack on all fronts, or to pick one (or, at most two) fronts. My sense is that, while they find themselves in a target-rich environment, they will do better to pick one. The general public is not going to spend the time and effort to understand multiple issues. So focus, focus, focus.
The next question is: which issue? Obvious choices being 1) health care and the impact that Republican policy, as displayed in their budget, will have: skyrocket costs and even making it largely unavailable in places. The fact that those places are generally rural (i.e. deep red) areas is a bonus. 2) ICE and what it is doing to everything from local businesses to food prices.
What they should not do is put all there efforts into fighting Trump's threat to democracy in America and our form of government overall. Granted, it's enormously important issue. But it simply doesn't resonate with the voters (and potential voters) that Democrats need to reach. That doesn't mean ignoring the issue. By all means support those pushing it. But don't make it focus. It's satisfying harassment if you are a non-MAGA activist, but it won't influence existing Republican Representatives (except, maybe, to do dumb things) and it won't win votes next year.
One wildcard is the military. A lot of enlisted military live pretty much paycheck to paycheck. And their next paycheck, in a few days, isn't happening at the moment. Democrats are pushing a special bill to at least pay them, even if not other government employees. But since the Speaker is keeping the House in recess** that can't happen. The military is stationed in relatively compact areas. So messages targetting those locales would be worthwhile. The military leans conservative, but being unable to feed their families is something that way overwhelms that inclination. And it's something they won't forget.
To repeat: focus, focus, focus.
** The actual reason may be something else. But a plausible explanation is the newly elected Representative from Arizona. When the House comes back into session, she gets sworn in; until that she technically isn't yet a member. That matters because she would be the last signature necessary for the discharge petition which will lead to making the Epstein files public. The longer Johnson can stall, the longer he and, more to the point, Trump have to lean on the handful of Republican Representatives who have signed the petition. I have no idea what's in there, but the desperation to keep it quiet is palpable.
On “Brought to you by your latest captain of industry”
I think wj is absolutely right, nobody using the word knows what definition of "elite" anybody else uses. In the case of Rory Stewart, it can be quite hard to imagine how he wouldn't know he was part of "the elite", having been educated (as he was) at Eton and Balliol. It is of course a point in his favour that he only attended one meeting of the Bullingdon Club having realised how appalling their prevailing behaviour was, but on the other hand I believe they make a bit of a fetish of only selecting the "right kind" of members, which would mark you out as being a member of what many people (like Etonians for example) understand "the elite" to be. The only thing that would perhaps make sense is that he imagines the elite to be about money: he is right when he says that Oxford professors are not what most people these days consider "rich". Of course, before they started the immensely popular podcast, neither was he, although I believe he and Campbell are now!
I sympathise with novakant's view of Campbell, it took me a long time to get over his behaviour on Iraq etc. And I have never forgotten how he stormed onto the C4 News, with no notice, and tried to browbeat Jon Snow about the Dodgy Dossier. Watching it again makes me very much miss the calibre of those kinds of journalists (JS, not AC).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBWE7QzADe8
"
Speaking of Blair, this New Statesman podcast is eyeopening
https://youtu.be/QwCsQYUFuEE?si=Jjf_FCPYomnP5TQM
"
It's almost tragic to see how Campbell seems to be incapable of understanding that the problems we face now regarding a post-truth public have their root in the handling of the Iraq war by the US/UK.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WEzvesJUAuc
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-Bxs-dmb9nY
"
Though he seems to have some opinions that I might agree with, I refuse to listen to or read Campbell because of his role in the Iraq war and his lack of contrition and insight since. To put it bluntly, he's just an arrogant f@ck who can get away with anything and still be a member of the media/political elite. Like Blair.
In fact, that might one good definition of elite: you just stay at the top whatever you do.
"
I think one of the great (and often overlooked) issues in this kind of discussion is: What is your definition of "elite"? Is it how much money you have (regardless of whether you earned it, inherited it, or maybe won the lottery)? Is it how much you make (whether you hang on to it or not)? Or is it how much education you have (regardless of whether you actually use anything you learned)? Or maybe something else?
Granted there is some correlation among the first three. But they are certainly far from identical. And yet anytime the term comes up in discussion, everybody seems to assume that everybody else is working from the same definition. Or should be.
And that is at the root of any suggestion that someone doesn't recognize their own membership in "the elite.". Almost certainly the other person is coming from a different definition of the term. Under their definition, they might well be correct.
That's how an Oxford professor can believe that he isn't a member of the elite -- he doesn't make enough. While someone who uses the level of education as the governing criteria will think that of course he is part of the elite. Different definitions.
P.S. It belatedly occurs to me that the converse also applies. Some people consider themselves part of the elite. While lots of others strongly disagree. (Only consider the term nouveau-riche.) Again, different definitions.
On “Let’s start calling a thug a thug”
Aha, got it, thanks lj and Michael. I wasn't even sure the links would copy over, and the graphs, tables etc didn't, but at least I'll know what to look out for in the future. I haven't abandoned the idea of front page posts, lj, but a) this seemed appropriate to put in this thread, and b) I'm wary of there being too many new posts because I've always found the meandering, semi-discursive nature of our long threads one of the most appealing aspects of ObWi - like a bunch of friends sitting around chewing the fat.
"
The Portland Frog.
We’ve been talking about communication to reduce polarization and fight fascism. I think that at this moment in time, the smartest communicator I know of is the Portland Frog.
Why? Because he exposed the Trump admin as lying crisis actors and he did it in a way that is easy to understand, accessible to the non-political citizen, and catchy enough to get the attention of the MSM.
What's going on with the Portland Frog standing off against ICE?
Among Portland Protests, It’s Frogs and Sharks and Bears, Oh My! - The New York Times
I raised the question of whether MAGAs were born or made. I think that the comment about authoritarian personality types is very relevant: There are people who are natural born followers of a leader who is perceived to be strong. They care less about where they might be led than they do for the comfort of feeling that someone big and mean is in charge and will keep them safe.
No one is a natural born follower of a leader who is an idiot.
Republican influencers are trying hard to convince the MAGAs that King Pussygrabber and Cruelty Barbie are defending us against an existential threat. The longer Portland activists can keep things silly, the harder it will be to keep up the lying.
Protest frogs vs. MAGA media influencers: the info war over ICE in Portland and Chicago
I am concerned about the upcoming No Kings Day. I am concerned about the leftwing wannabe heroes who do stupid and destructive things like blocking traffic, setting fires, and throwing things. If those jerks aren’t Republicans, then they should be because that’s who they’re helping. I hope the Portland Frog inspires people all over the US to make the NO Kings Day event be a day of silliness, music, and fun. Fuck Fascists with fun!
I’ll be down in Olympia WA where protests are always like that.
Best wishes to you all wherever you go and stay safe
"
I've gone ahead and pulled the comment out of spam. Right now, 3 links is the threshold, and yours had a bunch more than that, but if it has 3 or more, it should hold it in a moderation queue, though yours was classified as spam, possibly because it had 10+ links. This can be a problem with copy and paste from articles that have multiple embedded links because those will just transfer over.
Akismet uses aldorithms to figure out what is or is not spam, and will change those, especially after there is some sort of spam surge, but they don't say what the algorithms are and I think they are constantly shifting.
Also, there is the time difference. I'm in bed when a lot of discussion gets going, so it's going to be about 6 or 7 hours before I can do anything, if I notice. When Typepad did this, I had the spam folder open so I could free comments when they popped up, but yours is the first to have done that. Fortunately, I don't think we have the problem that we had with typepad where comments would get lost, so people would repost them. Generally, if you don't see something, it did get to the blog, so a quick note reminding me rather than multiple reposts is best.
With the Leslie article, it might be better as a front page post. I know that there is an expectation of adding some additional information, but that is a self imposed expectation that has arisen rather than something that has to be there. If you want to do that, send it to my email (libjpn@gmail) and I'll put it up.
"
Meanwhile, the NYT editorial board at least tells it like it is. Too bad the Rs have so bought into the fake news/MSM lie that they think they can safely ignore it:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/10/opinion/letitia-james-indictment-trump.html?unlocked_article_code=1.sk8.XvAr.7ewQlq_sNfRI&smid=url-share
"
@GftNC, your long comment went into the spam folder. I'll leave it up to the real editors to fish it out.
The initial "awaiting approval" is because there are more than two links. Why WordPress classifies something as spam is a mystery, they don't reveal how it works.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.