Item 23. You’re missing the salience of Trans issues for men. Think of it this way: Two bros talking, one says, I’m voting for Harris, the other says, What? Are you trans or something? The trans issue is a part of one of the central motivations of Trump’s voters, the restoration of male dominance. Trump is preying on American male inadequacy and they are saying Yes. Men want their god-given power back.
Hey, why haven't "the Groups" focused on reproductive freedom, and grassroots people motivated by that issue made more news or public spectacle of themselves?
I have heard multiple references to a few nightmare news stories, but nothing is approaching virality. And nothing is getting out onto streets or becoming disruptive and impossible to ignore like anti-police shooting protests of 2020, which, however uncomfortable they made people and mobilized MAGA vote, made Trump look bad too and mobilized anti-Trump vote.
I would have liked to see some Resist wine moms demonstrating. OTOH, if it had looked anything like the FP demonstrations, I think that would be net negative, so I'm good erring on the side of no protest.
The old ways of protest we have seen have gone stale.
We need new techniques. I have felt, since the Dobbs decision, that if we had reproductive rights movement committed to the fight, with any dynamism or flair for innovation, we would have started seeing mass actions and edgy disruptive stuff to show the pro lifers that THIS…IS…FAR…FROM….OVER…everybody with an interest in heteronormative sex and romance and profiting from it gets hurt…
1. A mass solidarity movement by women, especially of reproductive age, to stop wearing any feminine or form-fitting or shaping clothes until their jurisdictions guarantee bodily autonomy. At least outside of work hours. And if form fit or shaping clothes are considered a professional standard for employment, well then at least doing so out of work hours (although it is a legit labor issue if suitability for male gaze or beauty standard appropriated therefrom is a condition of employment)
2. Boycott cancellation of beauty pageants
3. Boycotts of normal heterosexual mixing social venues
4. Exposures, whenever possible, of payoffs for conservatives, Republicans or Federalist Society members for abortions
5. Doxxing/exposures of abortion tattletales/tipsters/bounty-collectors
6. Mass cyberattacks and DDOS strikes on straight porn sites
I've said that if Trump wins this election, or even worse, wins the popular vote, I won't be proud to be an American anymore.
But in terms of what it says about us, Trump getting 47% of the vote versus 44% isn't really different. So I guess I should feel intense grief and mourning that it's come to this regardless.
I did a ton of work that I suppose Matt would say was useless after 2016. I even took reduced hours at work to run a massive letter writing campaign for the 2018 midterms. I worked with a local lefty activist chapter because they agreed to promote my events to their mailing list, which genuinely was valuable, but man, lefty activists are annoying. People I'd never personally met threw tantrums because I organized a phone bank for Claire McCaskill.
But I always reminded myself that many people have fought off monsters much worse than Trump, and often saw no success within their lifetimes. I didn't feel that it was acceptable to give up. (In the end, we wrote tens of thousands of letters, and I'm really glad I did it).
Now I'm just bitter, even though intellectually I believe the same thing. I believe we all still have a duty to Do Something to minimize the damage of a second Trump term. But I'm not just out of juice. I'm out of ideas. Matt's one suggestion is to give Democrats in tough races money. That doesn't feel like enough. Should I really just turn my attention to advocating for more public pickleball courts in my city?
I don't understand why the discussion about Trump's effect on democracy has focused on this dumb idea he'll make himself a dictator.
Of fucking COURSE Trump won't make himself a dictator for the very simple reason that in four years he isn't going to have many years left he could even hope to run the country. Why, at 82, would he possibly take the very serious risk he ends up in prison or dead immediately when he can just self-pardon, get all his federal cases dismissed and count on tying anything else up in the courts for the rest of his life. And he isn't going to take that risk for anyone else's benefit. Besides the people who turn democratic systems into dictatorships tend to inspire intense personal loyalty and have strong support from military elites.
So no it's way below even 5%. Doesn't mean he may not use illegal force, ruin democratic norms and put us at much greater risk of dictatorship later. Often the real problem is the backlash which claims to need power to clean things up.
But can we please recognize that Trump can seriously damage democratic norms without becoming a dictator?
While I agree that Trump has already done serious damage to our democracy, and will do more if elected, I think there's a decent chance he'll try for a third term. His father lived into his nineties and Trump has the best healthcare in the world.
I also feel like people ignore the fact that Trump likes being president.
I think even if you support big tax cuts, American democracy collapsing might be bad for your business, and you should still not vote for Trump.
If you think abortion is murder, the risk of American democracy collapsing might be an acceptable trade off. But then I ask, if you think abortion is *murder*, why isn't the "pro-life" movement the biggest funder of cheap, easy, reliable birth control with minimal side effects? Almost all abortions are a result of unplanned pregnancy. Fewer of those, fewer baby murders.
There are potential birth control options for men that seem to have zero side effects, but the research can't even get minimal funding.
I would also tie this to Matt's current crusade against medical ethics. The FDA standard is that a medicine's potential side effects must be significantly more minor than the benefits. Pregnancy is very hard on a woman's body, so female birth control with some negative side effects passes. Men, however, experience no individual downside when causing a pregnancy, which means that any male birth control must have <0 side effects.
But that's not the whole story. Causing a pregnancy can be bad for many reasons. If you want to be completely self-interested, it can put you on the hook for 18 years of child support.
Given that, should FDA rules be changed to allow for medications that don't strictly cause personal harm? There's zero personal benefit to a man getting a vasectomy, and there's always a small chance the vasectomy could go wrong. Why should medication pass a higher bar?
Aren't you also literally doing what you criticize those black democrats for doing -- raising the salience of issues that don't benefit your canidate? I mean that very bullet point increased the salience of Israel.
EDIT: I'm not trying to call you out for hypocrisy. Rather, I wanted to raise the possibility that almost everyone involved sees themselves as doing exactly what you are doing. They all think, us dems need to do a better job of saying the things that appeal to voters and since I believe some other dem players listen to me I'm going to explain how we can change our messaging to be more effective. And, just like you, in trying to do that they in aggregate make the situation much worse.
Of course, sometimes people do need to make suggestions about messaging to the party via publicly readable media. But it's a complicated calculus that needs to weigh your influence with party insiders against your public visibility with adjustment for how likely you are to persuade anyone and how much it matters. And it's a pretty tall order to ask people to realize they are such an insignificant peon they should STFU especially if it also costs them personally influence and reputation (eg if you had kept quite we'd feel less privy to your inside take).
Maybe, but I suspect you can still see the tension here -- all the people he is critisizing no doubt also think of themselves as influential in democratic circles (correctly or not).
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if everyone in the damn game was thinking "We need to do a better job of saying the popular things and since some Dems listen to me I'm going to explain how to change our message to be more effective"
My understanding is that most of Biden's campaign staff is subscribed to Matt's substack / follows Matt on Twitter. That's solid evidence that he has the ear of higher ups, rather than, "I am a prominent opinion giver," a la Michael Moore.
Matt is also good about presenting objective polling data that shows what messages work best. Yes, I think everyone sincerely believes they know how best to guide the Democratic Party. But you're more credible if you have more than your own vibes.
Ultimately, MY might very well be in a meaningfully different position. The problem is that the reasons he has to think this are essentially the same reasons he has to believe he's right and focused on what's important.
Sure, he probably has a bunch of dem campaign staffers follow him -- though no doubt they follow many people -- but he has quite a large following overall and harm is also proportional to viewership. I mean if I start tweeting/commenting about how dems should approach Israel-Palestine it hardly matters since all of 50 people would read it. Aside from a joke on YouTube about Biden's dog that I don't think I've ever had more than a 100 people react to anything I've written (and that was just a comment on this substack).
Of course, I agree with you about the quality of MY's analysis -- it's why I'm subscribed -- but looking at polls and focus groups is alot less helpful than one might assume. Everyone insisting Kamala needs to just focus on her plans to give people prescription (I think?) benefits think they're the ones paying attention to the data because those are the ads/points that receive the most positive ratings in the data. But that's like saying she should campaign on the message: "kicking puppies is bad" because everyone likes that. Trump will -- as he has with the prescription thing -- just say me too and it doesn't achieve anything.
I think MY is using data in a generally insightful way but that doesn't change the fact that everyone has a theory and their theory tells them they are the ones who are reacting to the important information and ignoring the noise/misleading information. Even the people who keep insisting Kamala needs to spend more time calling out Trump as a fascist have a theory why that's what the evidence really shows (eg they won't take you seriously if you make such an extreme accusation but don't treat it as if it's the only thing that matters).
My point is that there isn't really a principle here you could hope to persuade people to adopt which leads to those unhelpful voices in dem political circles shutting up without just actually convincing them their first order analysis was misguided and MY's was right. The mistake happens because they believe they are right about what they're saying being an important insight that's being ignored.
Well, let me point out something else in Matt's favor: he changes his mind. I'm not sure if you have specific individuals in mind, but I think most of the people Matt's criticizing are dogmatic.
No, I'm not arguing in favor of specific individuals or even suggesting that MY is doing something wrong. Merely that this is an argument one shouldn't expect to change any minds.
A good list, but not enough about the absolutely ridiculous double standard that Harris and Trump are held to, and the reason for it.
The reason is that some Americans think the system sucks and want to burn it to the ground/watch the evil libruls cry. These are Trump's core constituency. Harris's constituency are people who think America is mainly good but needs to be improved on the margins.
So of course Harris and Trump are held to different standards, because it's always harder to build or preserve than to destroy. It takes strength, courage and training to be a good firefighter, but any dumbass can douse a building in kerosene and set it on fire. It takes talent and practice to win a singing or dancing competition, but it doesn't take any to slouch in there and tell the judges that singing and dancing is for pussies.
Hence, Harris is judged strictly on everything: she's too vague! She speaks in platitudes! She hasn't pivoted convincingly from her woke stances of 2019! She should have done XYZ [an interview with Joe Rogan, a Sister Souljah moment, less/more support for Israel, more distancing herself from Biden, etc. etc. etc.]
But Trump can afford to do whatever the f**k he wants, because he is doing a bang-up crackerjack job at the thing his core constituency cares about most: poking Teh Librul Elitez in the eye. Saying fascist-y things like calling your political opponents "enemies of the people"? Having Tucker open for you with a borderline-pornographic speech on "Daddy Trump is going to spank the bad girl"? Spreading crazy-ass rumors about Haitians eating people's pets? Good! Look how triggered those lame-ass librul beta cucks are! We love King Donald for making them cry!
Like, I really want to believe that the "burn it all down" contingent is smaller than it appears online. Just, Trump is really good at telling his audience what they want to hear, and he's been choosing to focus on this vile shit instead of substantive policy issues. So, he must believe this is what his audience wants to hear.
For the nth time: "When people show you who they are, believe them."
Although there are mean girls and 'moms for liberty' numbered among these people, this group skews male. I think the country will be saved by ladies overriding the little boys and their games - unless it isn't. There needs to be unfiltered communication about what the true price for normal everyday people, including men, and people they know and love, of empowering people just because they make liberals cry.
> The older cohort of high-level Democratic Party politicians was better than Biden and Harris at actually breaking down policy issues for public consumption.
In memoirs and in book after book it is detailed that this is a skill they meticulously worked on. Yes, you get a WJC once in a few generations if you're lucky, but few even want to try!
> Tim Walz says, “You don't get elected to bank political capital to get elected again. You get elected to burn that capital to improve lives.” I think that metaphor captures the dynamics much better than the fantasies of deliverism.
And as it should be. The alternative is I want to win elections in order to .. win elections.
Except that, if you genuinely think the other side will make people's lives worse if they win, then just winning elections in order to win elections should be viewed as a good thing.
I was very taken with the insight on the "Thiels/Sacks/Musk axis", which I think includes but is set to expand beyond just Trump support. I hope that you'll consider developing the theme in a future newsletter.
Terrific article! Ty 👏👏 Your term “Deliverism” so well described Biden’s philosophy and performance. Delivering high-minded policies that do not show fruit for several years is not enticing to voters. There is so much good stuff in this article. My deep desire is that Democrats continually ask their Constituents what 2 or 3 things they most desire and address their concerns in ordinary words. If it is infeasible like “Medicare for All,” explain how many PC Doctors we have vs. how many people. Also lack of hospitals. Difficulty of getting Immigrant Doctors certified. Lay it out. If it’s something like,”My grocery bill is too high and my kids eat all the time,” put forth both supply and demand examples and publish recipes that can be cooked up at home on the weekend then served up several days. Explain how much less expensive it would be if you used beans some times in place of meat. Now during the last days before the election, I ask Kamala to be calmer like Beyonce and Liz Cheyney. Emphasize women’s rights and acknowledge she hears people complaining about the high cost of food. Let voters know how Trump’s policies increase inflation but she has voters backs. Stop saying “Fascist. ” Voters who know are on board; others have been blocking that word from their minds. 🤞Hope is high here.
I read this and just want to yell WHY. I wonder if they think highlighting her proposals front and forward *isnt* the best strategy or if they just think she’s bad at it
I don’t think deliverism is wrong, I think it’s not possible.
When people want to really sell that idea, they point to FDR. He delivered a lot but there was a lot to deliver because of the Great Depression followed by the largest war in history. But if you don’t have 26% unemployment and a world war, I’m not sure you can deliver policies that lock in the mass public for a generation or more.
I’ve just increasingly come to believe we need a small-c conservative government that makes improvements where clear improvements can be made but is otherwise mostly a caretaker of existing institutions.
The biggest risk in a Trump presidency in terms of likelihood is our government becoming very corrupt. Handing Trump a favor really does seem to make him do a favor in return. That’s just sort of dangerous, especially if you combine it with a court that believes in the unitary executive.
Item 23. You’re missing the salience of Trans issues for men. Think of it this way: Two bros talking, one says, I’m voting for Harris, the other says, What? Are you trans or something? The trans issue is a part of one of the central motivations of Trump’s voters, the restoration of male dominance. Trump is preying on American male inadequacy and they are saying Yes. Men want their god-given power back.
The chance of democracy collapsing under a second Trump term is 10%.
Hey, why haven't "the Groups" focused on reproductive freedom, and grassroots people motivated by that issue made more news or public spectacle of themselves?
I have heard multiple references to a few nightmare news stories, but nothing is approaching virality. And nothing is getting out onto streets or becoming disruptive and impossible to ignore like anti-police shooting protests of 2020, which, however uncomfortable they made people and mobilized MAGA vote, made Trump look bad too and mobilized anti-Trump vote.
I would have liked to see some Resist wine moms demonstrating. OTOH, if it had looked anything like the FP demonstrations, I think that would be net negative, so I'm good erring on the side of no protest.
FP - Free Palestine?
It would look different, different issues, different relatability, different tactics, no military or terrorist nexus, no cultural 'otherness'
Yes, Free Palestine.
It's more that the people who like to organize protests are not always that politically savvy. I think no protests are better than bad protests.
The old ways of protest we have seen have gone stale.
We need new techniques. I have felt, since the Dobbs decision, that if we had reproductive rights movement committed to the fight, with any dynamism or flair for innovation, we would have started seeing mass actions and edgy disruptive stuff to show the pro lifers that THIS…IS…FAR…FROM….OVER…everybody with an interest in heteronormative sex and romance and profiting from it gets hurt…
1. A mass solidarity movement by women, especially of reproductive age, to stop wearing any feminine or form-fitting or shaping clothes until their jurisdictions guarantee bodily autonomy. At least outside of work hours. And if form fit or shaping clothes are considered a professional standard for employment, well then at least doing so out of work hours (although it is a legit labor issue if suitability for male gaze or beauty standard appropriated therefrom is a condition of employment)
2. Boycott cancellation of beauty pageants
3. Boycotts of normal heterosexual mixing social venues
4. Exposures, whenever possible, of payoffs for conservatives, Republicans or Federalist Society members for abortions
5. Doxxing/exposures of abortion tattletales/tipsters/bounty-collectors
6. Mass cyberattacks and DDOS strikes on straight porn sites
In the war on women in 2024, I say: Lysistrata strategy for the win baby!
I've said that if Trump wins this election, or even worse, wins the popular vote, I won't be proud to be an American anymore.
But in terms of what it says about us, Trump getting 47% of the vote versus 44% isn't really different. So I guess I should feel intense grief and mourning that it's come to this regardless.
I did a ton of work that I suppose Matt would say was useless after 2016. I even took reduced hours at work to run a massive letter writing campaign for the 2018 midterms. I worked with a local lefty activist chapter because they agreed to promote my events to their mailing list, which genuinely was valuable, but man, lefty activists are annoying. People I'd never personally met threw tantrums because I organized a phone bank for Claire McCaskill.
But I always reminded myself that many people have fought off monsters much worse than Trump, and often saw no success within their lifetimes. I didn't feel that it was acceptable to give up. (In the end, we wrote tens of thousands of letters, and I'm really glad I did it).
Now I'm just bitter, even though intellectually I believe the same thing. I believe we all still have a duty to Do Something to minimize the damage of a second Trump term. But I'm not just out of juice. I'm out of ideas. Matt's one suggestion is to give Democrats in tough races money. That doesn't feel like enough. Should I really just turn my attention to advocating for more public pickleball courts in my city?
I don't understand why the discussion about Trump's effect on democracy has focused on this dumb idea he'll make himself a dictator.
Of fucking COURSE Trump won't make himself a dictator for the very simple reason that in four years he isn't going to have many years left he could even hope to run the country. Why, at 82, would he possibly take the very serious risk he ends up in prison or dead immediately when he can just self-pardon, get all his federal cases dismissed and count on tying anything else up in the courts for the rest of his life. And he isn't going to take that risk for anyone else's benefit. Besides the people who turn democratic systems into dictatorships tend to inspire intense personal loyalty and have strong support from military elites.
So no it's way below even 5%. Doesn't mean he may not use illegal force, ruin democratic norms and put us at much greater risk of dictatorship later. Often the real problem is the backlash which claims to need power to clean things up.
But can we please recognize that Trump can seriously damage democratic norms without becoming a dictator?
While I agree that Trump has already done serious damage to our democracy, and will do more if elected, I think there's a decent chance he'll try for a third term. His father lived into his nineties and Trump has the best healthcare in the world.
I also feel like people ignore the fact that Trump likes being president.
I think even if you support big tax cuts, American democracy collapsing might be bad for your business, and you should still not vote for Trump.
If you think abortion is murder, the risk of American democracy collapsing might be an acceptable trade off. But then I ask, if you think abortion is *murder*, why isn't the "pro-life" movement the biggest funder of cheap, easy, reliable birth control with minimal side effects? Almost all abortions are a result of unplanned pregnancy. Fewer of those, fewer baby murders.
There are potential birth control options for men that seem to have zero side effects, but the research can't even get minimal funding.
I would also tie this to Matt's current crusade against medical ethics. The FDA standard is that a medicine's potential side effects must be significantly more minor than the benefits. Pregnancy is very hard on a woman's body, so female birth control with some negative side effects passes. Men, however, experience no individual downside when causing a pregnancy, which means that any male birth control must have <0 side effects.
But that's not the whole story. Causing a pregnancy can be bad for many reasons. If you want to be completely self-interested, it can put you on the hook for 18 years of child support.
Given that, should FDA rules be changed to allow for medications that don't strictly cause personal harm? There's zero personal benefit to a man getting a vasectomy, and there's always a small chance the vasectomy could go wrong. Why should medication pass a higher bar?
To lighten the mood, here is the YouTube video "Epic Rap Battles: Trump vs Harris"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVZtKKryjfU
A sampler:
Trump: "I've got the best word plays, ask my supporters
I've got more diss abilities than a New York Times reporter
[...]
You're gonna find out what losing to a winner feels like
Ask Pence [beat] I know how to drop a Mike"
Harris: "You've been bending public decency over a barrel
Giving Lady Liberty the finger like she's E. Jean Carroll
[...]
I'm gonna put you away like a rapist back in Cali
Better leave this battle early, like the crowds at your rallies"
Aren't you also literally doing what you criticize those black democrats for doing -- raising the salience of issues that don't benefit your canidate? I mean that very bullet point increased the salience of Israel.
EDIT: I'm not trying to call you out for hypocrisy. Rather, I wanted to raise the possibility that almost everyone involved sees themselves as doing exactly what you are doing. They all think, us dems need to do a better job of saying the things that appeal to voters and since I believe some other dem players listen to me I'm going to explain how we can change our messaging to be more effective. And, just like you, in trying to do that they in aggregate make the situation much worse.
Of course, sometimes people do need to make suggestions about messaging to the party via publicly readable media. But it's a complicated calculus that needs to weigh your influence with party insiders against your public visibility with adjustment for how likely you are to persuade anyone and how much it matters. And it's a pretty tall order to ask people to realize they are such an insignificant peon they should STFU especially if it also costs them personally influence and reputation (eg if you had kept quite we'd feel less privy to your inside take).
I think Matt is tremendously influential among high-level Democratic donors, lawmakers and strategists, and a lot of what he writes is for them.
Maybe, but I suspect you can still see the tension here -- all the people he is critisizing no doubt also think of themselves as influential in democratic circles (correctly or not).
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if everyone in the damn game was thinking "We need to do a better job of saying the popular things and since some Dems listen to me I'm going to explain how to change our message to be more effective"
My understanding is that most of Biden's campaign staff is subscribed to Matt's substack / follows Matt on Twitter. That's solid evidence that he has the ear of higher ups, rather than, "I am a prominent opinion giver," a la Michael Moore.
Matt is also good about presenting objective polling data that shows what messages work best. Yes, I think everyone sincerely believes they know how best to guide the Democratic Party. But you're more credible if you have more than your own vibes.
Ultimately, MY might very well be in a meaningfully different position. The problem is that the reasons he has to think this are essentially the same reasons he has to believe he's right and focused on what's important.
Sure, he probably has a bunch of dem campaign staffers follow him -- though no doubt they follow many people -- but he has quite a large following overall and harm is also proportional to viewership. I mean if I start tweeting/commenting about how dems should approach Israel-Palestine it hardly matters since all of 50 people would read it. Aside from a joke on YouTube about Biden's dog that I don't think I've ever had more than a 100 people react to anything I've written (and that was just a comment on this substack).
Of course, I agree with you about the quality of MY's analysis -- it's why I'm subscribed -- but looking at polls and focus groups is alot less helpful than one might assume. Everyone insisting Kamala needs to just focus on her plans to give people prescription (I think?) benefits think they're the ones paying attention to the data because those are the ads/points that receive the most positive ratings in the data. But that's like saying she should campaign on the message: "kicking puppies is bad" because everyone likes that. Trump will -- as he has with the prescription thing -- just say me too and it doesn't achieve anything.
I think MY is using data in a generally insightful way but that doesn't change the fact that everyone has a theory and their theory tells them they are the ones who are reacting to the important information and ignoring the noise/misleading information. Even the people who keep insisting Kamala needs to spend more time calling out Trump as a fascist have a theory why that's what the evidence really shows (eg they won't take you seriously if you make such an extreme accusation but don't treat it as if it's the only thing that matters).
My point is that there isn't really a principle here you could hope to persuade people to adopt which leads to those unhelpful voices in dem political circles shutting up without just actually convincing them their first order analysis was misguided and MY's was right. The mistake happens because they believe they are right about what they're saying being an important insight that's being ignored.
Well, let me point out something else in Matt's favor: he changes his mind. I'm not sure if you have specific individuals in mind, but I think most of the people Matt's criticizing are dogmatic.
No, I'm not arguing in favor of specific individuals or even suggesting that MY is doing something wrong. Merely that this is an argument one shouldn't expect to change any minds.
A good list, but not enough about the absolutely ridiculous double standard that Harris and Trump are held to, and the reason for it.
The reason is that some Americans think the system sucks and want to burn it to the ground/watch the evil libruls cry. These are Trump's core constituency. Harris's constituency are people who think America is mainly good but needs to be improved on the margins.
So of course Harris and Trump are held to different standards, because it's always harder to build or preserve than to destroy. It takes strength, courage and training to be a good firefighter, but any dumbass can douse a building in kerosene and set it on fire. It takes talent and practice to win a singing or dancing competition, but it doesn't take any to slouch in there and tell the judges that singing and dancing is for pussies.
Hence, Harris is judged strictly on everything: she's too vague! She speaks in platitudes! She hasn't pivoted convincingly from her woke stances of 2019! She should have done XYZ [an interview with Joe Rogan, a Sister Souljah moment, less/more support for Israel, more distancing herself from Biden, etc. etc. etc.]
But Trump can afford to do whatever the f**k he wants, because he is doing a bang-up crackerjack job at the thing his core constituency cares about most: poking Teh Librul Elitez in the eye. Saying fascist-y things like calling your political opponents "enemies of the people"? Having Tucker open for you with a borderline-pornographic speech on "Daddy Trump is going to spank the bad girl"? Spreading crazy-ass rumors about Haitians eating people's pets? Good! Look how triggered those lame-ass librul beta cucks are! We love King Donald for making them cry!
Like, I really want to believe that the "burn it all down" contingent is smaller than it appears online. Just, Trump is really good at telling his audience what they want to hear, and he's been choosing to focus on this vile shit instead of substantive policy issues. So, he must believe this is what his audience wants to hear.
For the nth time: "When people show you who they are, believe them."
Although there are mean girls and 'moms for liberty' numbered among these people, this group skews male. I think the country will be saved by ladies overriding the little boys and their games - unless it isn't. There needs to be unfiltered communication about what the true price for normal everyday people, including men, and people they know and love, of empowering people just because they make liberals cry.
> The older cohort of high-level Democratic Party politicians was better than Biden and Harris at actually breaking down policy issues for public consumption.
In memoirs and in book after book it is detailed that this is a skill they meticulously worked on. Yes, you get a WJC once in a few generations if you're lucky, but few even want to try!
> Tim Walz says, “You don't get elected to bank political capital to get elected again. You get elected to burn that capital to improve lives.” I think that metaphor captures the dynamics much better than the fantasies of deliverism.
And as it should be. The alternative is I want to win elections in order to .. win elections.
Except that, if you genuinely think the other side will make people's lives worse if they win, then just winning elections in order to win elections should be viewed as a good thing.
Given the general anti-incumbent sentiment (take #1) in order to win elections you need to lose elections :)
I was very taken with the insight on the "Thiels/Sacks/Musk axis", which I think includes but is set to expand beyond just Trump support. I hope that you'll consider developing the theme in a future newsletter.
Terrific article! Ty 👏👏 Your term “Deliverism” so well described Biden’s philosophy and performance. Delivering high-minded policies that do not show fruit for several years is not enticing to voters. There is so much good stuff in this article. My deep desire is that Democrats continually ask their Constituents what 2 or 3 things they most desire and address their concerns in ordinary words. If it is infeasible like “Medicare for All,” explain how many PC Doctors we have vs. how many people. Also lack of hospitals. Difficulty of getting Immigrant Doctors certified. Lay it out. If it’s something like,”My grocery bill is too high and my kids eat all the time,” put forth both supply and demand examples and publish recipes that can be cooked up at home on the weekend then served up several days. Explain how much less expensive it would be if you used beans some times in place of meat. Now during the last days before the election, I ask Kamala to be calmer like Beyonce and Liz Cheyney. Emphasize women’s rights and acknowledge she hears people complaining about the high cost of food. Let voters know how Trump’s policies increase inflation but she has voters backs. Stop saying “Fascist. ” Voters who know are on board; others have been blocking that word from their minds. 🤞Hope is high here.
"PC Doctors"?
primary care
I read this and just want to yell WHY. I wonder if they think highlighting her proposals front and forward *isnt* the best strategy or if they just think she’s bad at it
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/29/harris-trump-authoritarianism-enemy-within/
I don’t think deliverism is wrong, I think it’s not possible.
When people want to really sell that idea, they point to FDR. He delivered a lot but there was a lot to deliver because of the Great Depression followed by the largest war in history. But if you don’t have 26% unemployment and a world war, I’m not sure you can deliver policies that lock in the mass public for a generation or more.
I’ve just increasingly come to believe we need a small-c conservative government that makes improvements where clear improvements can be made but is otherwise mostly a caretaker of existing institutions.
Which is the Democratic Party
The biggest risk in a Trump presidency in terms of likelihood is our government becoming very corrupt. Handing Trump a favor really does seem to make him do a favor in return. That’s just sort of dangerous, especially if you combine it with a court that believes in the unitary executive.