The problem is that if she's a middle of the road popular politician (like Hillary was) Berniecrats will attach her as being corporatist (which she isn't particularly, but Hillary wasn't either, and both are susceptible to this attack just because they aren't "socialist"). This will stick somewhat but she'll still win, but the right will attack her as being corporatist and "even democrats think so" which will result in moderates who would literally vote for a corporation for president not voting for her.
I read this article as a meta argument to Berniecrats arguing that this approach is dumb, I'm hoping that it works.
WRT whether the USA is the greatest country on earth, I think it's important to keep in mind that multi-ethnic democracies are *hard*. If you think some ethnically homogeneous country is the best, remember that they had a much easier lift, and they'd probably spontaneously combust without the homogeneity. E.g., if Germany had only 61% people of European origin (i.e. what the US has for non-hispanic whites), they'd reanimate Hitler. They're at 90% European origin, and many are already starting to lose their shit. Other European countries are similar. Heck, Canada came with in 0.52 percentages points of splitting in two within my lifetime.
America is by far and away the best multi-ethnic democracy on this planet, and in my book, that makes it the best country.
I don't get this. You win the votes of swing voters to win the election, and then you can staff federal agencies with your people, control the NLRB, and pass laws on your agenda. I don't see how projected sunny American optimism results in getting "played" by a swing voter.
I’ve voted for both parties and I am indifferent to Harris. I’d like it more if she sounded like Biden, but I think the biggest concern Democrats should have is republicans get their act together.
Running this article through GPT3, this is the text it generates:
I think that Democratic Party actors who socialize primarily with other Democratic Party actors would benefit a lot from spending time with other people, and part of that is just physically leaving the bubble. And part of that is pushing yourself mentally to think about how to appeal to people who don’t already like you.
I’m not saying this is easy. It’s not. But it’s also not rocket science. It doesn’t mean you have to abandon all your core principles or give up on the idea of being on the left. It just means that there’s more to politics than that.
Most Democratic Party actors are very smart, but they’re also very stuck in their own heads. And if you’re in your head, it’s really hard to see what’s going on out there.
But if you’re going to be president, you have to be able to see what’s going on out there. And you have to be able to communicate with people out there. And you have to do it with people who don’t already like you. And you have to do it with people who don’t already agree with you.
I’m not saying Kamala Harris is a bad politician. I’m saying that she’s good at one thing, and that the only way to be good at something else is to actually do something else. I’m not saying Kamala Harris is bad at politics. I’m saying she’s bad a very particular kind of politics that is not the only kind of politics. And she needs to get better at it.
I think this is a general problem for the Democratic Party more widely. There are a lot of really smart people in politics who are good at some things, but the way you get good at this other stuff is by trying hard, and then being willing to learn from the experience.
I think a lot of Democrats are really good at thinking about the world in a certain way. I think they’re really good at thinking about how to make sense of polling data in a certain way, and how to use that data to make decisions about where to invest time and money in a certain way. I think they’re really good at thinking about how to get out the vote in a certain way.
But I don’t think they’re very good at thinking about how to win the votes of people who aren’t already for them in a certain way. And I don’t think they’re very good at thinking about how to win the votes of people who are already for them in a certain way. I think they mostly just think about how to get more people to be for them in an abstract sense.
And that’s a problem.
There are a lot of smart people in the Democratic Party. But they’re not nearly as smart as they think they are. And I think that if they could get the rest of the party to understand this, it would be a net benefit.
The best tool in politics is the one that is most flexible and adaptable to all the situations you’re in. But that means you have to be flexible and adaptable. There’s no substitute for just trying hard, and then being willing to learn from the experience.
In 2015, I wrote that if you want to do politics, you have to be willing to do things that are boring and unsexy. There are a lot of things that are boring and unsexy. If you want to do politics, you have to do them. If you want to win, you have to win. And winning is hard. And it’s hard because it involves doing a lot of things you may not like.
This doesn’t mean “be like Bill Clinton” or “be like Barack Obama” because those people had their own unique styles. The point is that the best way to win is to be yourself, but the best way to be yourself is to be yourself who’s trying to win. This is a balancing act that’s a lot more difficult than it sounds, and I don’t think it’s possible to completely eliminate the risk that you’ll screw up and lose the election. But I do think you can significantly reduce the probability of that happening, and I think the way to do that is to constantly try to think about the median voter and how your actions will appear to the median voter.
I’m not saying this because it’s a good idea, I’m saying it because it’s a good idea that’s the best idea. This is the only kind of thing you can do that will genuinely help you win. The Democrats have won the popular vote in five of the last six elections. So nobody’s argument that this will not work is a serious argument.
One thing I’d say, though, is this shouldn’t be treated as a comprehensive effort to appeal to the center. From the perspective of policy experts, it’s easier to abandon certain social issues — same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization, abortion rights — and say “these policy issues would be nice, but since they’re difficult, let’s instead focus on issues that even die-hard conservatives find hard to deny.” But that is a bad approach. It should be treated as an effort to be the party of the median voter, not the least-worst party of the median voter. The risk is that in certain places, the least-worst party in the median voter’s imagination and the least-worst party among Democratic Party policy experts don’t line up. And insofar as this happens, Democrats will lose by giving up positions they hold unnecessarily.
For example, I think the future will look basically okay on health care, since the federal government has locked in the ability to tax employers who offer bare-bones health insurance, and so there’s no going backwards to a more regressive system while the country exists as a society. If you believe this, then the minimum basic response to people who just hate “Obamacare” is “we’re not going to repeal Medicare, we’re not going to repeal Social Security, and I bet we’ll keep Obamacare when the budget bill expires in a couple years.”
But positions on prison reform or marijuana legalization or abortion restrictions where legal bipartisan support is already there — that does not mean they’re risk-free to shift publicly. I don’t say this because I think that there are substantive risks of going on record as supporting marijuana legalization in the way that there aren’t with support for Social Security, which, if everyone tried to take it away would just result in riots on the street. Like, if Kamala Harris gets attacked from the left on marijuana legalization, her best way to react doesn’t have to be “if you want to see my most left-wing position, it’s rather nuanced and requires a dive into the DC Circuit theories of fair use.” It’s better if her answer is “legalizing marijuana is a great idea that I stand behind, but it’s a little trickier than it looks and we need more time and broader consensus on the specifics before we go any further.”
I watched Kamala go from being a not super inspiring AG to a very effective Senate candidate -- she can be more appealing -- her presidential campaign started off strong and then fizzled -- Kamala Harris For the People was a good slogan but then the lefties all attacked her for being too tough on crime when she was a pretty liberal DA. I think she has what it takes, but her performance over her career has been uneven and I understand why people are nervous -- but those Politico pieces just seemed thinly sourced and weird to me. I worry about a media narrative that cannot be overcome and it troubles me to see so many folks here rate her a sure loser.
I’m hoping Biden will be more willing to showcase her either after 2022 or 2026, whenever he plans to leave. Giving her “the border” and whatever thankless task she was assigned is not going to help her.
She didn't get "the border". She got"root causes of Central American immigration" a much more substantial topic and one that if she plays it right can be a first step in a much-needed realignment of US foreign policy towards engagement and integration with Latin America.
Mark it down - in a few years Republicans will be falling all over themselves to talk about alliances with Latin America as a hedge against Chinese influence, and Harris has a chance to get there first.
I basically agree with everything here, and wish Dems in general and Harris in particular had already internalized this.
But two violently-agreeing quibbles:
1.) Harris is actually quite infamous among my age/race/gender demographic for poking the left in the eye hard, on two issues: Crime and marijuana. Ask any Bernie techbro with an opinion about her, and you'll likely hear a profane rant about how Harris "locked up black people" for a joint, and how she's "in the pocket" of "big cop".
Dumb and ahistorical, but a decisive narrative inside the left bubble nonetheless. Worth mentioning. :/
2.) On the "To be totally frank, my sense is Democrats would be in better shape today had Biden just picked Whitmer to begin with" stuff, all I can say is. . . no.
Right up there with "Klobuchar is the strongest Dem nominee". One of those things that goes up there on the "nobody" internet memes. With respect. :)
I actually hope she doesn't take your advice so we can have Cory Booker or Amy Klobuchar next go around. But you are undoubtedly right that Harris will have the momentum from her VP status keeping her in the news cycle and she will eventually be the nominee we have to close ranks around. I just have a lot of doubts that she can pull off this kind of thing. Offer to run her campaign Matt!
This article doesn't really grapple with "what if this depresses turnout among the left", who are all likely to be disappointed with an appeal to the 50yo middle-class white voter, especially if it's coupled with some punching left.
I guess the response to that is that appealing to median swing voters is way more important, and you're likely to get the left-wing folks anyways (especially given the specter of another Trump presidency)?
I want to complain about this post, because I don’t want to believe this is what politics is. But obviously it is what politics is, and you’re right, and it frustrates me to no end.
“A thing that Harris could do that would distinguish her from Biden without being disloyal to Biden would be to operate with a little more boldness than an old white man would be permitted.”
I do find this a little odd though; generally speaking, most people think women and people of color have LESS room to be bold than an old white man would be permitted. They tend to be punished for boldness more, and their boldness is taken as a form of extremism, even when they express the same opinions as a white man. There’s a reason that Harris was perceived as far more left-wing than Biden despite them having run on pretty similar platforms, and a reason Biden can get away with talking about the exact same social issues in the exact same way that Harris (and even Obama) couldn’t.
Yes, what Wigan said. Harris could knock woke politics without being accused of being an out-of-touch ancient white man. She would still be attacked by the left for doing so, but she could respond (a la Condoleezza), "Don't lecture me, I've been Black all my life."
I took the boldness thing to mean bold-towards-the-center. Bold against-the-far-left. Matt's specific example was to criticize the school renamings in SF. I think he's suggested she be more outspokenly against defund or abolish the police, too. She absolutely could go farther with those positions than an old white man in progressive circles.
Can't speak for anyone else, but I would place Harris much further left than Biden based on geography and age. Biden's old and from Delaware. Harris is younger and from SF, California. To rank them the same on a L-R axis I'd need a lot more data to move me off my priors.
I thought Kamala was already pretty well positioned as centrist because of her prosecutor background. This is not to say she could not do more. For example she be great for denouncing Cuban nd Venezuelan tyrannies, especially with the protests going on now in Cuba.
What worries me about Harris is that conservatives ***hate*** her, with an intensity that seems comparable to how they hate Hillary Clinton.
I understand it’s hard for her to define herself while her job is to play second fiddle to Joe, but that means Fox News et al as 4-8 years to stoke those flames.
And as Matt kind of acknowledges in this piece, her job is to balance out Joe Biden, since she’s more appealing to hardcore Democrats than he is.
This post has made me imagine a Harris V Ivanka Trump election and now I am shuddering.
(I have always thought that Ivanka was the most likely of the Trump kids to pull a Marine le Pen and continue her father’s legacy with a softer touch and better manners.)
I think we're seeing here that the Slow Boring subscriber base is just as unrepresentative of the American electorate as the Very Online wokesters are. Lots of libertarian-ish distaste here for Harris's past tough-on-crime stances, when those are in fact the strongest parts of her electoral profile. IRL there are close to zero libertarian swing voters (or voters of any kind, really).
I hope Harris and her team listen to this post, but I don't have high hopes. After a certain point in their careers people tend to just get set in their ways. Think of all the coaches in pro sports who achieve success with a particular style with predictable strengths and weaknesses. How many of them plateau there, and how many are able to evolve? I'd say it's like a 10-to-1 ratio. Coaches who are creative and able to make adjustments are *usually* creative and able to make adjustments from the beginning.
Do we know who Harris's political brain is? Who is her Ted Kaufman, and what do we know about him/her? If that person is capable of shifting gears, then Harris will be too. If not, she won't.
I'm not sure about this claim. I think, at least compared to other groups of over-educated left-of-center political enthusiasts, Matt's readership is pretty concerned about violent crime, especially its impact on the poor and working class. I'm pro-Adams, and even was supportive of picking Harris as VP, but she is plainly not a positive VORPolitician, notwithstanding her prosecutorial bona fides. [at risk of making this comment even lamer, explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_over_replacement_player ]
Based on some googling, I think Harris's political brain might be a person named Rohini Kosoglu. I don't know anything about her but since Matt has so much pull within the White House these days he should get the message to her.
Kind of off the main point of this thread, but distaste for tough-on-crime rhetoric doesn't track as libertarian at all. It's true that libertarians are generally opposed to police power for anti-statist reasons, but this just happens to be one area where their policy preferences somewhat line up with leftist social justice concerns. BLM is in favor of defunding the police, but that doesn't make them libertarians.
I am aware that there are non-libertarian opponents of criminal law enforcement, but the sentiments in this thread that I was referring to appear to be more of the libertarian variety.
I feel attacked, while at the same time I know you’re right. I feel devastatingly sad, as one does when faced with a truth they have not seen, nor do they want to. The word “pandering” makes me a little bit nauseous. It carries with it a sense of deceit and insincerity. I want the leaders of this great country to be above it. But reality bites.
The hardest pill to swallow is the phrase “The greatest country in the world.” A clip from the TV series “Newsroom” plays in my mind every time I hear it, yet I know that the vast majority of my peers have never seen it, nor would they agree. America is not the greatest country in the world. But that would definitely not sit well with an even more vast majority of not only my peers, but the citizens of this country.
In order to create great change, one must be in a position to make that change possible. Having the opportunity to orchestrate great things brings with it the responsibility of retaining that position. I want to say, “But at what cost?” The answer is, unfortunately, at a greater cost than it should be… the cost of changing the rhetoric. Pandering. Definitely a punch to the gut for me this morning.
I definitely *don't* think America is the greatest country in the world (the greatest countries in the world are Japan, France and Mexico) but I don't mind hokey US patriotism at all.
Being conspicuously cosmopolitan (in *any* country) is also a kind of identity politics. It is at worst a way of saying "people like me are better than these rubes." Patriotic rhetoric, at its best, is a way of saying "I want this country we are making together be as good as it can be."
Maybe the three most admirable things this country ever did were the Civil War / reconstruction, the FDR presidency and the civil rights movement and the mainstream of all three was awash in patriotic rhetoric. America's symbols are powerful, you can't just give up on them.
Yup, I love your point that being conspicuously cosmopolitan is a form of identity politics. It is also a form of favoring a very specific personality trait most people don't have by definition: extremely high openness to experience relative to the average person.
so I just posted about how my comment derailed completely, but if I HAD posted about pro-America vs. against-America, this says exactly what I would have tried to convey.
Honestly, I've never understood why American liberals have such an issue with “The greatest country in the world.” It is a very defensible claim.
14 Countries have a population over 100 million. China, India, US, Indonesia, Pakistan, Brazil, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Russia, Mexico, Japan, Ethiopia, Philippines, Egypt.
We're the global leader in culture & business. We provide much of the infrastructure that allows trade & migration. We have extremely high HDI. We lead the world in scientific research. Migration patterns support it. US has very low emigration and is the most popular spot for immigrants in the world.
Aaron Sorkin's speech is quite silly as is most of his political writing.
I'm not especially invested in the argument over the U.S.'s "greatest country in the world" standing, but the reason this sort of logic doesn't really get to the heart of liberal unease is that the "greatest country in the world" claim is not offered as bland statement of fact. That is, when, say, Laura Ingraham says that the U.S. is number one, she is very much not saying, "Well, we suck on health care and child poverty and incarceration rates, but we're killing it on patents and movie box office, so by my estimation the U.S. maintains a healthy 3.2% lead in nation rankings over our closest competitor, Belgium, with ancient Hibernia a distant number three."
What she is actually saying is something closer to: "America, fuck yeah, suck it you bedwetting haters, if you don't like it, get out." So there's more of an affective thing going on here.
If you want to argue that we should care less about what Laura Ingraham thinks and also that liberals should be less affectively gloomy about the U.S., then I can probably get on board. Speaking as a liberal, my affect toward the U.S. is pretty overweighted on Trump right now, and could probably stand a correction.
What is more telling is within the Democratic coalition the more sucesfful and affluent you are the more likely you are to take issue with the claim.
Which leads me to belief a lot of complaints about "greatest country in the world" are similar to complaints about the US not following the World Cup as much as other countries: cosmopolitan identity politics.
There's another nuance to this though. Conservatives definitely own the patriotism brand. But conservatives also often seem to really hate America. That is, they hate government, hate the blue states, think the country is in decline, think the country is decadent and going to hell, etc. There's a strong analog with some lefty thinking, but of course with a lot of the issue positions reversed.
But of course conservatives thread the needle by reorienting their patriotism toward a "real America" (and a fantasy Constitution), reserving their disdain for "un-America." And likewise conservative politicians can get away with saying bad things about America all the time, as long as they don't say bad things about "real America." Whereas the reverse is very much not true for liberal politicians.
Which is all to say, I don't think I agree that this is cosmopolitan identity politics. I think both sides register quite a lot of disgust for the aspects of America that they reject, but the manifestations are different.
I think “America, Fuck Yeah” is a much stronger message than “America? Fuck, no.”
I think the left is really entrenched in a narrative that the US is a priori bad and a lot of politics is downstream of that axiom. That’s why Twitter thinks the US did the least of any developed country to help its citizens during the pandemic, when in fact, we did the most. It’s both inaccurate and terrible political messaging.
What bothers me about Ingraham is that she all but says only white people are real Americans.
I think "the left" is less entrenched in the belief that America is bad than is popularly believed. Twitter may be extremely entrenched in that belief, but that's Twitter. My guess is that most middle-of-the-road liberals think America is flawed but pretty great, which isn't much good as a political slogan and still leaves one open to attacks on patriotism grounds.
I think this is a really interesting question, and I would love to see polling data about this.
My intuition is that you are right, but my anecdata is that this very question came up among a largish group of my Midwest-lefty friends and I was really surprised at how scathing everyone was about their overall opinion of US global influence. It wasn’t even at the point of tepid support- a lot of them literally thought that the world would be a much better place if the US just went away.
Yeah, that’s probably true. I always say Twitter isn’t real life and tweak politicos and pundits for forgetting that, but I forget it too.
One thing that struck me in 2016 is that I thought both Trump and Bernie were pretty unpatriotic for presidential candidates. Like MAGA — I think America is great right now! Or was prior to 2016. It kinda made me wonder if patriotism isn’t a thing anymore. I’m much more on board with Biden-style patriotism.
Btw, when I say the left, I mean leftists, not liberals. I’m a squashy liberal, and yes, I think America is flawed, but I also very cornily “America is a shining city on a hill.” People die trying to get here, and I almost feel it’s disrespectful to shrug off what a huge advantage people have being born here versus almost anywhere else in the world.
I hear you, but I would mainly counsel you to be less sad about it. No one remembers or cares what grubby things FDR said to get elected or what grimy compromises he made to get legislation passed. We remember that he passed the Social Security Act that has had a tremendous positive impact on people's lives. The problem is that we don't spend enough time being happy about this sort of thing, and we spend too much time outraged about the everyday minutiae of politics.
What actually matters in politics are things like laws, judges, interest rates, and wars. Which means winning elections matters more than almost anything, not just practically but morally. It's tough, but less tough if we keep those laws, judges, interest rates, and wars front and center in our minds.
Not to be contentious, but did you really “counsel me not to be sad.”?? Are you serious? That is unbelievably condescending. I have as much right — and justification to be sad as you do to your Patriotism. “Everyday minutiae”? The automatic assumption and dismissal of what I am sad about? As if you actually know what makes me sad?
I am well read regarding what needs to be “front and center,” which is ALSO subjective. What “laws” and “judges”? Do you have any inkling as to which I am referring to that make me sad?
Excuse me for expressing my take on this matter whilst agreeing with the author. Your counsel is dismissed.
I thought what you are referring to that makes you sad is political pandering, because that's what you wrote in your comment.
I was really speaking more in the spirit of general advice offered toward myself as much as anyone. I think you may be reading something into my words that isn't there.
Thank you for the clarification. I am definitely not a fan of pandering. Verbiage matters within discourse, though. Four years of Trump sloughed off layers of tough skin…
See I look at this though and say the cost of changing rhetoric is... literally nothing? Hell yes I'll use jingoistic slogans if it means I have a greater chance of passing policies that I think will improve people's lives (and maybe even help America live up to that aspirational rhetoric.)
My point was that the cost (moral and personal truth to self and immediate constituents) of casting aside your own beliefs to pander is worth the benefit. Basically saying exactly what you just said. Except to some people, that cost is not “literally nothing.” She got to one of the most powerful positions in the world by being true to her beliefs — and doing so loudly and proudly. She does need to change that, but the cost to her is not determined by the ideology that you don’t see it as a cost.
The reference to Newsroom reminds me that, contra online leftists who believe that The West Wing’s main appeal was its embrace of bipartisan compromise, the shows actual main appeal was how President Bartlet refuses to triangulate and say things he doesn’t mean. It’s a seductive fantasy!
I try to think about what I *would* say is the greatest country in the world and I just draw a blank. Like if it’s Sweden or whatever how come Sweden doesn’t have more influence? I think it’s basically a meaningless question, which makes “the United States” as good an answer as any.
Off Topic but West Wing was a pretty terrible drama with excellent dialogue.
One limitation to it as a drama.
Did anyone in the Bartlett White Hose have a different motivation beyond selfless public service in support of the public good (defined in the show as Sorkinism)? Very rarely. In real offices you have your timemarkers, people who just want to climb the ladder, people who dislike the boss, the reformers who disagree on the mission agenda. None of that exists in that WH.
Hmmm, you're right. Now that I think about it, even the Republican opponents, who were supposed to be the bad guys, were usually motivated by ideology over selfish personal gain. I dunno, I loved the Newsroom as well, Aaron Sorkin can't really write human beings because he's too pompous and idealistic, but dang if I don't love indulging in his fantasies.
That is so very true, and the more I look back on it the more I realize it. My favorite parts (like most other viewers I suspect) is when Bartlett or a member of his staff would verbally tear apart a wrongheaded opponent of the president, and these days when I read https://www.reddit.com/r/thatHappened/ It makes me cringe how much some of those stories sound like the West Wing.
Am I the only center-left person who hated the West Wing when it aired? It was so smarmy and full of itself. I see socialists on Twitter dragging West Wing to own the moderate libs, and I’m like yeah, it was a silly show!
It was definitely smarmy and full of itself, but when that inspirational music started playing I got sucked in, yah know? Honestly Aaron Sorkin is like Nicolas Sparks or whoever wrote Twilight novels: He writes guilty pleasures. The problem is that people treat West Wing as actually informative of politics.
So much to agree with. But again, to categorically say it is the greatest without evaluating that statement is flawed. Necessary in the case of a sitting President/Vice President, but still flawed. And it begs the question — does influence make something great?
That the size and number of citizens of a nation determines its ability to be functional is silly. That we cannot look at what is working on other nations, regardless of their size, and evaluate what they are doing right and what they are doing wrong and adapt is silly. Please find a less derisive word. It’s… silly not to.
It is much harder to build social solidarity as population size increases. It is much harder to build social solidarity as geographic size increases. It is much harder to build social solidarity as the culture becomes more diverse.
US has all 3. Comparing ourseleves to mini-states that are the size of our metro areas is, well, silly.
I think everyone deserves to believe their country is the greatest country in the world, regardless of facts. It doesn't preclude acknowledging flaws, but it does demonstrate how one is committed to their community, which is most important for the leader.
It's a bit like your parents. If I asked you if your mom or dad were the greatest mom or dad in the world, you'd say yes right?
While I would love to say my parents were the greatest in the world, I cannot. And therein lies the problem. It is about the collective experience. While some people’s experience can be great, others’ can be equally horrific and abusive.
That's true. Some people's experiences can be horrific, while others can be great. No one can truly measure if a country is great or not, but people feel their leader should not just be an analyzer of problems, but a national cheerleader who believes in the potential of the country.
I think pro-America talk is not so much about what is actually great and not-great about America, but a statement that the speaker is faithful to and loves the community that he or she expects to lead. And every politician just needs to be good at that - otherwise, who needs them?
I tend to over-intellectualize everything so I’d probably give an annoying nuanced answer like I did above. But I agree with the point you’re actually making.
It's the greatest country in the world for Americans. Just like my family (warts and all) is the greatest family in the world for my family members. There is nothing wrong or anti-progressive about saying or believing any of that.
Not all Americans. None of us can speak for all Americans. But it is absolutely not great for all Americans. I also think my family is the greatest in the world. But my kids beg to differ (teenagers and new adults always think they can do things better than their parents).
That is not relevant to what I said. It is the greatest country for Americans in the aggregate, and therefore Harris, and all progressive politicians, should say so.
Some Americans surely dislike America for one reason or another, some more meritorious than others, but some people in every country dislike their own country.
I’m curious as to the source of its greatness in the “aggregate.” I tend to agree, to some extent, but I also know that there are so many more perspectives than mine, and the political climate is obviously deeply divided. Is that divide directly related to the concept that America is great for the individual? Possibly. But I’ve seen it very well stated here that we absolutely DO all want to live in an America we can all be proud of. We are all Americans. I don’t see any reason why she couldn’t change her verbiage to be more inclusive in order to gather more central/undecided support. This whole thing has made me do some re-thinking. It is absolutely pandering to say America is “The Greatest.” But “This Great Country — OUR Country!” might go a long way.
The point is that your country doesn't need to earn your love, any more than your kids need to earn your love in order to be (to you) the greatest kids ever. Your kids are great because they're your kids. Your country is great because it's your community, it's special to you, and you love it just the way it is -- even as you want it to improve, just as you want your kids to improve. The whole concept of comparing the US to other countries on this or that metric is beside the point.
Since it's so very subjective I don't know why you'd worry over it at all. How could you prove that it is or isn't the greatest? What country is great for every single citizen? For some people it's associated with a very positive or sacrifice and service, it's not all jingoism
Because it is subjective I worry. The point of this piece is to point out that Kamala’s rhetoric is worrying, and that she needs to change it to pander. That her not doing so is cause to worry. I am flabbergasted by the gaslighting here.
How is it gaslighting? It is true that America has done both great and terrible things, and most Americans prefer to hear about the great things. I think people greatly underestimate the importance of triggering identities in politics, and “we are awesome Americans!” is a much more empowering/vote-getting identity than “we are crappy Americans”!
A politician’s job is different from a historian’s.
The problem is that if she's a middle of the road popular politician (like Hillary was) Berniecrats will attach her as being corporatist (which she isn't particularly, but Hillary wasn't either, and both are susceptible to this attack just because they aren't "socialist"). This will stick somewhat but she'll still win, but the right will attack her as being corporatist and "even democrats think so" which will result in moderates who would literally vote for a corporation for president not voting for her.
I read this article as a meta argument to Berniecrats arguing that this approach is dumb, I'm hoping that it works.
WRT whether the USA is the greatest country on earth, I think it's important to keep in mind that multi-ethnic democracies are *hard*. If you think some ethnically homogeneous country is the best, remember that they had a much easier lift, and they'd probably spontaneously combust without the homogeneity. E.g., if Germany had only 61% people of European origin (i.e. what the US has for non-hispanic whites), they'd reanimate Hitler. They're at 90% European origin, and many are already starting to lose their shit. Other European countries are similar. Heck, Canada came with in 0.52 percentages points of splitting in two within my lifetime.
America is by far and away the best multi-ethnic democracy on this planet, and in my book, that makes it the best country.
Another VEEERY long demonstration of how you think you are playing the 'swing voters.' But really they are playing you.
I don't get this. You win the votes of swing voters to win the election, and then you can staff federal agencies with your people, control the NLRB, and pass laws on your agenda. I don't see how projected sunny American optimism results in getting "played" by a swing voter.
I’ve voted for both parties and I am indifferent to Harris. I’d like it more if she sounded like Biden, but I think the biggest concern Democrats should have is republicans get their act together.
Running this article through GPT3, this is the text it generates:
I think that Democratic Party actors who socialize primarily with other Democratic Party actors would benefit a lot from spending time with other people, and part of that is just physically leaving the bubble. And part of that is pushing yourself mentally to think about how to appeal to people who don’t already like you.
I’m not saying this is easy. It’s not. But it’s also not rocket science. It doesn’t mean you have to abandon all your core principles or give up on the idea of being on the left. It just means that there’s more to politics than that.
Most Democratic Party actors are very smart, but they’re also very stuck in their own heads. And if you’re in your head, it’s really hard to see what’s going on out there.
But if you’re going to be president, you have to be able to see what’s going on out there. And you have to be able to communicate with people out there. And you have to do it with people who don’t already like you. And you have to do it with people who don’t already agree with you.
I’m not saying Kamala Harris is a bad politician. I’m saying that she’s good at one thing, and that the only way to be good at something else is to actually do something else. I’m not saying Kamala Harris is bad at politics. I’m saying she’s bad a very particular kind of politics that is not the only kind of politics. And she needs to get better at it.
I think this is a general problem for the Democratic Party more widely. There are a lot of really smart people in politics who are good at some things, but the way you get good at this other stuff is by trying hard, and then being willing to learn from the experience.
I think a lot of Democrats are really good at thinking about the world in a certain way. I think they’re really good at thinking about how to make sense of polling data in a certain way, and how to use that data to make decisions about where to invest time and money in a certain way. I think they’re really good at thinking about how to get out the vote in a certain way.
But I don’t think they’re very good at thinking about how to win the votes of people who aren’t already for them in a certain way. And I don’t think they’re very good at thinking about how to win the votes of people who are already for them in a certain way. I think they mostly just think about how to get more people to be for them in an abstract sense.
And that’s a problem.
There are a lot of smart people in the Democratic Party. But they’re not nearly as smart as they think they are. And I think that if they could get the rest of the party to understand this, it would be a net benefit.
The best tool in politics is the one that is most flexible and adaptable to all the situations you’re in. But that means you have to be flexible and adaptable. There’s no substitute for just trying hard, and then being willing to learn from the experience.
In 2015, I wrote that if you want to do politics, you have to be willing to do things that are boring and unsexy. There are a lot of things that are boring and unsexy. If you want to do politics, you have to do them. If you want to win, you have to win. And winning is hard. And it’s hard because it involves doing a lot of things you may not like.
Another AI generated output:
This doesn’t mean “be like Bill Clinton” or “be like Barack Obama” because those people had their own unique styles. The point is that the best way to win is to be yourself, but the best way to be yourself is to be yourself who’s trying to win. This is a balancing act that’s a lot more difficult than it sounds, and I don’t think it’s possible to completely eliminate the risk that you’ll screw up and lose the election. But I do think you can significantly reduce the probability of that happening, and I think the way to do that is to constantly try to think about the median voter and how your actions will appear to the median voter.
I’m not saying this because it’s a good idea, I’m saying it because it’s a good idea that’s the best idea. This is the only kind of thing you can do that will genuinely help you win. The Democrats have won the popular vote in five of the last six elections. So nobody’s argument that this will not work is a serious argument.
One thing I’d say, though, is this shouldn’t be treated as a comprehensive effort to appeal to the center. From the perspective of policy experts, it’s easier to abandon certain social issues — same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization, abortion rights — and say “these policy issues would be nice, but since they’re difficult, let’s instead focus on issues that even die-hard conservatives find hard to deny.” But that is a bad approach. It should be treated as an effort to be the party of the median voter, not the least-worst party of the median voter. The risk is that in certain places, the least-worst party in the median voter’s imagination and the least-worst party among Democratic Party policy experts don’t line up. And insofar as this happens, Democrats will lose by giving up positions they hold unnecessarily.
For example, I think the future will look basically okay on health care, since the federal government has locked in the ability to tax employers who offer bare-bones health insurance, and so there’s no going backwards to a more regressive system while the country exists as a society. If you believe this, then the minimum basic response to people who just hate “Obamacare” is “we’re not going to repeal Medicare, we’re not going to repeal Social Security, and I bet we’ll keep Obamacare when the budget bill expires in a couple years.”
But positions on prison reform or marijuana legalization or abortion restrictions where legal bipartisan support is already there — that does not mean they’re risk-free to shift publicly. I don’t say this because I think that there are substantive risks of going on record as supporting marijuana legalization in the way that there aren’t with support for Social Security, which, if everyone tried to take it away would just result in riots on the street. Like, if Kamala Harris gets attacked from the left on marijuana legalization, her best way to react doesn’t have to be “if you want to see my most left-wing position, it’s rather nuanced and requires a dive into the DC Circuit theories of fair use.” It’s better if her answer is “legalizing marijuana is a great idea that I stand behind, but it’s a little trickier than it looks and we need more time and broader consensus on the specifics before we go any further.”
The AI does a good job of matching the style and tone of the writing it's imitating. But it also feels light on substance, and kind of dull.
I watched Kamala go from being a not super inspiring AG to a very effective Senate candidate -- she can be more appealing -- her presidential campaign started off strong and then fizzled -- Kamala Harris For the People was a good slogan but then the lefties all attacked her for being too tough on crime when she was a pretty liberal DA. I think she has what it takes, but her performance over her career has been uneven and I understand why people are nervous -- but those Politico pieces just seemed thinly sourced and weird to me. I worry about a media narrative that cannot be overcome and it troubles me to see so many folks here rate her a sure loser.
I’m hoping Biden will be more willing to showcase her either after 2022 or 2026, whenever he plans to leave. Giving her “the border” and whatever thankless task she was assigned is not going to help her.
She didn't get "the border". She got"root causes of Central American immigration" a much more substantial topic and one that if she plays it right can be a first step in a much-needed realignment of US foreign policy towards engagement and integration with Latin America.
Mark it down - in a few years Republicans will be falling all over themselves to talk about alliances with Latin America as a hedge against Chinese influence, and Harris has a chance to get there first.
I basically agree with everything here, and wish Dems in general and Harris in particular had already internalized this.
But two violently-agreeing quibbles:
1.) Harris is actually quite infamous among my age/race/gender demographic for poking the left in the eye hard, on two issues: Crime and marijuana. Ask any Bernie techbro with an opinion about her, and you'll likely hear a profane rant about how Harris "locked up black people" for a joint, and how she's "in the pocket" of "big cop".
Dumb and ahistorical, but a decisive narrative inside the left bubble nonetheless. Worth mentioning. :/
2.) On the "To be totally frank, my sense is Democrats would be in better shape today had Biden just picked Whitmer to begin with" stuff, all I can say is. . . no.
Right up there with "Klobuchar is the strongest Dem nominee". One of those things that goes up there on the "nobody" internet memes. With respect. :)
I actually hope she doesn't take your advice so we can have Cory Booker or Amy Klobuchar next go around. But you are undoubtedly right that Harris will have the momentum from her VP status keeping her in the news cycle and she will eventually be the nominee we have to close ranks around. I just have a lot of doubts that she can pull off this kind of thing. Offer to run her campaign Matt!
This article doesn't really grapple with "what if this depresses turnout among the left", who are all likely to be disappointed with an appeal to the 50yo middle-class white voter, especially if it's coupled with some punching left.
I guess the response to that is that appealing to median swing voters is way more important, and you're likely to get the left-wing folks anyways (especially given the specter of another Trump presidency)?
The left won't turn out regardless. There also aren't enough of them to matter, and the vast majority of them live in non-competitive states.
Yeah I believe the data shows that ultimately lefties lined up for Biden.
The problem with the new, woke left is that they, unlike Yglesias, have no understanding of politics and how it works.
I want to complain about this post, because I don’t want to believe this is what politics is. But obviously it is what politics is, and you’re right, and it frustrates me to no end.
“A thing that Harris could do that would distinguish her from Biden without being disloyal to Biden would be to operate with a little more boldness than an old white man would be permitted.”
I do find this a little odd though; generally speaking, most people think women and people of color have LESS room to be bold than an old white man would be permitted. They tend to be punished for boldness more, and their boldness is taken as a form of extremism, even when they express the same opinions as a white man. There’s a reason that Harris was perceived as far more left-wing than Biden despite them having run on pretty similar platforms, and a reason Biden can get away with talking about the exact same social issues in the exact same way that Harris (and even Obama) couldn’t.
Yes, what Wigan said. Harris could knock woke politics without being accused of being an out-of-touch ancient white man. She would still be attacked by the left for doing so, but she could respond (a la Condoleezza), "Don't lecture me, I've been Black all my life."
I took the boldness thing to mean bold-towards-the-center. Bold against-the-far-left. Matt's specific example was to criticize the school renamings in SF. I think he's suggested she be more outspokenly against defund or abolish the police, too. She absolutely could go farther with those positions than an old white man in progressive circles.
Can't speak for anyone else, but I would place Harris much further left than Biden based on geography and age. Biden's old and from Delaware. Harris is younger and from SF, California. To rank them the same on a L-R axis I'd need a lot more data to move me off my priors.
I thought Kamala was already pretty well positioned as centrist because of her prosecutor background. This is not to say she could not do more. For example she be great for denouncing Cuban nd Venezuelan tyrannies, especially with the protests going on now in Cuba.
What worries me about Harris is that conservatives ***hate*** her, with an intensity that seems comparable to how they hate Hillary Clinton.
I understand it’s hard for her to define herself while her job is to play second fiddle to Joe, but that means Fox News et al as 4-8 years to stoke those flames.
And as Matt kind of acknowledges in this piece, her job is to balance out Joe Biden, since she’s more appealing to hardcore Democrats than he is.
This post has made me imagine a Harris V Ivanka Trump election and now I am shuddering.
(I have always thought that Ivanka was the most likely of the Trump kids to pull a Marine le Pen and continue her father’s legacy with a softer touch and better manners.)
I think we're seeing here that the Slow Boring subscriber base is just as unrepresentative of the American electorate as the Very Online wokesters are. Lots of libertarian-ish distaste here for Harris's past tough-on-crime stances, when those are in fact the strongest parts of her electoral profile. IRL there are close to zero libertarian swing voters (or voters of any kind, really).
I hope Harris and her team listen to this post, but I don't have high hopes. After a certain point in their careers people tend to just get set in their ways. Think of all the coaches in pro sports who achieve success with a particular style with predictable strengths and weaknesses. How many of them plateau there, and how many are able to evolve? I'd say it's like a 10-to-1 ratio. Coaches who are creative and able to make adjustments are *usually* creative and able to make adjustments from the beginning.
Do we know who Harris's political brain is? Who is her Ted Kaufman, and what do we know about him/her? If that person is capable of shifting gears, then Harris will be too. If not, she won't.
I'm not sure about this claim. I think, at least compared to other groups of over-educated left-of-center political enthusiasts, Matt's readership is pretty concerned about violent crime, especially its impact on the poor and working class. I'm pro-Adams, and even was supportive of picking Harris as VP, but she is plainly not a positive VORPolitician, notwithstanding her prosecutorial bona fides. [at risk of making this comment even lamer, explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_over_replacement_player ]
Based on some googling, I think Harris's political brain might be a person named Rohini Kosoglu. I don't know anything about her but since Matt has so much pull within the White House these days he should get the message to her.
Kind of off the main point of this thread, but distaste for tough-on-crime rhetoric doesn't track as libertarian at all. It's true that libertarians are generally opposed to police power for anti-statist reasons, but this just happens to be one area where their policy preferences somewhat line up with leftist social justice concerns. BLM is in favor of defunding the police, but that doesn't make them libertarians.
I am aware that there are non-libertarian opponents of criminal law enforcement, but the sentiments in this thread that I was referring to appear to be more of the libertarian variety.
I feel attacked, while at the same time I know you’re right. I feel devastatingly sad, as one does when faced with a truth they have not seen, nor do they want to. The word “pandering” makes me a little bit nauseous. It carries with it a sense of deceit and insincerity. I want the leaders of this great country to be above it. But reality bites.
The hardest pill to swallow is the phrase “The greatest country in the world.” A clip from the TV series “Newsroom” plays in my mind every time I hear it, yet I know that the vast majority of my peers have never seen it, nor would they agree. America is not the greatest country in the world. But that would definitely not sit well with an even more vast majority of not only my peers, but the citizens of this country.
In order to create great change, one must be in a position to make that change possible. Having the opportunity to orchestrate great things brings with it the responsibility of retaining that position. I want to say, “But at what cost?” The answer is, unfortunately, at a greater cost than it should be… the cost of changing the rhetoric. Pandering. Definitely a punch to the gut for me this morning.
Oof!
I definitely *don't* think America is the greatest country in the world (the greatest countries in the world are Japan, France and Mexico) but I don't mind hokey US patriotism at all.
Being conspicuously cosmopolitan (in *any* country) is also a kind of identity politics. It is at worst a way of saying "people like me are better than these rubes." Patriotic rhetoric, at its best, is a way of saying "I want this country we are making together be as good as it can be."
Maybe the three most admirable things this country ever did were the Civil War / reconstruction, the FDR presidency and the civil rights movement and the mainstream of all three was awash in patriotic rhetoric. America's symbols are powerful, you can't just give up on them.
So the greatest countries in the world are 1) exceptionally ethnically homogeneous 2) very ethnically homogeneous and 3) full of corruption and crime?
I don't make the rules
Yup, I love your point that being conspicuously cosmopolitan is a form of identity politics. It is also a form of favoring a very specific personality trait most people don't have by definition: extremely high openness to experience relative to the average person.
And I don’t mind hokey patriotism. I mind pandering. But like I said, reality bites.
so I just posted about how my comment derailed completely, but if I HAD posted about pro-America vs. against-America, this says exactly what I would have tried to convey.
I didn’t post about that, lol, but thank you! 😀
Well this derailed…
Honestly, I've never understood why American liberals have such an issue with “The greatest country in the world.” It is a very defensible claim.
14 Countries have a population over 100 million. China, India, US, Indonesia, Pakistan, Brazil, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Russia, Mexico, Japan, Ethiopia, Philippines, Egypt.
We're the global leader in culture & business. We provide much of the infrastructure that allows trade & migration. We have extremely high HDI. We lead the world in scientific research. Migration patterns support it. US has very low emigration and is the most popular spot for immigrants in the world.
Aaron Sorkin's speech is quite silly as is most of his political writing.
I'm not especially invested in the argument over the U.S.'s "greatest country in the world" standing, but the reason this sort of logic doesn't really get to the heart of liberal unease is that the "greatest country in the world" claim is not offered as bland statement of fact. That is, when, say, Laura Ingraham says that the U.S. is number one, she is very much not saying, "Well, we suck on health care and child poverty and incarceration rates, but we're killing it on patents and movie box office, so by my estimation the U.S. maintains a healthy 3.2% lead in nation rankings over our closest competitor, Belgium, with ancient Hibernia a distant number three."
What she is actually saying is something closer to: "America, fuck yeah, suck it you bedwetting haters, if you don't like it, get out." So there's more of an affective thing going on here.
If you want to argue that we should care less about what Laura Ingraham thinks and also that liberals should be less affectively gloomy about the U.S., then I can probably get on board. Speaking as a liberal, my affect toward the U.S. is pretty overweighted on Trump right now, and could probably stand a correction.
The patriotism gap pre-dates Trump. https://www.vox.com/2015/2/25/8102197/liberals-proud-america
What is more telling is within the Democratic coalition the more sucesfful and affluent you are the more likely you are to take issue with the claim.
Which leads me to belief a lot of complaints about "greatest country in the world" are similar to complaints about the US not following the World Cup as much as other countries: cosmopolitan identity politics.
There's another nuance to this though. Conservatives definitely own the patriotism brand. But conservatives also often seem to really hate America. That is, they hate government, hate the blue states, think the country is in decline, think the country is decadent and going to hell, etc. There's a strong analog with some lefty thinking, but of course with a lot of the issue positions reversed.
But of course conservatives thread the needle by reorienting their patriotism toward a "real America" (and a fantasy Constitution), reserving their disdain for "un-America." And likewise conservative politicians can get away with saying bad things about America all the time, as long as they don't say bad things about "real America." Whereas the reverse is very much not true for liberal politicians.
Which is all to say, I don't think I agree that this is cosmopolitan identity politics. I think both sides register quite a lot of disgust for the aspects of America that they reject, but the manifestations are different.
I think “America, Fuck Yeah” is a much stronger message than “America? Fuck, no.”
I think the left is really entrenched in a narrative that the US is a priori bad and a lot of politics is downstream of that axiom. That’s why Twitter thinks the US did the least of any developed country to help its citizens during the pandemic, when in fact, we did the most. It’s both inaccurate and terrible political messaging.
What bothers me about Ingraham is that she all but says only white people are real Americans.
I think "the left" is less entrenched in the belief that America is bad than is popularly believed. Twitter may be extremely entrenched in that belief, but that's Twitter. My guess is that most middle-of-the-road liberals think America is flawed but pretty great, which isn't much good as a political slogan and still leaves one open to attacks on patriotism grounds.
I think this is a really interesting question, and I would love to see polling data about this.
My intuition is that you are right, but my anecdata is that this very question came up among a largish group of my Midwest-lefty friends and I was really surprised at how scathing everyone was about their overall opinion of US global influence. It wasn’t even at the point of tepid support- a lot of them literally thought that the world would be a much better place if the US just went away.
I thought it was totally bonkers.
“Flawed But Pretty Great” would be a badass slogan!
Yeah, that’s probably true. I always say Twitter isn’t real life and tweak politicos and pundits for forgetting that, but I forget it too.
One thing that struck me in 2016 is that I thought both Trump and Bernie were pretty unpatriotic for presidential candidates. Like MAGA — I think America is great right now! Or was prior to 2016. It kinda made me wonder if patriotism isn’t a thing anymore. I’m much more on board with Biden-style patriotism.
Btw, when I say the left, I mean leftists, not liberals. I’m a squashy liberal, and yes, I think America is flawed, but I also very cornily “America is a shining city on a hill.” People die trying to get here, and I almost feel it’s disrespectful to shrug off what a huge advantage people have being born here versus almost anywhere else in the world.
I hear you, but I would mainly counsel you to be less sad about it. No one remembers or cares what grubby things FDR said to get elected or what grimy compromises he made to get legislation passed. We remember that he passed the Social Security Act that has had a tremendous positive impact on people's lives. The problem is that we don't spend enough time being happy about this sort of thing, and we spend too much time outraged about the everyday minutiae of politics.
What actually matters in politics are things like laws, judges, interest rates, and wars. Which means winning elections matters more than almost anything, not just practically but morally. It's tough, but less tough if we keep those laws, judges, interest rates, and wars front and center in our minds.
Not to be contentious, but did you really “counsel me not to be sad.”?? Are you serious? That is unbelievably condescending. I have as much right — and justification to be sad as you do to your Patriotism. “Everyday minutiae”? The automatic assumption and dismissal of what I am sad about? As if you actually know what makes me sad?
I am well read regarding what needs to be “front and center,” which is ALSO subjective. What “laws” and “judges”? Do you have any inkling as to which I am referring to that make me sad?
Excuse me for expressing my take on this matter whilst agreeing with the author. Your counsel is dismissed.
I thought what you are referring to that makes you sad is political pandering, because that's what you wrote in your comment.
I was really speaking more in the spirit of general advice offered toward myself as much as anyone. I think you may be reading something into my words that isn't there.
Thank you for the clarification. I am definitely not a fan of pandering. Verbiage matters within discourse, though. Four years of Trump sloughed off layers of tough skin…
I wish I could "like" this 1000 times!
See I look at this though and say the cost of changing rhetoric is... literally nothing? Hell yes I'll use jingoistic slogans if it means I have a greater chance of passing policies that I think will improve people's lives (and maybe even help America live up to that aspirational rhetoric.)
My point was that the cost (moral and personal truth to self and immediate constituents) of casting aside your own beliefs to pander is worth the benefit. Basically saying exactly what you just said. Except to some people, that cost is not “literally nothing.” She got to one of the most powerful positions in the world by being true to her beliefs — and doing so loudly and proudly. She does need to change that, but the cost to her is not determined by the ideology that you don’t see it as a cost.
The reference to Newsroom reminds me that, contra online leftists who believe that The West Wing’s main appeal was its embrace of bipartisan compromise, the shows actual main appeal was how President Bartlet refuses to triangulate and say things he doesn’t mean. It’s a seductive fantasy!
I try to think about what I *would* say is the greatest country in the world and I just draw a blank. Like if it’s Sweden or whatever how come Sweden doesn’t have more influence? I think it’s basically a meaningless question, which makes “the United States” as good an answer as any.
Off Topic but West Wing was a pretty terrible drama with excellent dialogue.
One limitation to it as a drama.
Did anyone in the Bartlett White Hose have a different motivation beyond selfless public service in support of the public good (defined in the show as Sorkinism)? Very rarely. In real offices you have your timemarkers, people who just want to climb the ladder, people who dislike the boss, the reformers who disagree on the mission agenda. None of that exists in that WH.
Hmmm, you're right. Now that I think about it, even the Republican opponents, who were supposed to be the bad guys, were usually motivated by ideology over selfish personal gain. I dunno, I loved the Newsroom as well, Aaron Sorkin can't really write human beings because he's too pompous and idealistic, but dang if I don't love indulging in his fantasies.
Newsroom was pretty great when it first came out. And Sorkin’s dialogue can be amazing, but absolutely unrealistic.
West Wing was, truly, a seductive fantasy.
That is so very true, and the more I look back on it the more I realize it. My favorite parts (like most other viewers I suspect) is when Bartlett or a member of his staff would verbally tear apart a wrongheaded opponent of the president, and these days when I read https://www.reddit.com/r/thatHappened/ It makes me cringe how much some of those stories sound like the West Wing.
Am I the only center-left person who hated the West Wing when it aired? It was so smarmy and full of itself. I see socialists on Twitter dragging West Wing to own the moderate libs, and I’m like yeah, it was a silly show!
It was definitely smarmy and full of itself, but when that inspirational music started playing I got sucked in, yah know? Honestly Aaron Sorkin is like Nicolas Sparks or whoever wrote Twilight novels: He writes guilty pleasures. The problem is that people treat West Wing as actually informative of politics.
So much to agree with. But again, to categorically say it is the greatest without evaluating that statement is flawed. Necessary in the case of a sitting President/Vice President, but still flawed. And it begs the question — does influence make something great?
Just to be blunt comparing a homogenous nation of under 10 million people (Norway, Sweden, Finland) to a global capital of commerce is quite silly.
Imagine if we took the NY/SF/LA/Boston metropolitan areas and made it a country. It would be comically wealthy.
That the size and number of citizens of a nation determines its ability to be functional is silly. That we cannot look at what is working on other nations, regardless of their size, and evaluate what they are doing right and what they are doing wrong and adapt is silly. Please find a less derisive word. It’s… silly not to.
It is much harder to build social solidarity as population size increases. It is much harder to build social solidarity as geographic size increases. It is much harder to build social solidarity as the culture becomes more diverse.
US has all 3. Comparing ourseleves to mini-states that are the size of our metro areas is, well, silly.
Harder. That’s defeatist.
I think everyone deserves to believe their country is the greatest country in the world, regardless of facts. It doesn't preclude acknowledging flaws, but it does demonstrate how one is committed to their community, which is most important for the leader.
It's a bit like your parents. If I asked you if your mom or dad were the greatest mom or dad in the world, you'd say yes right?
While I would love to say my parents were the greatest in the world, I cannot. And therein lies the problem. It is about the collective experience. While some people’s experience can be great, others’ can be equally horrific and abusive.
That's true. Some people's experiences can be horrific, while others can be great. No one can truly measure if a country is great or not, but people feel their leader should not just be an analyzer of problems, but a national cheerleader who believes in the potential of the country.
I think pro-America talk is not so much about what is actually great and not-great about America, but a statement that the speaker is faithful to and loves the community that he or she expects to lead. And every politician just needs to be good at that - otherwise, who needs them?
Potential being a key word. Well put.
I tend to over-intellectualize everything so I’d probably give an annoying nuanced answer like I did above. But I agree with the point you’re actually making.
It's the greatest country in the world for Americans. Just like my family (warts and all) is the greatest family in the world for my family members. There is nothing wrong or anti-progressive about saying or believing any of that.
Not all Americans. None of us can speak for all Americans. But it is absolutely not great for all Americans. I also think my family is the greatest in the world. But my kids beg to differ (teenagers and new adults always think they can do things better than their parents).
That is not relevant to what I said. It is the greatest country for Americans in the aggregate, and therefore Harris, and all progressive politicians, should say so.
Some Americans surely dislike America for one reason or another, some more meritorious than others, but some people in every country dislike their own country.
I’m curious as to the source of its greatness in the “aggregate.” I tend to agree, to some extent, but I also know that there are so many more perspectives than mine, and the political climate is obviously deeply divided. Is that divide directly related to the concept that America is great for the individual? Possibly. But I’ve seen it very well stated here that we absolutely DO all want to live in an America we can all be proud of. We are all Americans. I don’t see any reason why she couldn’t change her verbiage to be more inclusive in order to gather more central/undecided support. This whole thing has made me do some re-thinking. It is absolutely pandering to say America is “The Greatest.” But “This Great Country — OUR Country!” might go a long way.
The point is that your country doesn't need to earn your love, any more than your kids need to earn your love in order to be (to you) the greatest kids ever. Your kids are great because they're your kids. Your country is great because it's your community, it's special to you, and you love it just the way it is -- even as you want it to improve, just as you want your kids to improve. The whole concept of comparing the US to other countries on this or that metric is beside the point.
Since it's so very subjective I don't know why you'd worry over it at all. How could you prove that it is or isn't the greatest? What country is great for every single citizen? For some people it's associated with a very positive or sacrifice and service, it's not all jingoism
Because it is subjective I worry. The point of this piece is to point out that Kamala’s rhetoric is worrying, and that she needs to change it to pander. That her not doing so is cause to worry. I am flabbergasted by the gaslighting here.
How is it gaslighting? It is true that America has done both great and terrible things, and most Americans prefer to hear about the great things. I think people greatly underestimate the importance of triggering identities in politics, and “we are awesome Americans!” is a much more empowering/vote-getting identity than “we are crappy Americans”!
A politician’s job is different from a historian’s.