>Bacon’s list drops that new racial focus, makes no mention of trans issues, and gives up on welfare state expansion in favor of a narrow focus on [thing, other thing, more things...]
I notice that this is a good starting point which might make me and sundry others less reflexively averse to candidates with a (D) by their name, and I don't care quite so much about what actually eventually gets on the 10 Democratic Commandments. No shortage of Serious Pressing Issues these days, pick any 10 and Actually Do Something, it's progress vs schizophrenic status quo. But it *waves arms around at discourse* sure seems like a lot of fancy words beating around the bush of "shut Overton Window on fingers of farthest left progressives". I guess it is important to allow for face-saving in a post-Dignity Culture. Maybe sell it as "small targets let you win bigly".
More importantly, "Democrats 2024: Bringing Home The Bacon" seems like a much more popularist slogan than whatever inoffensive focus grouped blandity they do end up using. "Merchandising, merchandising, merchandising!", as a wise sage once said.
I am ever reminded of the 2013 British Columbia General Election, where the long time incumbent liberal-conservatives entered the race deeply underwater against the nominal social democrats. The nominal social democrats ran a very risk averse, traditional “policy a day tour” campaign where the leader traveled around the province announcing a new thing he would do, while the incumbent (but relatively new) leader of the liberal-conservatives relentlessly focussed on jobs and economic development, which was a sore spot during the middle of the Great Macroeconomic Cock-up of 2007-2017.
The liberal-conservatives managed to dig themselves out of a 20-25 point hole
On the Voter ID thing, I suspect that a federal law saying "states can have Voter ID if they want, but they must make available a free voting ID to anyone eligible to vote in the state that wants one" would address 95% of Democratic complaints while satisfying the people who want Voter ID to stop people from voting illegally: the people who would not be satisfied are the Republican operatives who like Voter ID because people who don't have / can't afford ID are more likely to vote Democratic.
In actual legislation (as distinct from policy positioning), you'd want to add two things: first, anyone issued a valid voting-specific ID cannot commit an offence if they vote, even if they are ineligible (ie it's the state's job to refuse to issue and to invalidate; if they give someone an ID while ineligible, then that person can't be held responsible for voting), and second, people applying for a voter ID while ineligible only commit a crime if they do so fraudulently - if they make a mistake in good faith then they aren't committing a crime.
For the coming fight, let's remember that the consensus view is supports "A national law guaranteeing a right to an abortion in the first trimester and in all cases of rape and incest" ***and** to protect the life of the mother.* The treatment for ectopic pregnancy, placental abruption or, hell, sometimes cancer *is* abortion. (Chemo can be an abortifacient.) The alternative can be maternal death. Texans are already having difficulty accessing life-saving drugs necessary to deal with a potentially fatal (to the mother) miscarriage because they are the same drugs used as abortifacients.
As a right-leaning individual, considering voting for republicans if Trump or far-right candidates (as a normie would define them, not someone on the left) aren't on the ballot, I find Bacon's list pretty appealing--minus the filbuster repeal. I could probably get behind a candidate with this list even if i don't agree with a few of the items.
What I like about the idea for either party is it helps to limit the downsides of loss aversion. The idea being that people may like 80% of what you stand for but if you want to do one or two things that they don't like or would hurt them--like raising middle class taxes. The negatives, coupled with status quo bias make the big sell tougher. All of a sudden, a "do nothing" candidate that wants to fight about social status seems appealing to people. By limiting a party's ambitions you run into fewer and fewer deal breakers that might prevent swing voters from changing their vote to you. It makes a lot of sense.
strategic communication on the party is important too. If those on the left or right signal they don't intend to stick to the plan, then swing voters may see this plan as a trojan horse and the effectiveness of the strategy might become smaller. Ironically, those who sabotage the strategy would just say it doesn't work!
I think never-trumpers may support a nationalized civics course but I think most of the right will not see the civics point as an olive branch but rather a stick because 'they' know that the people writing the course will have a liberal bias/bent and that bias will be codified into a national law that will bias their children. The issue is trust with who is building the curriculum and many on the right do not trust the types of people attempting to build a national-level civics curriculum (that would pass muster on the left too). The issue just isn't facts, it's about framing and what to include/exclude and how much emphasis and impact you want to imply events held.
For me, this debate always boils down to a plea for politicians to be better politicians. That means don’t spend a lot of time brawling on unfavorable terrain, and figure out a way to get your opponents to fight on terrain that is favorable to you. What actually is so hard about that?
Incredibly clarifying piece! While I always suspected you, Shor, and Bazelon were urging pragmatism as opposed to abandoning principles, you've also implied that principles and "doing the right thing" are overrated, so this clarification helps a great deal.
I think it's OK to come out and say "just because an idea is currently unpopular, doesn't mean it's a bad idea." It's important to say those types of things as it clarifies for people that you're not saying that we just have to accept that popular opinion is right about everything (and YES, the public is right about a lot of stuff). This is different from wanting Maggie Haberman to say "and this is bad" when reporting on Trump. I've long thought that what was holding you guys back on fully selling popularism was your unwillingness to show some sympathy for people that want to eventually accomplish big things. While I know you weren't meaning it this way, your (and particularly Josh Barro's) rhetoric seemed to be: "The American people hate your views. Grow the f*** up and adapt."
I can't believe people are like "ooh what's your list, here's mine" with this. Completely missing the point. The point is that you get to agree on these 10 things and THEN can say whatever you want about everything else. Everything else is most things!
I have often wondered why filibuster reform, rather than just eliminating it, doesn't get more traction. Personally, I'd like to see a hard limit: say, the opposition gets four filibusters per Congressional term. Something like that.
I like this because it preserves the idea of defending the minority's rights (which I think has some merit to it), but makes "the majority gets to do what it wants" the default (which it should be). And it creates a situation where, if the minority invokes a filibuster, it has to explain *why* this thing is so important that it is using one of its precious filibusters on it, as opposed to making the majority explain why it wants to do anything at all.
I think this all makes sense conceptually but one important note is that we're in charge now! The Democrats have already shown what we aim to do and it's not a "narrow target" campaign at all.
This may be a good idea for 2026, when we might be trying to flip the House and Senate against President Trump or DeSantis, but it will fall on deaf ears in 2022 because actions speak louder than words.
I honestly feel like 10 points is way to many. Better for campaigns to just emphasize one or two of them that are most popular/easiest to understand, and focus on that. Of course, you don't completely ignore the other stuff; it can still appear on the candidate's websites for anyone that really cares. But, for campaign slogans, 10 points is way, way too many.
Does the abortion ruling change the progressive wing of the Democratic Party? The focus going from doing more and advancing a progressive agenda to trying to keep things from going backwards. It seems like winning has suddenly become much more important.
You can imagine a world where primaries are particularly structured around candidates competing visions of their own Ten item promises. Candidates United in 5/6 items as bedrock democrats and duking it out in Iowa and Super Tuesday states over which final 4/5 should round out the top 10. Sadly we are too far from God to inhibit that enlightened future.
>Bacon’s list drops that new racial focus, makes no mention of trans issues, and gives up on welfare state expansion in favor of a narrow focus on [thing, other thing, more things...]
I notice that this is a good starting point which might make me and sundry others less reflexively averse to candidates with a (D) by their name, and I don't care quite so much about what actually eventually gets on the 10 Democratic Commandments. No shortage of Serious Pressing Issues these days, pick any 10 and Actually Do Something, it's progress vs schizophrenic status quo. But it *waves arms around at discourse* sure seems like a lot of fancy words beating around the bush of "shut Overton Window on fingers of farthest left progressives". I guess it is important to allow for face-saving in a post-Dignity Culture. Maybe sell it as "small targets let you win bigly".
More importantly, "Democrats 2024: Bringing Home The Bacon" seems like a much more popularist slogan than whatever inoffensive focus grouped blandity they do end up using. "Merchandising, merchandising, merchandising!", as a wise sage once said.
I am ever reminded of the 2013 British Columbia General Election, where the long time incumbent liberal-conservatives entered the race deeply underwater against the nominal social democrats. The nominal social democrats ran a very risk averse, traditional “policy a day tour” campaign where the leader traveled around the province announcing a new thing he would do, while the incumbent (but relatively new) leader of the liberal-conservatives relentlessly focussed on jobs and economic development, which was a sore spot during the middle of the Great Macroeconomic Cock-up of 2007-2017.
The liberal-conservatives managed to dig themselves out of a 20-25 point hole
On the Voter ID thing, I suspect that a federal law saying "states can have Voter ID if they want, but they must make available a free voting ID to anyone eligible to vote in the state that wants one" would address 95% of Democratic complaints while satisfying the people who want Voter ID to stop people from voting illegally: the people who would not be satisfied are the Republican operatives who like Voter ID because people who don't have / can't afford ID are more likely to vote Democratic.
In actual legislation (as distinct from policy positioning), you'd want to add two things: first, anyone issued a valid voting-specific ID cannot commit an offence if they vote, even if they are ineligible (ie it's the state's job to refuse to issue and to invalidate; if they give someone an ID while ineligible, then that person can't be held responsible for voting), and second, people applying for a voter ID while ineligible only commit a crime if they do so fraudulently - if they make a mistake in good faith then they aren't committing a crime.
For the coming fight, let's remember that the consensus view is supports "A national law guaranteeing a right to an abortion in the first trimester and in all cases of rape and incest" ***and** to protect the life of the mother.* The treatment for ectopic pregnancy, placental abruption or, hell, sometimes cancer *is* abortion. (Chemo can be an abortifacient.) The alternative can be maternal death. Texans are already having difficulty accessing life-saving drugs necessary to deal with a potentially fatal (to the mother) miscarriage because they are the same drugs used as abortifacients.
As a right-leaning individual, considering voting for republicans if Trump or far-right candidates (as a normie would define them, not someone on the left) aren't on the ballot, I find Bacon's list pretty appealing--minus the filbuster repeal. I could probably get behind a candidate with this list even if i don't agree with a few of the items.
What I like about the idea for either party is it helps to limit the downsides of loss aversion. The idea being that people may like 80% of what you stand for but if you want to do one or two things that they don't like or would hurt them--like raising middle class taxes. The negatives, coupled with status quo bias make the big sell tougher. All of a sudden, a "do nothing" candidate that wants to fight about social status seems appealing to people. By limiting a party's ambitions you run into fewer and fewer deal breakers that might prevent swing voters from changing their vote to you. It makes a lot of sense.
strategic communication on the party is important too. If those on the left or right signal they don't intend to stick to the plan, then swing voters may see this plan as a trojan horse and the effectiveness of the strategy might become smaller. Ironically, those who sabotage the strategy would just say it doesn't work!
I think never-trumpers may support a nationalized civics course but I think most of the right will not see the civics point as an olive branch but rather a stick because 'they' know that the people writing the course will have a liberal bias/bent and that bias will be codified into a national law that will bias their children. The issue is trust with who is building the curriculum and many on the right do not trust the types of people attempting to build a national-level civics curriculum (that would pass muster on the left too). The issue just isn't facts, it's about framing and what to include/exclude and how much emphasis and impact you want to imply events held.
👏👍🏻
For me, this debate always boils down to a plea for politicians to be better politicians. That means don’t spend a lot of time brawling on unfavorable terrain, and figure out a way to get your opponents to fight on terrain that is favorable to you. What actually is so hard about that?
Incredibly clarifying piece! While I always suspected you, Shor, and Bazelon were urging pragmatism as opposed to abandoning principles, you've also implied that principles and "doing the right thing" are overrated, so this clarification helps a great deal.
I think it's OK to come out and say "just because an idea is currently unpopular, doesn't mean it's a bad idea." It's important to say those types of things as it clarifies for people that you're not saying that we just have to accept that popular opinion is right about everything (and YES, the public is right about a lot of stuff). This is different from wanting Maggie Haberman to say "and this is bad" when reporting on Trump. I've long thought that what was holding you guys back on fully selling popularism was your unwillingness to show some sympathy for people that want to eventually accomplish big things. While I know you weren't meaning it this way, your (and particularly Josh Barro's) rhetoric seemed to be: "The American people hate your views. Grow the f*** up and adapt."
I can't believe people are like "ooh what's your list, here's mine" with this. Completely missing the point. The point is that you get to agree on these 10 things and THEN can say whatever you want about everything else. Everything else is most things!
I have often wondered why filibuster reform, rather than just eliminating it, doesn't get more traction. Personally, I'd like to see a hard limit: say, the opposition gets four filibusters per Congressional term. Something like that.
I like this because it preserves the idea of defending the minority's rights (which I think has some merit to it), but makes "the majority gets to do what it wants" the default (which it should be). And it creates a situation where, if the minority invokes a filibuster, it has to explain *why* this thing is so important that it is using one of its precious filibusters on it, as opposed to making the majority explain why it wants to do anything at all.
I think this all makes sense conceptually but one important note is that we're in charge now! The Democrats have already shown what we aim to do and it's not a "narrow target" campaign at all.
This may be a good idea for 2026, when we might be trying to flip the House and Senate against President Trump or DeSantis, but it will fall on deaf ears in 2022 because actions speak louder than words.
I honestly feel like 10 points is way to many. Better for campaigns to just emphasize one or two of them that are most popular/easiest to understand, and focus on that. Of course, you don't completely ignore the other stuff; it can still appear on the candidate's websites for anyone that really cares. But, for campaign slogans, 10 points is way, way too many.
Teach kids about Ruby Bridges and also about Ruby Ridge.
Does the abortion ruling change the progressive wing of the Democratic Party? The focus going from doing more and advancing a progressive agenda to trying to keep things from going backwards. It seems like winning has suddenly become much more important.
We can hope?
You can imagine a world where primaries are particularly structured around candidates competing visions of their own Ten item promises. Candidates United in 5/6 items as bedrock democrats and duking it out in Iowa and Super Tuesday states over which final 4/5 should round out the top 10. Sadly we are too far from God to inhibit that enlightened future.