In her New York Times column Maureen Dowd lambastes progressives:
The progressives are the modern Puritans. The Massachusetts Bay Colony is alive and well on the Potomac and Twitter.
They eviscerate their natural allies for not being pure enough while placing all their hopes in a color-inside-the-lines lifelong Republican prosecutor appointed by Ronald Reagan.
The politics of purism makes people stupid. And nasty.
My father stayed up all night the night Truman was elected because he was so excited. I would like to stay up ’til dawn the night a Democrat wins next year because I’m so excited to see the moment when the despicable Donald Trump lumbers into a Marine helicopter and flies away for good.
But Democrats are making that dream ever more distant because they are using their time knifing one another and those who want to be on their side instead of playing it smart.
which may sound familiar because I’ve been saying the like for some time. When Nancy Pelosi isn’t progressive enough for the left wing of the party, it should provide a clue. They are drifting ever farther from being a party that can win national elections. Whoever the presidential candidate acceptable to them might be, if he or she drives the voters of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota away drawing 100% of the votes in Seattle will do him or her no good.
And the Democratic Party leaders know that that dream is receding. That is the reasons behind the push to import a new electorate that isn’t required to be citizens: Abolishing the Electoral College; lowering the voting age to sixteen; opposition to voter ID; opposition to cleaning up voter rolls; and more. They know they can’t win with the same rules that Trump used to win, so they have to cheat. I don’t want LA, NYC, Chicago, Seattle, and other progressive bastions trying to run my life any more than you should.
Playing devils advocate.
Hillary Clinton was less then 80000 votes from winning in 2016.
Democrats won a convincing majority in the House in 2018 – winning seats in states Trump won.
Trump won despite a nasty intra-party fight and leading a disunited party.
To me, there is no clear evidence that the extremism of one or both parties has moved the country away from being 50-50. Nor is there evidence that Puritanism is a hindrance to winning.
Whether that is lamentable or laudatory is another question.
“To me, there is no clear evidence that the extremism of one or both parties has moved the country away from being 50-50.â€
I think that’s the point. When politicians in fact move too far from the zero point, or the face of the party is deemed to have done so as have the so-called squad, political stances and election realities diverge.
First, this is the primary. At this point in one of the GOP primaries luminaries like Bachmann and Cain were in front. In primaries people ALWAYS cater to the extremes of the party, then come back to the middle. No need for hand wringing yet. Or resorting to quoting Down, the Friedman of the right.
Second, this…”Abolishing the Electoral College; lowering the voting age to sixteen; opposition to voter ID; opposition to cleaning up voter rolls; and more. They know they can’t win with the same rules that Trump used to win, so they have to cheat.”
Voter ID and “cleaning up the voter rolls” as performed by the GOP has consisted of cheating so that they could win. We have emails leaked from legislators passing those bills that the intent of the bill was to keep opponents from voting. There is no evidence that voter ID stops the kind of voter fraud we actually have in this country.
“To me, there is no clear evidence that the extremism of one or both parties has moved the country away from being 50-50. Nor is there evidence that Puritanism is a hindrance to winning.”
This looks much more to me like some recognition that Trump voters are not persuadable and that this will an appeal to the base, get out the vote election. I wold expect the eventual nominee to run back to the middle in the general, but not as much as I would like. Then govern more towards the middle.
Steve
“First, this is the primary.”
The banal comment. Every last candidate raising their hand to the question “do you support free health care for illegals” will be very difficult to run from, especially when its repeatedly plastered across TV screens in ads. And that doesn’t even scratch the surface of free everything………
I will build a wall (not a fence) and Mexico will pay for it. That’s your model.
Steve
Ot how about “We are going to have insurance for everybody” or insurance will be “a lot less expensive” for everyone. How about ““We don’t want anyone who currently has insurance to not have insurance.â€
Steve
Steve,
Have you ever considered trying to find common ground with your ideological adversaries, rather than simply painting them as opponents to be fought at every turn? It strikes me that this might be a more productive line of commenting.
Piercello- Sure. I actually agree with Drew, just to use an example, with a lot of his comments on business, especially small business (too regulated) and on management. However, it gets really hard when we end up talking about stuff like the current topic when nearly every election in recent history involved people running towards their base in the primary then running back to the middle in the general. Based upon nothing but speculation, and antipathy towards Democrats, as far as I can tell, this time it will be different. Also, in general it has gotten harder since conservatives have abandoned principles with which I have long agreed, but maybe you are right and I should try harder.
Steve
Steve
The only point,Steve, is that the current Dem prez candidate positions are particularly strident and sufficiently straightforward that they will be difficult to walk back.
I take issue with Steve when he talks about the subversiveness of enacting voter ID, citing suppression of votes being the underlying ploy from mean-thinking republicans. That is beyond partisan ridiculous, as ID (verification of one’s identity) is required for almost any and all governmental/legal functions in life! Furthermore, complaining about the push for voter ID (which meets with almost 75% public approval) is ludicrous in light of democrat’s egregious passions for ballot harvesting (in CA), motor voter screw-ups giving illegal citizens opportunities to vote, and hysterical vitriol in opposing checking voter roles for accuracy etc. Judicial Watch has been winning a few battles to correct some voter inaccuracy — finding something like 1.5 million names, in Los Angeles county alone, that needed to be scrubbed from the voter roles.
So, much like TarsTarkas, when I think of democrat I now associate it with “Hardball cheater.”
“…in general it has gotten harder since conservatives have abandoned principles with which I have long agreed”
I don’t know what those principles might be. However, what I’m finding in the new progressive democrat elites are principles that only market in hypocrisy, dishonesty, and doing business for themselves rather than the public interest.
This controversy about the border frames the distasteful behavior of democrats perfectly. They plead for good treatment for those crossing the border illegally and being held in detention settings awaiting hearings. But, they then sit on their hands and do nothing! Even the humanitarian aid package was troublesome for some of them to pass. And, the overcrowding, symptomatic of too many people illegally crossing the border, somehow fails to catch democrats’ attention in addressing the need for congressional action to stem this inordinate, over-demanding flow of people. For instance, if you have a bleeder, you first apply a tourniquet or pressure, to stop the bleeding. What the dems seem to “apply” are tears and anguished words, but let the person bleed out.
One anecdotal story revolves around an interview I heard dealing with an organization who had trucked emergency children supplies, in an 18 wheeler, to one of the detention areas. It so happened to have occurred during the infamous AOC visit, decrying women drinking out of toilets. A woman volunteer suggested to AOC, if she wanted to help, she could help unload the truck. The congresswoman passed on that request because she wanted to do TV interviews instead! Just amazing…..
Drew- It worked for Trump. Maybe he is unique, but that will also work against him. When in the general the nominee goes back to the middle they arent likely to lose many votes from the base as they really want Trump gone.
jan- There is almost no voter fraud of the kind that would be affected by ID cards. There is no purpose in the law. If you want to pass laws to make registration work better, go ahead but that is a different problem. In courts conservatives dont even cite voter fraud cases since they cant find them. Lots of voter fraud with absentee ballots and voting machines, but you dont go after that. Last of all, as I said, GOP politicians admit that was the purpose of voter ID.
https://thinkprogress.org/top-pennsylvania-republican-admits-voter-id-helped-suppress-obama-voters-aa7541211b87/
” motor voter screw-ups giving illegal citizens opportunities to vote,”
Go ahead and show where illegals voted. Didnt happen. You guys have been looking for years.
“ID (verification of one’s identity) is required for almost any and all governmental/legal functions in life!”
We have over 200 years of voting with no evidence that we need ID to vote. There arent really that many times we have to present our papers in the US, unlike you would have to do in an authoritarian state. Lets keep it that way.
” I think of democrat I now associate it with “Hardball cheater.—
So there is no evidence that there is any significant voter fraud of the kind ID would fix. There is no cheating. OTOH, there is much evidence that the GOP wants voter ID to keep Democrats from voting ie cheating. (You really ought to show evidence of some cheating, any cheating, before making such a claim.)
So in my effort to reach out and find common ground, I would agree that we should fix voter rolls. That leads to absentee voter fraud, mostly old people voting for their deceased spouse, or people maintaining two homes.
“But, they then sit on their hands and do nothing!”
They passed their own bill, which Trump then threatened to veto, so they passed the Senate version. They were willing to give up stuff they wanted just to get aid to the people in the cages. The GOP, as usual, was not willing to give up anything, but then treating people cruelly was the idea behind their policies.
Steve
Thanks, Steve.
On the subject of voter fraud, my take is the political left is worried about voter suppression, and that the political right is worried about voter fraud.
Since both opinions are entrenched (and kept that way by internet pot-stirrers), no meaningful policy solution is possible unless it simultaneously addresses BOTH sets of concerns (the only way to back off the pot-stirrers).
That it, it doesn’t actually matter which side is right (both, one, or neither), because that has become irrelevant. What we need more than anything else right now is a resurgence of societal trust. Without that trust, civil violence is assured.
So to my thinking, the question becomes “how do we craft policy that simultaneously addresses both sets of concerns?”
Note that as a classical musician, I am painfully familiar with how difficult it is to get people to notice the socially irrelevant things I care about! But the plain truth is that “being right” is no longer enough. We need a new line of attack.
It’s too commonsensical. The idea of compromise where both sides get what they want.
On voting; I personally like the system devised 100 years ago.
Polls are open for 1 day only; must go to polling station; finger gets inked as you vote; paper ballots; Election Day is a holiday.
Add in national registration system where you can vote in 1 location only, where the government registers each neighborhood for voters before every federal election.
That should be safe against voter fraud and voter suppression.
“and that the political right is worried about voter fraud.”
But in this case, there is no voter fraud that will be stopped with voter ID. What then is the purpose for having voter ID? Why would we spend millions on this and take up people’s time for a problem that does not exist? In this case one side wants a law to stop a problem that does not exist, and as I documented up above, at least in PA the purpose of voter ID was to keep people from voting.
Steve
Because, Steve, millions of people are convinced that the fraud problem DOES exist, and that entrenched belief IS the problem that needs solving.
As I said above, low societal trust is perhaps our biggest current social issue, in that it prevents effective solutions from being accepted.
In this low-trust environment, you cannot simply fuel your narrative bulldozer with facts and then run your opponents off the table, because the collateral damage from the societal blowback will be worse than the expense of hammering out a compromise.
Human beings do not make rational decisions. Politics is about living with each other anyway, and that means giving a nod to the non-rational logic that runs decision-making behind the scenes.
Here, that means establishing trust FIRST, as a necessary precondition to political progress.
You know I run a corporation and chair a moderately large medical specialty. This is no way to run a business or a medical group. You need a reason based upon real data and needs before you start generating policies, or you screw up. This idea of catering to feelings is incredibly foreign to me. Mind you, I deal with irrational employees and bizarre ideas based upon paranoid feelings and weird rumors all of the time. Its just that once I can dispel those with facts and data we can get past that. My usual tactic is to acknowledge that the feelings are real (in this case I understand that conservatives really do feel like there is fraud) but then explain why the feeling is false and reach a solution that solves a real problem. Catering to a false fear just to get someone to trust you feels wrong in so many ways. Being truthful and open would be my preferred approach.
Steve
Rats, I lost a really long comment.
Suffice, for now, to point out that the available cultural data indicates that our adversarial approach to politics is not working, and also that the internet may have rendered it obsolete (think German machine guns versus French “elan” in WWI), and that a new tactical approach appears to be necessary.
But also, “consensus” is not abject surrender! We simply need to escape the cultural trap of disagreeing over what, or who, “the problem” is.
Iteratively seeking consensus on what “the problem” is (we agree that we disagree on what “the problem” is, and that is our “real” problem) at least potentially converts our situation from an unsolvable impasse to a sequentially solvable framework.
I wish it were easier too.