As always, thanks for such a great, thoughtful bit of writing. One thing I think news outlets should talk about more is all the baseline freedoms we have now that could be lost under Trump. Even if you don’t think Biden or his economy is doing anything for you (and I think he’s doing as much as he can, for the most part) you know what’s nice about America? You can shit talk the president. You know what you can’t do in a dictatorship? Shit talk the president. Even just basic freedom of speech laws would be threatened; Trump is quite vocal about silencing dissent and obviously has a history of firing staffers who are less than 100% loyal. Probably a lot of people don’t feel like their lives are much different under Biden than they were under Trump, so I think the media should focus more on what we have to lose, not necessarily the advancements we’ve made under Biden (which are pretty incremental and hard to feel on an individual level)
That's right--though as the election nears, I think Biden will talk more about what he'd do in unified government again, and then it'll be easier to add a layer of contrast to that focus.
I suspect it would help a lot if more Trump administration alumni spoke out clearly. Cassidy Hutchinson has had a real impact and she was a ultimately a staffer early in her career. If the likes of Cohn, Kelly, Mattis, Milley and McMcaster spoke out clearly, it would have a direct impact and also create the beloved "permission structure" for journalists to be more honest about what's at stake.
I hope someone in the Biden campaign is working towards making that happen.
The cowardice of former senior officials has been staggering, but not surprising from people who agreed to serve in that administration in the first place.
One thing the media could do is to stop letting whatever the latest crackpot GOP grievance is to drive the narrative. There is far too much normalization of what Donald says and the chaos the GOP is causing in both chambers of Congress. The media has a *sliding scale of crazy* in which anything seen as outside the “norm” perpetrated by a Democrat is castigated, poured over and then beaten to death for good measure. Whereas any totally crazy whacked out nonsense the GOP floats is just written off as just *aw shucks that’s just hyperbole*. It’s garbage and needs to stop.
Well, while there has been a smattering of reporting about the dangers of a 2nd Trump term, it's not reaching most voters.
Paywalls, the absence of amplification by Democratic leadership, fatigue after seeing the wins in 2020 end with no structural changes to harden democracy (it's difficult to credit the Electoral Count Act as more than a "clarification"), and the absence of a real vision for the country is manifesting as cynicism and apathy.
Presumably most of the pro-democracy coalition will, once again, turn out in 2024, but it's clear (at least to me) that a win means a slowing of autocracy vs a strengthening of democracy.
The one positive I see is that Democratic trifectas at the state and local levels do create stronger economic bastions of democracy, and funding secured at the federal level is used by such states to improve constituents' lives. So, there's a bottom-up reason to vote for Democrats up and down the ballot.
Dems have been talking about the dangers in addition to touting successes. Media shrugs or criticizes Biden’s democracy speeches with few exceptions. The media won’t even cover the warnings of members of Trump’s own administration! Look at Kelly’s comment the other day. Dems do talk about this. But when it’s framed as “Dems say” it makes it seem as if it’s opinion when it is not (oh, there they go again).
I agree that legacy media's coverage has been antagonistic, at best.
That begs a different approach by Democrats, rather than impotently blaming media's failures.
Liz Cheney hired a producer to present a compelling story about 1/6 that broke through media cynicism.
It's difficult to believe that Democratic leadership can't figure out a way to present the stark dichotomy of life under a democracy vs an autocracy in a way that would reach Americans.
Mostly great column with a few quibbles (because of course).
“everyone knows that his presidency poses an existential threat to democracy and rule of law.”
Who is this everyone of which you speak? Not the “voters” in recent focus groups or surveyed in early polls or the loud young vowing not to vote. I don’t even think most in the media believe it. There have been some actual serious stories in Wapo and the NYT about Trump’s plans, but not enough--and still attributing others saying it rather than making it clear it’s not opinion.
When Trump stated outright he is going to throw his political opponents/enemies into jail, he is talking about those “cowed” Dems you seem to hold in disdain. He won’t stop at Milley or Fauci or Schiff; he is going after everyone, and a year in advance is already lining up resumes for his “loyalty to Trump only” govt. And the violence unleashed on the rest of us (think the Gestapo or the Stasi or hell, Bull Connor) will be ugly and yes terrifying.
It’s imperative for voices like yours to keep covering and hammering the dangers. Save your criticism of the Dems for AFTER the election when they have won, please. The time for petty infighting and critical nitpicking should be on hold for now. We need everyone in this fight and we must all raise awareness not only of all we will lose but what we stand to gain with majorities if we win.
I don’t believe the judiciary is completely lost; a record number of judges have been confirmed, and look at recent successes in WI and here in PA. But SCOTUS is out of reach for a while and we have some really loopy federal district courts for sure.
We must reach voters and educate them about the stakes. Please devote more columns to this and look at the recent Columbia Journalism Review that supports the findings done after 2016.
Thanks, Brian for fighting the good fight, and you and your family have a Happy Thanksgiving! We are all in this together.
Only note here: The full sentence was "nobody in the media is under the mistaken impression that Trump can’t become president, and everyone knows that his presidency poses an existential threat to democracy and rule of law." Everyone refers to the media. Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours as well.
Hopefully the Israel war ends soon or simmers down to a less intense level instead of sucking up all the media attention. That will allow space for some of the natural "forgetting" and help Biden move to strengths that unite his coalition. Apart from the awful tragedy of the war, it just really fucks Biden politically. Needs to catch a break, like maybe world peace?
Nailed it, once again. But is ANYBODY who can actually get the Dems out of their timidity actually listening? Countering Third Reich-type speech with the limp noodle of the Democratic Party’s response is going to fail. And then…
In the end, how do people decide for whom to vote? Your analysis suggests two separate but inter-related methods: 1) Considered evaluation of the impact a candidate would make to their lives and to the country; or, 2) General perception of the favourability of the candidate. If the mainstream media increased its coverage of what the future might hold under either candidate, it could affect decisions using either method. However, often people make decisions on the first method looking at a single, highly-emotional or impactful issue for them rather than an assessment across a suite of important policy or value decisions. Opposing Biden, for example, because of his strong support for Israel and perceived ineffectiveness in supporting Palestinians, may be enough for many voters even if a full analysis of what might happen on these (and other issues) under a Trump administration would suggest things would not be better on this single issue and likely worse on other issues. And using the second method Biden’s humanity gets called into question on the Middle East issue pushing some voters to swear off choosing him at any price. Also, this happens without looking in balance at Trump’s humanity on this or any other issue. If memory serves, there was a sizeable contingent of Bernie supporters in 2016 who opposed Clinton because of her support for the Trans-Pacific Trade deal. It was enough of an issue for them that they refused to vote for her, even though it seemed clear that Trump would be worse for them across a wide range of other issues.
No president can be everything to all of his natural supporters. I'm not arguing (and wouldn't argue) that Biden and Democrats have optimized their appeal, or that Biden has good "vibes" (for lack of a better term) that might appeal to low-information voters who don't choose their candidates based on politics at all. Bill Clinton and Obama were both young and charismatic. Biden, uh...
But I do think *media* can help those who do understand that American elections are sharp binaries by breaking down the stakes in this way, and I'd implore all voters, even ones unhappy with this policy or that policy, to ask "will the alternative be worse?" before deciding to boycott, morally satisfying though it might feel.
My 28 yr old son & friends blamed Clinton for stealing Bernie’s delegates and on and on and on. In the end it was who’s worse, trump or Clinton, then Comey happened (again) adding to chaos. Ugh, and extended fam voted for libertarian to avoid Dems & trump. ‘You elected trump’ was my not good reaction.
As someone who is disabled from a traumatic brain injury I'm terrified of losing my health insurance (a Medicare managed care policy)and also then having to pay out of pocket for the eleven prescriptions I must take to function day to day. My seizure meds are the most expensive and I would die without them
Here's something else you and Matt Yglesias have in common - a complete refusal to consider that non-economic, non-policy-specific factors may be hurting Biden massively, and might even be responsible for putting him in the negatives despite a good economy and generally-reasonable policies.
For an example of the kind of clue you should maybe be picking up on, may I point you back in the direction of the Bud Lite scandal from a few months ago? Then may I point you to public polling on whether any sort of man should be allowed to play on womens' sports teams? Then may I point you to the Democratic position on the issue? Then may I point you to Sam Brinton & Rachel Levine?
This point always gets met with minimization, denial, and accusations of bigotry. As for the first two, let me just say that my aunt, the most politically motivated person in my family, went into serious credit card debt donating to Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign - and now isn't voting. One guess why! And as for the third thing, sexism is not progress. Sexual equality is fundamentally incompatible with the notion that any man "is" or "should be" a woman, and vice versa. Full stop! I doll up cuter than Cyndi Lauper myself, but if you call me a woman for that, I'll punch you in the teeth, bigot.
As always, thanks for such a great, thoughtful bit of writing. One thing I think news outlets should talk about more is all the baseline freedoms we have now that could be lost under Trump. Even if you don’t think Biden or his economy is doing anything for you (and I think he’s doing as much as he can, for the most part) you know what’s nice about America? You can shit talk the president. You know what you can’t do in a dictatorship? Shit talk the president. Even just basic freedom of speech laws would be threatened; Trump is quite vocal about silencing dissent and obviously has a history of firing staffers who are less than 100% loyal. Probably a lot of people don’t feel like their lives are much different under Biden than they were under Trump, so I think the media should focus more on what we have to lose, not necessarily the advancements we’ve made under Biden (which are pretty incremental and hard to feel on an individual level)
That's right--though as the election nears, I think Biden will talk more about what he'd do in unified government again, and then it'll be easier to add a layer of contrast to that focus.
I suspect it would help a lot if more Trump administration alumni spoke out clearly. Cassidy Hutchinson has had a real impact and she was a ultimately a staffer early in her career. If the likes of Cohn, Kelly, Mattis, Milley and McMcaster spoke out clearly, it would have a direct impact and also create the beloved "permission structure" for journalists to be more honest about what's at stake.
I hope someone in the Biden campaign is working towards making that happen.
The cowardice of former senior officials has been staggering, but not surprising from people who agreed to serve in that administration in the first place.
One thing the media could do is to stop letting whatever the latest crackpot GOP grievance is to drive the narrative. There is far too much normalization of what Donald says and the chaos the GOP is causing in both chambers of Congress. The media has a *sliding scale of crazy* in which anything seen as outside the “norm” perpetrated by a Democrat is castigated, poured over and then beaten to death for good measure. Whereas any totally crazy whacked out nonsense the GOP floats is just written off as just *aw shucks that’s just hyperbole*. It’s garbage and needs to stop.
Well, while there has been a smattering of reporting about the dangers of a 2nd Trump term, it's not reaching most voters.
Paywalls, the absence of amplification by Democratic leadership, fatigue after seeing the wins in 2020 end with no structural changes to harden democracy (it's difficult to credit the Electoral Count Act as more than a "clarification"), and the absence of a real vision for the country is manifesting as cynicism and apathy.
Presumably most of the pro-democracy coalition will, once again, turn out in 2024, but it's clear (at least to me) that a win means a slowing of autocracy vs a strengthening of democracy.
The one positive I see is that Democratic trifectas at the state and local levels do create stronger economic bastions of democracy, and funding secured at the federal level is used by such states to improve constituents' lives. So, there's a bottom-up reason to vote for Democrats up and down the ballot.
Dems have been talking about the dangers in addition to touting successes. Media shrugs or criticizes Biden’s democracy speeches with few exceptions. The media won’t even cover the warnings of members of Trump’s own administration! Look at Kelly’s comment the other day. Dems do talk about this. But when it’s framed as “Dems say” it makes it seem as if it’s opinion when it is not (oh, there they go again).
I agree that legacy media's coverage has been antagonistic, at best.
That begs a different approach by Democrats, rather than impotently blaming media's failures.
Liz Cheney hired a producer to present a compelling story about 1/6 that broke through media cynicism.
It's difficult to believe that Democratic leadership can't figure out a way to present the stark dichotomy of life under a democracy vs an autocracy in a way that would reach Americans.
Mostly great column with a few quibbles (because of course).
“everyone knows that his presidency poses an existential threat to democracy and rule of law.”
Who is this everyone of which you speak? Not the “voters” in recent focus groups or surveyed in early polls or the loud young vowing not to vote. I don’t even think most in the media believe it. There have been some actual serious stories in Wapo and the NYT about Trump’s plans, but not enough--and still attributing others saying it rather than making it clear it’s not opinion.
When Trump stated outright he is going to throw his political opponents/enemies into jail, he is talking about those “cowed” Dems you seem to hold in disdain. He won’t stop at Milley or Fauci or Schiff; he is going after everyone, and a year in advance is already lining up resumes for his “loyalty to Trump only” govt. And the violence unleashed on the rest of us (think the Gestapo or the Stasi or hell, Bull Connor) will be ugly and yes terrifying.
It’s imperative for voices like yours to keep covering and hammering the dangers. Save your criticism of the Dems for AFTER the election when they have won, please. The time for petty infighting and critical nitpicking should be on hold for now. We need everyone in this fight and we must all raise awareness not only of all we will lose but what we stand to gain with majorities if we win.
I don’t believe the judiciary is completely lost; a record number of judges have been confirmed, and look at recent successes in WI and here in PA. But SCOTUS is out of reach for a while and we have some really loopy federal district courts for sure.
We must reach voters and educate them about the stakes. Please devote more columns to this and look at the recent Columbia Journalism Review that supports the findings done after 2016.
Thanks, Brian for fighting the good fight, and you and your family have a Happy Thanksgiving! We are all in this together.
Only note here: The full sentence was "nobody in the media is under the mistaken impression that Trump can’t become president, and everyone knows that his presidency poses an existential threat to democracy and rule of law." Everyone refers to the media. Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours as well.
Hopefully the Israel war ends soon or simmers down to a less intense level instead of sucking up all the media attention. That will allow space for some of the natural "forgetting" and help Biden move to strengths that unite his coalition. Apart from the awful tragedy of the war, it just really fucks Biden politically. Needs to catch a break, like maybe world peace?
Excellent analysis. Also it captures the very dark mood of this time, that of late 2023.
Well this was bracing.
And by “bracing,” I mean cause for investigating Canadian immigration law...
Haha, well, I took the paywall down for it, so if you want to scare people into moving north with you, please do share it with them!
Zach, what I know of Canadian immigration law is, it's not very kind to Americans. You can't even marry a Canadian to get in.
DUI, or DWI? No way.
Retired, regular shmuck on Medicare? Huh uh....
I know people who have checked it out. I'm too old and crippled to try, but I m and American for better or worse--I ain't leaving my country....
Thanks Gus. Just a joke for effect, though. (Mostly...)
Nailed it, once again. But is ANYBODY who can actually get the Dems out of their timidity actually listening? Countering Third Reich-type speech with the limp noodle of the Democratic Party’s response is going to fail. And then…
Hahaha, the less said about the Democratic approach the better.
In the end, how do people decide for whom to vote? Your analysis suggests two separate but inter-related methods: 1) Considered evaluation of the impact a candidate would make to their lives and to the country; or, 2) General perception of the favourability of the candidate. If the mainstream media increased its coverage of what the future might hold under either candidate, it could affect decisions using either method. However, often people make decisions on the first method looking at a single, highly-emotional or impactful issue for them rather than an assessment across a suite of important policy or value decisions. Opposing Biden, for example, because of his strong support for Israel and perceived ineffectiveness in supporting Palestinians, may be enough for many voters even if a full analysis of what might happen on these (and other issues) under a Trump administration would suggest things would not be better on this single issue and likely worse on other issues. And using the second method Biden’s humanity gets called into question on the Middle East issue pushing some voters to swear off choosing him at any price. Also, this happens without looking in balance at Trump’s humanity on this or any other issue. If memory serves, there was a sizeable contingent of Bernie supporters in 2016 who opposed Clinton because of her support for the Trans-Pacific Trade deal. It was enough of an issue for them that they refused to vote for her, even though it seemed clear that Trump would be worse for them across a wide range of other issues.
No president can be everything to all of his natural supporters. I'm not arguing (and wouldn't argue) that Biden and Democrats have optimized their appeal, or that Biden has good "vibes" (for lack of a better term) that might appeal to low-information voters who don't choose their candidates based on politics at all. Bill Clinton and Obama were both young and charismatic. Biden, uh...
But I do think *media* can help those who do understand that American elections are sharp binaries by breaking down the stakes in this way, and I'd implore all voters, even ones unhappy with this policy or that policy, to ask "will the alternative be worse?" before deciding to boycott, morally satisfying though it might feel.
My 28 yr old son & friends blamed Clinton for stealing Bernie’s delegates and on and on and on. In the end it was who’s worse, trump or Clinton, then Comey happened (again) adding to chaos. Ugh, and extended fam voted for libertarian to avoid Dems & trump. ‘You elected trump’ was my not good reaction.
As someone who is disabled from a traumatic brain injury I'm terrified of losing my health insurance (a Medicare managed care policy)and also then having to pay out of pocket for the eleven prescriptions I must take to function day to day. My seizure meds are the most expensive and I would die without them
Clinton lost because of sexism. No other reason.
I don’t think that’s remotely defensible.
Getting rid of the democrat party is top of the list.
Here's something else you and Matt Yglesias have in common - a complete refusal to consider that non-economic, non-policy-specific factors may be hurting Biden massively, and might even be responsible for putting him in the negatives despite a good economy and generally-reasonable policies.
For an example of the kind of clue you should maybe be picking up on, may I point you back in the direction of the Bud Lite scandal from a few months ago? Then may I point you to public polling on whether any sort of man should be allowed to play on womens' sports teams? Then may I point you to the Democratic position on the issue? Then may I point you to Sam Brinton & Rachel Levine?
This point always gets met with minimization, denial, and accusations of bigotry. As for the first two, let me just say that my aunt, the most politically motivated person in my family, went into serious credit card debt donating to Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign - and now isn't voting. One guess why! And as for the third thing, sexism is not progress. Sexual equality is fundamentally incompatible with the notion that any man "is" or "should be" a woman, and vice versa. Full stop! I doll up cuter than Cyndi Lauper myself, but if you call me a woman for that, I'll punch you in the teeth, bigot.