Money quote: “ I think it would be better for him to fear that Democrats might do something, rather than do nothing. That might make him fear committing election crimes anywhere Democrats have law-enforcement power.” The Rs keep doing stuff because they’re not afraid of D repercussions.
I think the fundamental issue—and the logic behind Favreau's comment about putting down the polls for five minutes—is that Democrats seem to be tailoring their message to public opinion instead of taking a moral stand and persuading the public to come along with them. Public opinion is, in general, uninformed and incoherent, so at this point, I think Democrats have to get away from mushy centrism and just say: "The tariffs are profoundly stupid and bad for the world; everyone is owed due process and disappearing people off the streets and sending them to a foreign gulag is evil and un-American; indiscriminately firing people is breaking the government and making it less efficient not more" etc., etc.—just take a stance and say these things! (Maybe say it pithier and using fewer words, but I think my point stands.) This has been one of my frustrations with the party's stance on trans rights. I've seen many Dems say things like, "Well, the public isn't with us yet." Your job is to persuade them! It's not hard. "Every human deserves human rights." See?
Republicans do this all the flipping time. They take a stand and then go about persuading the public to agree with them, often through lies and subterfuge, but it works! The white supremacists in the party want to deport all the brown people, so they've made it their project for decades to persuade Americans that the greatest threat to their safety and well-being are immigrants, thus Trump's approval on immigration remains high.
This!! Also, people can innately tell when someone has no principles and is just saying something to be liked. Trump spews literal garbage and is viewed favorably in this aspect because people can sense that he believes the literal garbage. Dems don't need to spew garbage to get this benefit, they just need to believe things and then SAY THE THINGS THEY BELIEVE. LOUDLY. A LOT.
Substantial percentage of the electorate are exceptionally malleable, and respond to elite consensus and to repetition in the media. That’s part of the reason Americans have mostly incoherent political beliefs. You could make a pretty good argument that if we had the Democratic Party of our dreams - righteously anti-corruption, anti-fascist, pro-democracy and unapologetically on the side of justice for everyone, including the marginalized - we actually wouldn’t be in this mess because a critical mass of the American public would be mobilized against it, and several of the key players would be in prison as well.
I mean, we'd still be fighting the right-wing media industrial complex, I don't think it's quite so simple, but I DO think more people would turn out for Dems if they acted boldly and took (authentic) moral and ethical stances instead of tinkering around the edges or equivocating. I think the point should be to communicate: this is what we believe, this is our plan to make your life better, but so many Democrats are timid or tailor their messaging to the polling instead of taking bold stances and trying to persuade.
Yes, you’re right, not so simple, the propaganda arm of the right is powerful and persuasive once someone is lost to it. But as you suggest, an effective counter to deceitful, inflammatory propaganda is not fine tuning your message to whatever the median voter says they believe, but rather principled opposition to the monstrous beliefs of the propagandists. “Stephen Miller, Homan, and Donald Trump are unhinged anti-American lunatics who are kidnapping your family and neighbors and sending them to concentration camps, and Democrats are doing everything we can to stop them, and need your help to do so. Join us!” is so much more activating than whatever nonsense Gallego is advocating for. That kind of rhetoric also treats the listener with implicit respect, which is another advantage of non-poll-tested messaging.
Have to make the point that many Dems ARE speaking up on moral and ethical grounds - Bernie, AOC, Chris Murphy, van Hollen, Biden recently, Cory Booker, Tim Kaine, Gov. Mills of Maine..
Schumer's rationale for caving on the CR (however defensible that might have been, in the end) was "Let's wait until Trump's approval dips below 40%." IOW, exactly the kind of let-the-polls-steer-us caution Brian is criticizing. It embodies the essence of constantly playing defense. Meanwhile, Trump is a salesman--an inveterate liar, yes, but he plays offense, inspires the MAGA hordes with his lies, and has the similarly mendacious GOP as his chorus.
What matters is not that Dems are "powerless." Legislatively, yes, they mainly are. But passing legislation is only half of politics. The other half is wrangling the public--getting people to show up, donate, vote, and especially yell at their representatives. Dems can and should be doing that all the livelong day--and not (as I keep saying) just by providing "information" and "the truth." They should be tailoring their message to evoke *emotion.* When Repugs do it, it's demagogy. We don't need to resort to that, because truth and decency are on our side. But we need the so-called leaders to actually lead--to stand up without checking to see if it will do-no-harm, and to say, "This is evil, this is immoral, this is dangerous, and the people doing it should be rejected and condemned."
Insightful thoughts as always, Brian. Would add re. Trump's topline immigration support, that Dems/all of us should be sure to peek under the hood of those #s. In his first term and now, there are real fissures and areas of broad unpopularity under Trump immigration policies that should be part of the related assessment and where/how Dems and others can and should focus discussion on the issue, rather than ignoring.
Lots of ways to engage on issue and drive down those topline numbers of support instead of just shopworn pivots to talk about how "I, too, think we should have stronger border security"
I completely agree. Let's be completel clear for people, because I don't think many understand what due process means.
DUE PROCESS = INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty.
Immigration law may apply that equation in slightly different ways, but the basic right still holds. Immigrants, even those who did not cross at a checkpoint, have the RIGHT, per our LAWS—if we still want to live by laws—to have a hearing before a judge.
The judge and ONLY the judge makes the determination as to that person's legal status and whether or not ICE can deport them.
NOT an ICE agent. It does not matter what heinous crimes that person may have committed. Assumptions send innocent people to torture dungeons. That is NOT who we are. Unless we choose to be.
I take an entirely different read on the "for just five minutes" figure of speech. To me, it's an expression of irritation: "Could you set aside your manifestly broken approach for even five minutes? Please?"
Could be. Would happily update. But my sense going back years is he’s generally sympathetic to those who counsel caution about getting ahead of public opinion.
That is how I interpret that phrase. Not as “take a break from looking at polls this one time” but as a critique of Dems who are waiting for polling to tell them when it is safe.
The party has a long and sordid tradition of spending far more energy and political capital fighting off its progressive wing and circling round the waited-their-turn cohort any time there's a direct challenge than they're ever exert going toe-to-toe with The Enemy Party.
Examples abound: Connoly v. AOC, Whitehouse v. Durban, Wexler v. What's- his-fuck with his "our billionaires" douchebaggery; the gerontocracy in both the general and the particular.
This Dem disunity fun-house mirrors that of the GOP in how the players who climb on the party bandwagon are driving out their internal opposition. That the GOP has succeeded far more at performing a complete purge of its moderates has had the unintended consequence of actually exposing and accelerating the degenerate rot at the core of their politics.
So too the Democrats. Their hermetic seal is far less complete than their rival party, primarily because of timidity and squeamishness on the party loyalists' cadre, importantly, because their parallell procedural paths are almost identical.
Unbelievable that this party that doesn’t have power continues to not exercise power.
It’s pretty lame for Favreau, who is UNQUESTIONABLY a leader in this party, unless you restrict “leader” to “elected official,” to start a tweet with “Hey Democrats.” I feel the same way about Jon Stewart. Man, you were one of our leading influencers for TWENTY YEARS.
It’s also embarrassing that Favreau can’t even be bothered to quit Musk’s website, while he’s bitching at Democrats for not using magic to give themselves power and then use it the way he wants. If you want to be a “no holds barred” opponent the administration then quit twitter. Or you could at least stop PAYING FOR IT, Mr. Blue Check.
I know you’re not exactly praising Rogan here, and his anger is appreciated, but it’s still a bit irritating. He is part of a media trend I find deeply stupid. His claim to be offended because Walz said a fib once right before he endorsed the most dishonest man who ever lived made me sick. If I believed the ‘24 election was untampered with I’d say that endorsement may have been decisive. If I’m wrong and the election was fair, Rogan may have elected a man who promised to do exactly what Rogan now wants to pretend he didn’t see coming. He’s a little prick.
"That was the strong platform that allowed the Democrats to plant their feet and topple Bushism in the 2000s; it is just as strong of a platform today.”
Not sure pointing to the Obama campaigns or administrations is a good example of the Democratic Party fighting anything. Obama won in 2008 because of the economic failures of "Bushism." Not because Obama was a fighter. The nation wasn't suddenly riled up and fighting for Obama's central campaign theme of hope. And his Clintonesque approach just furthered the centrism that's stifled Democrats since Carter. He won again in 2012 because Democrats everywhere refused to let him lose. We fought for him because we refused to lose regardless of Obama's many shortcomings and failures as President. Not because he was any kind of a fighter. Obama was the most milquetoast president we've ever had. His leadership was cautious, restrained, and frequently abusive and insulting to actual Democratic Party fighters.
Perhaps if the Dems put together the Shadow Cabinet that has been spoken of both highly and loudly, whomever is the "Homeland Security" member could be all over it. Run a freaking commercial to counter the Noem Cosplay commercials. You are right that people can't form opinions if they aren't presented with any facts. Goes back to the disengaged voter issue, those folks aren't seeking out information, you have to bring it to them.
Musk is on record as saying several things: 1- If Trump did not win, he (Musk) was probably going to jail, 2- How easy it is to hack our electoral system.
Musk is all-in because he knows that if/when MAGA loses power, the sights will be zeroing in on a target named Musk.
Hey Brian, nice post! I’m a newly-minted subscriber. Is there a place to leave feedback other than by commenting? In the spirit of radical candor / pointing out when there is spinach in your teeth or your fly is down, etc I noticed some sloppy editing that you might get want to go correct towards the top of your post: “ It’s demonstrates less intellectual rigor than a mediocre undergrad scrambling to complete a homework sign. Officials may even have taken from ChatGPT.” I’m not trying to be a grammar troll here. But it threw me off to see you critique others’ intellectual rigor while being less than rigorous yourself. Also, as noted by another commenter, it seemed like you chose to interpret Fav’s “five minutes” comment literally when that is generally not how people use that phrase. I took your meaning and the points were still good, but it seemed to me like Favs didnt deserve that hit.
It's important to look carefully at the opposition. As chaos, higher prices and some shortages hit, the Heritage Foundation dudes must have a plan to make voters look the other way. What is it? Crucifixions at the border can't be all of it; they need to funnel money, preferably through their own contribution machine, to make some voters dependent on the party and instill fear in the rest. A meme war doesn't cut it.
We need answers for: the Allentown crowd, longing for their golden jobs; the oil trader and alternate currency types leaning in on hegemony; armchair Americans who look to Fox News for validation; and young guys whose hormones outmaneuver their brains. Then we need a way to reach them.
Money quote: “ I think it would be better for him to fear that Democrats might do something, rather than do nothing. That might make him fear committing election crimes anywhere Democrats have law-enforcement power.” The Rs keep doing stuff because they’re not afraid of D repercussions.
I think the fundamental issue—and the logic behind Favreau's comment about putting down the polls for five minutes—is that Democrats seem to be tailoring their message to public opinion instead of taking a moral stand and persuading the public to come along with them. Public opinion is, in general, uninformed and incoherent, so at this point, I think Democrats have to get away from mushy centrism and just say: "The tariffs are profoundly stupid and bad for the world; everyone is owed due process and disappearing people off the streets and sending them to a foreign gulag is evil and un-American; indiscriminately firing people is breaking the government and making it less efficient not more" etc., etc.—just take a stance and say these things! (Maybe say it pithier and using fewer words, but I think my point stands.) This has been one of my frustrations with the party's stance on trans rights. I've seen many Dems say things like, "Well, the public isn't with us yet." Your job is to persuade them! It's not hard. "Every human deserves human rights." See?
Republicans do this all the flipping time. They take a stand and then go about persuading the public to agree with them, often through lies and subterfuge, but it works! The white supremacists in the party want to deport all the brown people, so they've made it their project for decades to persuade Americans that the greatest threat to their safety and well-being are immigrants, thus Trump's approval on immigration remains high.
This!! Also, people can innately tell when someone has no principles and is just saying something to be liked. Trump spews literal garbage and is viewed favorably in this aspect because people can sense that he believes the literal garbage. Dems don't need to spew garbage to get this benefit, they just need to believe things and then SAY THE THINGS THEY BELIEVE. LOUDLY. A LOT.
Exactly so. The beliefs and motivation of a
Substantial percentage of the electorate are exceptionally malleable, and respond to elite consensus and to repetition in the media. That’s part of the reason Americans have mostly incoherent political beliefs. You could make a pretty good argument that if we had the Democratic Party of our dreams - righteously anti-corruption, anti-fascist, pro-democracy and unapologetically on the side of justice for everyone, including the marginalized - we actually wouldn’t be in this mess because a critical mass of the American public would be mobilized against it, and several of the key players would be in prison as well.
I mean, we'd still be fighting the right-wing media industrial complex, I don't think it's quite so simple, but I DO think more people would turn out for Dems if they acted boldly and took (authentic) moral and ethical stances instead of tinkering around the edges or equivocating. I think the point should be to communicate: this is what we believe, this is our plan to make your life better, but so many Democrats are timid or tailor their messaging to the polling instead of taking bold stances and trying to persuade.
Yes, you’re right, not so simple, the propaganda arm of the right is powerful and persuasive once someone is lost to it. But as you suggest, an effective counter to deceitful, inflammatory propaganda is not fine tuning your message to whatever the median voter says they believe, but rather principled opposition to the monstrous beliefs of the propagandists. “Stephen Miller, Homan, and Donald Trump are unhinged anti-American lunatics who are kidnapping your family and neighbors and sending them to concentration camps, and Democrats are doing everything we can to stop them, and need your help to do so. Join us!” is so much more activating than whatever nonsense Gallego is advocating for. That kind of rhetoric also treats the listener with implicit respect, which is another advantage of non-poll-tested messaging.
Have to make the point that many Dems ARE speaking up on moral and ethical grounds - Bernie, AOC, Chris Murphy, van Hollen, Biden recently, Cory Booker, Tim Kaine, Gov. Mills of Maine..
Thank you. I really appreciate your reasoning and your insight. Most of all, I appreciate the moral underpinnings of your position.
I guess there’s no chance of you moving out of DC to run for office? We need folks like you.
Schumer's rationale for caving on the CR (however defensible that might have been, in the end) was "Let's wait until Trump's approval dips below 40%." IOW, exactly the kind of let-the-polls-steer-us caution Brian is criticizing. It embodies the essence of constantly playing defense. Meanwhile, Trump is a salesman--an inveterate liar, yes, but he plays offense, inspires the MAGA hordes with his lies, and has the similarly mendacious GOP as his chorus.
What matters is not that Dems are "powerless." Legislatively, yes, they mainly are. But passing legislation is only half of politics. The other half is wrangling the public--getting people to show up, donate, vote, and especially yell at their representatives. Dems can and should be doing that all the livelong day--and not (as I keep saying) just by providing "information" and "the truth." They should be tailoring their message to evoke *emotion.* When Repugs do it, it's demagogy. We don't need to resort to that, because truth and decency are on our side. But we need the so-called leaders to actually lead--to stand up without checking to see if it will do-no-harm, and to say, "This is evil, this is immoral, this is dangerous, and the people doing it should be rejected and condemned."
Especially now, after "Liberation Day."
Insightful thoughts as always, Brian. Would add re. Trump's topline immigration support, that Dems/all of us should be sure to peek under the hood of those #s. In his first term and now, there are real fissures and areas of broad unpopularity under Trump immigration policies that should be part of the related assessment and where/how Dems and others can and should focus discussion on the issue, rather than ignoring.
For example, YouGov poll this week (https://x.com/AaronBlake/status/1907467449899024598) has 61-26% opposition (intensity 4:1 with those strongly opposed) to Trump deportations of non criminals to El Salvador without due process ... Pew last week had #s showing big support for deporting actual criminal undocumented immigrants but big opposition to deporting parents and spouses of U.S. citizens, and Dreamers - https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2025/03/26/views-on-deportations-and-arrests-of-immigrants-in-the-u-s-illegally/
Meanwhile, they're literally making special exception for white Afrikaners' entry to U.S. while they deport and block mostly Black and brown immigrants https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/30/us/politics/trump-south-africa-white-afrikaners-refugee.html
Lots of ways to engage on issue and drive down those topline numbers of support instead of just shopworn pivots to talk about how "I, too, think we should have stronger border security"
I completely agree. Let's be completel clear for people, because I don't think many understand what due process means.
DUE PROCESS = INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty.
Immigration law may apply that equation in slightly different ways, but the basic right still holds. Immigrants, even those who did not cross at a checkpoint, have the RIGHT, per our LAWS—if we still want to live by laws—to have a hearing before a judge.
The judge and ONLY the judge makes the determination as to that person's legal status and whether or not ICE can deport them.
NOT an ICE agent. It does not matter what heinous crimes that person may have committed. Assumptions send innocent people to torture dungeons. That is NOT who we are. Unless we choose to be.
I take an entirely different read on the "for just five minutes" figure of speech. To me, it's an expression of irritation: "Could you set aside your manifestly broken approach for even five minutes? Please?"
Could be. Would happily update. But my sense going back years is he’s generally sympathetic to those who counsel caution about getting ahead of public opinion.
Also, Brian was with Crooked Media, so I suspect he knows a thing or two about how a media star like Favreau might parse his words.
That is how I interpret that phrase. Not as “take a break from looking at polls this one time” but as a critique of Dems who are waiting for polling to tell them when it is safe.
The party has a long and sordid tradition of spending far more energy and political capital fighting off its progressive wing and circling round the waited-their-turn cohort any time there's a direct challenge than they're ever exert going toe-to-toe with The Enemy Party.
Examples abound: Connoly v. AOC, Whitehouse v. Durban, Wexler v. What's- his-fuck with his "our billionaires" douchebaggery; the gerontocracy in both the general and the particular.
This Dem disunity fun-house mirrors that of the GOP in how the players who climb on the party bandwagon are driving out their internal opposition. That the GOP has succeeded far more at performing a complete purge of its moderates has had the unintended consequence of actually exposing and accelerating the degenerate rot at the core of their politics.
So too the Democrats. Their hermetic seal is far less complete than their rival party, primarily because of timidity and squeamishness on the party loyalists' cadre, importantly, because their parallell procedural paths are almost identical.
Unbelievable that this party that doesn’t have power continues to not exercise power.
It’s pretty lame for Favreau, who is UNQUESTIONABLY a leader in this party, unless you restrict “leader” to “elected official,” to start a tweet with “Hey Democrats.” I feel the same way about Jon Stewart. Man, you were one of our leading influencers for TWENTY YEARS.
It’s also embarrassing that Favreau can’t even be bothered to quit Musk’s website, while he’s bitching at Democrats for not using magic to give themselves power and then use it the way he wants. If you want to be a “no holds barred” opponent the administration then quit twitter. Or you could at least stop PAYING FOR IT, Mr. Blue Check.
If Dems were capable of exercising power then Trump would have been in jail or residing in Guantanamo after Joe Biden's inauguration.
Tremendous piece, Thank you, Brian.
I know you’re not exactly praising Rogan here, and his anger is appreciated, but it’s still a bit irritating. He is part of a media trend I find deeply stupid. His claim to be offended because Walz said a fib once right before he endorsed the most dishonest man who ever lived made me sick. If I believed the ‘24 election was untampered with I’d say that endorsement may have been decisive. If I’m wrong and the election was fair, Rogan may have elected a man who promised to do exactly what Rogan now wants to pretend he didn’t see coming. He’s a little prick.
"That was the strong platform that allowed the Democrats to plant their feet and topple Bushism in the 2000s; it is just as strong of a platform today.”
Not sure pointing to the Obama campaigns or administrations is a good example of the Democratic Party fighting anything. Obama won in 2008 because of the economic failures of "Bushism." Not because Obama was a fighter. The nation wasn't suddenly riled up and fighting for Obama's central campaign theme of hope. And his Clintonesque approach just furthered the centrism that's stifled Democrats since Carter. He won again in 2012 because Democrats everywhere refused to let him lose. We fought for him because we refused to lose regardless of Obama's many shortcomings and failures as President. Not because he was any kind of a fighter. Obama was the most milquetoast president we've ever had. His leadership was cautious, restrained, and frequently abusive and insulting to actual Democratic Party fighters.
Perhaps if the Dems put together the Shadow Cabinet that has been spoken of both highly and loudly, whomever is the "Homeland Security" member could be all over it. Run a freaking commercial to counter the Noem Cosplay commercials. You are right that people can't form opinions if they aren't presented with any facts. Goes back to the disengaged voter issue, those folks aren't seeking out information, you have to bring it to them.
Musk is on record as saying several things: 1- If Trump did not win, he (Musk) was probably going to jail, 2- How easy it is to hack our electoral system.
Musk is all-in because he knows that if/when MAGA loses power, the sights will be zeroing in on a target named Musk.
Hey Brian, nice post! I’m a newly-minted subscriber. Is there a place to leave feedback other than by commenting? In the spirit of radical candor / pointing out when there is spinach in your teeth or your fly is down, etc I noticed some sloppy editing that you might get want to go correct towards the top of your post: “ It’s demonstrates less intellectual rigor than a mediocre undergrad scrambling to complete a homework sign. Officials may even have taken from ChatGPT.” I’m not trying to be a grammar troll here. But it threw me off to see you critique others’ intellectual rigor while being less than rigorous yourself. Also, as noted by another commenter, it seemed like you chose to interpret Fav’s “five minutes” comment literally when that is generally not how people use that phrase. I took your meaning and the points were still good, but it seemed to me like Favs didnt deserve that hit.
It's important to look carefully at the opposition. As chaos, higher prices and some shortages hit, the Heritage Foundation dudes must have a plan to make voters look the other way. What is it? Crucifixions at the border can't be all of it; they need to funnel money, preferably through their own contribution machine, to make some voters dependent on the party and instill fear in the rest. A meme war doesn't cut it.
We need answers for: the Allentown crowd, longing for their golden jobs; the oil trader and alternate currency types leaning in on hegemony; armchair Americans who look to Fox News for validation; and young guys whose hormones outmaneuver their brains. Then we need a way to reach them.
Fighting has a place, but it has a time too.