That New Democratic Religion

Inside the mailbag: Emil Bove ... James Talarico ... Truth and reconciliation

Thanks as always for your participation, readers. Have a question for next Thursday’s mailbag? Leave it in the comments below.

---

---

(Image via James Talarico/YouTube)

Michael: It bothers me a bit when Democrats or other people on the left talk about court packing. First of all, court packing requires Democrats to have a trifecta that includes 50 Democrats ready willing and able to pack the court, and they don't even have a real plan for counting to 50 Dem senators, period. Second, it's proven very easy for the right to demonize the left for wanting to ruin the courts and the law by packing the courts (even as they themselves have ruined the courts and the law by packing the courts).

What I want to hear people talk about instead is the theory of sustainable political change that will include court reform. I think it does the Democrats no good at all to get a brief fleeting trifecta, add 4 justices to the court, only to be swept out of power by a public that thinks there was overreach. We need that kind of sustainable political change, whether or not it involves court packing.

So... do you have a theory of sustainable political change?

I think I do, but the errors of the past, which I’ve chronicled with increasing despair over the years, have made it much harder.

The crisis of democracy was well enough understood by Donald Trump’s first term to stipulate that Democrats’ one and only opportunity to make systemic political change was 2021. We had a track record of Republican corruption and illegitimacy to point to, and Democrats had a trifecta. They could have imprisoned Trump; they could have abolished the filibuster and passed democracy reforms that would probably have held, including statehood and court reform.

They didn’t do it, in large part because in the preceding years the Democratic Party mistook “risk aversion” for “moderation” and populated the party with cowards.

Now to even recreate the conditions for change, Dems have to win some very tough Senate races, along with the presidency, against the headwinds of authoritarian abuse.

This gives rise to the paradox you’ve described. Political change requires court packing, but a drumbeat for court packing might very well make winning those elections harder.

What is to be done? The answer, I gather, is to recruit viable candidates (that is, people who aren’t hopelessly out of step with the prevailing cultures of their states) who are also of a fighting mindset. They know there must be a reckoning, and aren’t afraid to call for accountability, even if they don’t dwell on it or describe it in great detail. “We’ll see what happens,” as Trump says.

But to find candidates like that, we’d first need leaders and operatives who understood the task at hand. If we had such leaders, activist Democratic voters would be willing to give them running room—to trust they’d do the right thing once in power even if they didn’t go around talking about it all the time. But they haven’t earned that trust, so first we need new leaders.

Matthew Lantz: Why didn’t Gillibrand or Schumer “blue slip” Bove’s nomination?

This one’s easy, though still quite infuriating. The short answer is that Chuck Grassley eliminated blue slips for circuit court nominees in 2017.

The infuriating part is that progressives spent years pleading with Patrick Leahy (Grassley’s Democratic predecessor) to do the same, only to be lectured about comity and norms. Republicans abused the blue slip procedure to preserve tons of appeals court vacancies during Barack Obama’s presidency, and we warned that if Democrats tried to do the same under a GOP president, Republicans would just eliminate the courtesy. Which is exactly what happened.

The Bove situation would have been odd either way. If blue slips still applied to circuit court nominees, I believe we’d have been relying on John Fetterman to block him. The third circuit doesn’t cover New York, but Bove does apparently maintain a residence in Pennsylvania, which is in the third circuit.

Which is all to say: Under current rules, today’s Dems did about all they could to block Bove. The real failure came in 2024, when a few chickenshit Dems tanked a Biden nominee to the vacancy Bove will now fill, after Republicans made a stink about the nominee being Muslim.

Denis Markell: Don't know if this has been discussed her or not...I've been telling people about James Talarico for almost a year now. I think he's the real thing - gives off youth pastor vibes (because he is one?) while being a great speaker and a true believer in church and state separation, civil rights, etc. I'm wondering which of the MSM is going to stick him with "White Mamdani." Your thoughts? Can he turn Texas or are we just setting ourselves up for another disappointment.

Maybe more like white Warnock? My only style note is that he’s almost too polished. But he can hold his own before a bunch of different kinds of audiences and command respect, and that’s a huge, intangible asset. Texas is just going to be tough, even under ideal circumstances, for the foreseeable future, and no one should delude themselves about that. I also don’t think people should fall in love with talented Texas Democrats, expecting them to be crusading progressive champions once they reach statewide office. But I do think Talarico gives Dems a better shot than just about anyone else who might run.

I will probably write about this at some length in the coming days or weeks, but under the prevailing circumstances, I think Democrats should be extra-solicitous of authentically religious candidates—in the Warnock/Talarico vein, not the evangelical megachurch vein.

That’s not to say they need to rebrand themselves in a panic as a religious party. Democrats freaked out after the 2004 election and contemplated a religious revival, as if a party could just change stripes without seeming completely disingenuous. But they were convinced they’d been done in by perception that they lacked the moral virtue of a religious-right crusader like George W. Bush. They wanted to neutralize the vulnerability, just as today they want to neutralize the perception that they’re too woke, or whatever.

That’s all stupid and reactive. But the fact remains, Democrats need inroads to more kinds of Americans, and tolerant religiosity strikes me as a promising avenue. Here the idea isn’t to neutralize a Republican strength, but to create a contrast with the Republicans and their vile sacrilege. Democrats as the party of atheists, agnostics, the many theisms, and people who live out the gospel vs. Republicans as the party of all who trash the gospel in their idolatry of an unchurched hedonist like Trump.

David Meeske: Hey Brian- any ideas on how to neutralize the right wing media/propaganda machine, either through legislation (Reagan-era Fairness Doctrine? Other?) or are we really gonna have to do it by begging billionaires to fund legions of media companies (e.g. Crooked media) and independent journalists? Thank you!

This is both a depressingly hard nut to crack, and also not even the biggest nut. But the situation isn’t entirely hopeless.

I don’t think there’s a great small-l liberal way to legislate right-wing media to a draw. I’m open to persuasion on that view, but the bigger challenge may just be a practical one. We’re not talking about broadcast or even broadcast + cable news. Right-wing media is fully invasive at this point. You could shut down Fox News tomorrow, and Republicans would still enjoy multiple cable news networks, a huge podcast and video footprint, social media dominance….

How do you neutralize that? Spending tons of money is probably going to be part of the solution. Employing advertiser boycotts will also probably be part of the solution. Trying to make the Democratic Party seem like the less priggish of the two parties would help.

A new fairness doctrine probably wouldn’t accomplish much. But I’d be game to try more roundabout, content-neutral legislative approaches. Much higher taxes on tech and the wealthy in general is probably the bluntest. Italy has moved to impose a VAT-like tax on social-media platform registrations, reasoning that they amount to a transaction: user accounts in exchange for personal data. That seems like a promising approach.

The silver lining around problems this intractable is they invite creative thinking.

Hannah Iris: In a previous mailbag, you answered a reader's question of why you stay (as in, why you haven't moved the fuck away from here). Your answer was compelling (I, too, am stubborn!). And, yet, you acknowledged, "I’ve contemplated leaving, and what it would be like to leave, many times, and wouldn’t rule out it out over the long run" because "things could get bad enough, either in terms of physical safety or social degradation, to change my mind…"

I personally know people who have already left (Dobbs was the red line for one) as well as others who are actively considering it (as they try to pinpoint their own red line). Do you know what your specific red line would be within those physical-safety or social-degradation concerns? How will you know it's time? And, to whatever extent you're comfortable sharing, is that the same (or same-ish) as your wife's evaluation on the matter?

I have a pretty high threshold for danger, but before I describe it, I want to distinguish between “leaving” and “fleeing.”

Under slightly different circumstances (with a bit more money, if my wife had a more flexible job, etc.) I’d be happy to change venues right now. Not in a “gotta get moving!” sense, but in a “fuck this, let’s ride it out somewhere less crazy” sense.

I don’t think Rosie O’Donnell fled the country, I think she just decided, “I have the means and the leeway not to subject myself to all this,” and I totally respect that choice. Maybe things will change in a year or two and we’ll do something similar.

But I wouldn’t flee without very strong suspicion that time was of the essence.

My great grandmother ultimately fled the Nazis with her husband and sons, but not until the German state stripped her of her right to practice medicine, private patients started refusing treatment from Jewish doctors, and Nazis summoned her brother (who was eventually deported to a concentration camp and murdered). Under duress, she left behind significant family wealth that was eventually stolen. But she lived.

I’d only stop fighting and choose to flee under similarly ominous circumstances—and contingent on having a place to go that was safer. I know immigrants living here without papers now spend their days in fear, but many of them can only try to reduce their risk of getting captured, because they have no better options. Their children can’t move, their home countries are unsafe, or they’re effectively stateless because they have no memories of any place other than the U.S.

What would the breakpoint look like for me? It’s a bit hard to anticipate. But I’d at least start eyeing exits if I saw elites of higher stature making worrisome, inexplicable moves. If Hakeem Jeffries abruptly retired and moved to Canada, or something along those lines.

My wife is if anything more determined than I am not to let the fuckers get the best of us. So I doubt we’ll leave, and pray we never have to contemplate fleeing…

Matt O’Keefe: should Democrats call out specific members who use consultant-driven, corporatist messaging like Slotkin?

I wouldn’t say there’s much to be gained from waging factional war by putting co-partisans on blast, exactly.

But I do think there are constructive ways to get at the same objective.

For instance: We know frontline Democrats think intersectional progressive politics and litmus tests and academic jargon create an unwelcome climate for candidate recruitment, and a tough electoral climate for Democratic nominees. We also know progressive Democrats think frontline Democrats intentionally conflate moderation with pro-corporate policy ideas, and hide from conflict with mealy-mouthed consultant jargon, in ways that make the whole party seem like it believes in nothing.

I think both of these critiques contain some validity! And if so, the best way to make factional peace would be for a progressive leader of good faith to summit with a prominent moderate or member of leadership until they comprehend each other, and then bring the lessons they’ve learned back to their home factions. Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders did something like this to find common policy ground after the 2020 primary. New leaders could do it today to improve Democratic Party culture.

Jeffrey Wuhl: Brian- do you think independent media is starting to break the right wing stranglehold on the mainstream info environment? Somehow things are getting through, otherwise how to explain Trump's worsening poll numbers, the terrible approval numbers on the big bill, etc? How much can we ascribe to the increasing popularity of bluesky?

This is a boring, safe answer, but I suspect the explanation includes a mix of changes in media composition, political fundamentals, and material conditions .

1. Media composition: Bluesky is (last I read) actually shrinking, and remains much smaller than (e.g.) X, where too many lawmakers, opinion leaders, etc, still spend too much time liquefying their minds. But I do think it serves as a hub for careful and honest experts (the kind that used to make Twitter so valuable) such that consensus critiques of Trump and the ruling party reach enough people to be well-represented in the overall discourse. For my own part, if I learn something on Bluesky that might escape throttling on X, I’ll toggle over there and post it—Elon Musk didn’t really stifle critique of the OBBBA, and seems to have turned the “Epstein” dial on his algorithm up to 11. More than Bluesky, though, liberals and Democrats are just trying harder than they were before the election, when they were in deep denial about the power of the new media. They’re doing more appearances, trying to make more news, competing for attention more than they were six months ago, and that will inherently bring right- and left-wing media closer to parity.

2. Political fundamentals: Trump is president now. More than in his first term, he’s in command. He’s no longer a noisy heckler, or a naive newb manipulated by the deep state. He’s doing stuff that’s visible and noxious all the time. And as usual, most people don’t like it. This effect is why political opinion tends to be somewhat thermostatic, such that Republican rule makes the public more amenable to Democratic ideas and vice versa. Grass is always greener, buck stops here, throw the bums out, etc. Trump, through vitriol and ubiquity, seems to intensify that dynamic.

3. Material conditions: They’re worse already. Growth has slowed, prices have increased. And his policymaking has been so erratic and aggressive that he can’t easily sell people on the idea that all economic headwinds are Joe Biden’s fault, all economic bright spots are his doing. He’s made the administration of everything—businesses, public services, importing, exporting—much harder, including for his supporters.

My gripe with liberals and Democrats in the mainline, and even some on the left, has never been that good governance and material prosperity have no bearing on politics, it’s that there’s much more to success in politics than the right mix of policies and economic conditions. They seem to be starting to learn.

Charles Hood: What do you think the right immigration policy looks like in 2029? I assume the current pogrom accelerates and suffers minimal reversal over the next 3.5 years, leaving the country with significantly decreased legal and illegal immigration, decimated migrant-intensive industries (farm work, meat packing, construction), a southern border with minimal traffic, no asylum system to speak of, and a thoroughly corrupted and low-capacity immigration system dominated by thuggery and a prison-industrial system. Maybe you think the landscape will look different - and would love to hear your view of that as well. But in that world, where at least a portion of Stephen Miller's vision has come to pass with all the 2nd and 3rd order damage, what kind of a system should Democrats be pushing for?

Hooo, this is tough. But using your assumptions (which strike me as sadly reasonable) I think it probably starts with something like this:

• Immediate legal status, and rapid citizenship, for the remaining undocumented population—no more shadows, no more terror, no underclass for a future regime to terrorize;

• Swift criminal justice for as many lawbreakers within the Miller regime as we can find (up to and including Miller);

• A radical, unilateral reshuffling of immigration resources—essentially firing tons of ICE agents, repurposing funds to swiftly process detainees;

• A deluge of work and education visas, along with a slow ramping-up of asylum.

From there, you might be able to build out a more stable immigration policy (border security, paths to citizenship, etc). But here as in so many other realms, restoring sane, defensible, working systems will require rebuilding trust with citizens and the people of the world. Criminal justice might be part of that, but wouldn’t on its own represent a form of proof that we’d expunged barbarism from our politics. Legislative reforms. Truth and reconciliation. A full accounting of and atonement for our sins. Pariah status for prominent ethnonationalists. Without those things, the Trump-Miller years will become the cautionary tale people around the world tell themselves to discourage visiting, let alone moving to, the U.S. If we do the “look forward, not backward” thing again, it won’t just represent a dagger in the heart of accountability. It will seed the failure of the next administration—at least insofar as one of its goals is to revive the old conception of the American dream.

On the other hand, there’s at least some chance that the Trump-Miller system suffers serious reversals over the next 3.5 years. It’s already criminal and hideously unpopular. As it grows, I suspect it will become more so. Not because Americans couldn’t in theory grow numb to it, but because it’ll become more barbaric. Imagine the scenes from Abu Ghraib, except now it’s videos of torture, and it’s happening down the street. I don’t think we should assume that would stand, no matter how evil and indifferent to mass opinion Miller strives to be.