I agree and am simultaneously uncertain as to how/who to improve the messaging and create the storylines. In my opinion -- and I don't know that this is useful because I spend a lot of time on national-level political viewing, not state and local because: Texas and I'm still reeling from my neighbor's saying how she "hates Beto O'Rourke" -- we either need to clone our few really excellent messengers and/or deputize others in their image and send them out far and wide. Thinking of: Pete Buttigieg, Jamie Raskin, John Fetterman, and others. I cannot for the life of me bring to mind a really stand-out female messenger other than AOC, who I adore, but who's considered 'too radical' for way too many people; Elizabeth Warren, and Katie Porter. There are many others who are uniquely gifted to do this kind of work; these people are all blunt, nimble on their feet speech-wise, accessible emotionally, and whip-smart. They need to somehow just all get on a train and start traveling around the U.S. and speak at local meetings. May I suggest Llano, Texas, as a potential destination? The smallish town on the Texas border whose citizens recently voted to try to prevent anyone travelling through their town out of state to get an abortion? Or, some of the Texas border cities where the Latinos aren't necessarily sure that Democrat is the way to go this time around ... Maybe each state's Democrat Party could create this kind of cadre suited to their needs. We need to get out more is what I'm trying to say ... and I don't mean online or in paywalled publications that many many voters never see or read.
There are times, in my opinion, that cursewords are the only 'proper' response to something and the Uvalde massacre was one of those events. I'm so sorry your SIL chose to clutch her pearls rather than deal with the absolute horror of the massacre of innocent schoolchildren. I appreciate Beto's passion as well as his commitments. I can understand someone disagreeing perhaps w/some of his policy positions, but to 'hate' him? I don't get that ... But, the person expressing that opinion also said when I questioned her as to how she could justify what the GOP/Gov. Abbott is doing/has done in Texas responded that, "She didn't agree with everything Abbott has done...". No response to my ? of the razorwire and sawblades barriors in the Rio Grande, for instance... I guess I got an answer to MY question which was, "Are you a MAGA cult member?"
Your observation that "it means politics is more about information warfare and less about governing excellence" seems to be truer than I/we would like. But, just because we don't like it doesn't mean that it's not true.
The idea that politics is more about information warfare than governance seems plainly correct. Part of that is because I've been reading Brian for years, but much of it is based on my own experiences with persuading audiences. As a trial lawyer, I've learned that if it is important that a jury to believe something, you can't dance around it and expect them to draw the inferences you want on their own. Instead, you need to say it plainly and directly (and repeatedly). It's important to marshal evidence and build credibility, but, if you need them to believe it, you gotta say it.
Ha. Given that very little goes to trial these days, many trial lawyers are more “trial” lawyers, doing pretrial litigation work up but never going before a jury. And I suspect true trial lawyers are less likely to leave to go into politics.
(FWIW, many prosecutors go to trial regularly and develop serious trial skills. But trying cases as a prosecutor can also be like lawyering with training wheels on: jurors love you automatically, many of your witnesses are investigative professionals and have testified many times, judges will rule for you unless there's no possible basis for doing so (and sometimes even then), etc. Prosecutors often do but need not learn the hard lessons other trial lawyers do.)
I will say it again and again. It's an advertising problem. The people making ads for the Democrats are spectacularly incompetent. Democrats need to hire the guys that make and distribute for example F150 commercials and get out of the way. Can't anybody here play this game?
Obama beat probably the best-qualified Republican nominee since Eisenhower with 8% unemployment because Romney was kind enough to make the debate about tax cuts for the rich, where it proved voters did not share his views.
Clinton lost to probably the least-qualified candidate ever because the campaign was focused on her years-old email management practices.
If Dems pull a Romney and collude in focusing the campaign on areas they are weak on, which includes inflation, it's not gonna help them win.
I would just point out that economic opinion doesn't *have* to remain a permanently polarized indicator of partisanship. After all, it's really only in the last decade that it's become polarized in the first place; before that, Bush 41 famously lost an election over his economic policy.
I would say that the synthesis of your assessment and past evidence is that economic opinion, like all opinion, is a product of narrative. And narratives don't have to be true in order to create their own reality. Bush 41 lost re-election over one narrative; his predecessor just 8 years earlier won on a different narrative despite an even worse economic reality at the time.
IMO these examples demonstrate that electoral outcomes are the result of a sort of attitudinal gestalt between the political class and swing voters. No one factor is entirely determinative; it's a whole bunch of them. But part of it starts with spaces like this and conversations like you're having. It's not just about building alternative media like Crooked and The Bulwark. It's about understanding how what we do in these spaces shapes the larger gestalt. Which is an incredibly messy process! Nevertheless, hopefully it can amount to more than the giant waste of pixels that most other commentary amounts to.
Well, we're less than a year away from the 2024 elections, and there has been erosion in 3 key Democratic constituencies.
What's the plan? What's the communications strategy?
This isn't rocket science...we're for individual freedoms, the rights of families to determine to make decisions free of government interference, a strong middle class, and preserving Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. They are religious extremists who want to ban abortion, impose their religious beliefs, destroy public education, eliminate taxes on the wealthy and corporations, destroy the middle class, interfere with your family.
If the Democrats don't make the case for why this is a choice between freedom and extremism, Republicans and media will define this race.
Undercooked theory: They're running this campaign as if Republicans were mired in a competitive primary, instead of seeing what the rest of us can see: Absent an amazing fall, Trump is the nominee.
Lots to chew on here! It’s hard for me to put myself in the shoes of people who have forgotten the dangers of Trump, tbh. I, like a lot of privileged white dudes in their twenties, hadn’t really paid attention to politics until 2016. But I haven’t stopped paying attention since. The January 6th committee hearings are fresh in my mind; they were some of the most harrowing, impactful television I’ve ever seen, and between his legal woes and the fallout of January 6th, it doesn’t *feel* like he’s ever left the public consciousness. It feels like hardly a day has gone by in the past two-plus years where we haven’t had an update on one of Trump’s many legal woes, or some insane Truth he Trothed.
What do you think is the best way to get the message across that Trump is dangerous, while not playing into his desire to be a scary strong-man? For normies like me who try and talk to friends, coworkers, and post on social media?
I think an attitude/rhetorical approach that conveyed "we've stopped him once, we'll stop him again" is much more appealing than one that conveys "oh no, if he wins it'll be so horrible." Exploit the fact that most people think Trump is bad! And when homing in on specific outrages, don't do so in ways that convey fear—"omg what if he's hitler?" —so much as contempt and disdain. We all heard what you said about us, and we're coming for you next November. Call him a crook and a liar.
"Oh no, what's going to happen to democracy?!" <<< "Democracy IS on the line, and that's why we're gonna rise up and stop you."
I'm afraid that Mr. Beutler has a point; saying something straight up and true is a necessary but insufficient part of any effective and successful argument. We liberal progressives very often tip-toe around issues that are offensive to hear as much as we do with offensive statements.
Say the nasty part - out loud. Clearly and with emotion.
Then take the time to explain the ramifications and effects of the fascist conservative program.
If the Dems were your child, Brian, they would grow up, move away and never visit or call. The expectations! The media messaging control superpowers you ascribe to Dems border on the fantastic. If only they’d say A or B, the media would cover it and the message would get through. Sorry, no.
No matter what Dems say, no matter how they respond, they are doing it wrong (at least it seems in your eyes). They say the economy is great and you all say, “insensitive, no it’s not for everybody!” Now you say why aren’t they saying the economy is great? It’s simple. Even though it isn’t and it is right to educate the public about the factors driving things like inflation--which is down, but hey “it’s still too expensive so they are making excuses.”
You bring up the Semafor piece (seriously who reads Semafor? Five people?) about the campaign worrying they will be aligned with Hitler (ya think?) then chastise Dems for comparing the vermin remark to Hitler’s as being the wrong thing to say--instead they should say it makes him an unfit leader. Well duh, yes he is unfit. But since so many people do not know history, it doesn’t hurt to remind them who else said it. (Though they forget Rawanda.)
Dems have said repeatedly that he is unfit and should never be near the WH again--until the media responded “oh yawn boring move on. Look, they’re talking about Trump because they don’t like us yelling every day about the looming recession” (which never emerged). Not to mention Trump fatigue among voters.
I’m sorry but the media does have a bias against Biden, just as they did against Gore and Kerry and HRC. (It wasn’t voters driving “but he’s too old yuk!”) Politico journos loved Obama because he was hip, listened to rap, played hoops with NBA gods, and snuck smokes. But that didn’t stop them from covering scandals like the tan suit, the fist bump, and Dijon mustard.
If voters have forgotten the horrors of Trump, it’s not the Dems’s fault for not reminding them every day. It is the fault of a complicit media which refuses to take the threat seriously--and it is a threat--or call him out for being unfit. The fear I feel about Trump and his fascist crew’s plans energizes me to help defeat them. I think Hitler and Mussolini rose in part because they were not feared and the threat wasn’t taken or covered seriously until it was too late. A perfect example? That Times’ headline. And why aren’t there nonstop front page stories dissecting Trump’s plans on the scale of but her emails? Stories could be written for days on aspects of Project 2025.
I understand you are on the right side (you want the GOP and Trump defeated) and that you know it’s complicated. Criticize the Dems when they make a huge blunder. But in the meantime please, YOU write the message you want to hear. Dedicate columns to the messages you think we need instead of making it all about “well it’s their responsibility to say X or Y.” You touch on things here, but IMHO you should devote whole columns to each.
Facing the future they have planned for us, it is all of our responsibilities to speak out, not just “the Dems.”
I appreciate your thoughtful response. I do agree with many of your points, and of course I agree we have to focus on things we can control. I just get so tired of watching the Dems play in a rigged arena (billionaires, Electoral College/Senate mal apportionment, corrupt judiciary, MSM in thrall to RW “news,” etc etc), and then get criticized by their own supporters for not being able to Green Lantern it all away. I look forward to reading your column tomorrow, and will certainly consider subscribing.
This column shows why, even though I agree with you on many things, I often find reading you very frustrating and don’t subscribe. The missing element is the Republicans’ utter dominance of the media (directly through Fox et al and also through their influence over the MSM). Like many commentators, you seem to ascribe the Dems’ messaging problems to problems with them, rather than to the very well funded system that the Republicans have and the Dems can’t afford. (Note, eg, Fox is still in business after an almost $1 billion liability judgment, and hasn’t changed its behavior much at all.). I realize that you are trying to direct the Dems to focus on aspects that they have control over, but it often feels to me like you’re blaming the victim for being abused. To take just one obvious example, the public worries about Biden’s age much more than Trump’s because they’ve been reminded of the former over and over. The Dems can’t do that, they don’t have those resources. I think there are valid criticisms to make of how they direct their resources (I would like a much greater investment in media, rather than endless ActBlue fundraising for hopeless candidates in red states/districts), but they don’t have billionaires in their back pockets to nearly the same extent as the GOP does, and that’s a huge problem.
Hi Becky. Well, I hope you'll reconsider subscribing—maybe after tomorrow's free column, which touches on many of these themes at length. But I don't think anyone would say I take it easy on Fox News or Republican propaganda generally, and I stipulate that it's a huge problem all the time. I just also know that I have no influence over Republican actors. By contrast there are Democrats who take me seriously, and so I feel an obligation to pressure them to do the most they can with the tools available in the world as it is. There are definitely enough resources in liberal politics for Democrats to wage better earned media campaigns (they're also called "free media" campaigns for a reason.) And there are enough liberal billionaires and centimillionaires to buy up or build major media outlets (though I think those outlets would have a harder time than Fox succeeding financially).
The great American public does not, as a rule, read the New York Times, the Washington Post, or any political blogs, including, I'm afraid, this one. The ordinary voter will pay no attention to any of these publications until the presidential primaries begin. A more realistic approach to election coverage in the mass media would certainly warm the hearts of political junkies like myself, but it will have little impact on 2024 election results. What may make a difference is the mass of negative commercials launched by the Dems and their supporting campaign finance organizations. If they know their business -- and I hope they do -- that "vermin" clip and a dozen more nauseating Trump moments will be instilled deeply into the consciousness of Mr. and Ms. Voter. That may not guarantee a Biden win, but it's one of our best hopes -- "our" meaning US citizens of good will and at least two neurons to rub together.
"Why is it that, seven years later, the word 'deplorables' remains a galvanizing term for Republicans and an embarrassment for Democrats."
This does not require a grand theory of media strategy: most Americans felt Clinton's gaffe was directed at them, including *Democratic* voters. She made the remark in the context of decades of concerted effort to conflate individual bigotries with systemic ones, while simultaneously making individual bigots the stock villain of every story.
In other words, her "deplorables" comment resonated and felt personal to voters in a way that Trump's "vermin" comment never will, despite the fact that it was dehumanizing and a little scary. The idea of trying to keep it alive in voters' minds is deeply cringe; the objection to Trump's rhetoric has an extremely small constituency.
“and it’s easier to husband public approval in prosperity than in recession.”
Yglesias constantly repeats that Clinton won because of the economy in 92 and walks right up to saying any Dem would have won given long incumbency and the recession but how then does he explain Major winning in 92 and Keating (who was directly blamed for the Australian recession given his long run as treasurer and ill advised ‘this if the recession Australia had to have’ press conference) winning in 93
Turns out having political skill in government still matters and not looking unelectable from opposition is important too
One of the problems, at least as I see it, is that the Dems don't have a 24/7/365(366 on leap years) propaganda mouth-piece like Pox News; nor do they pretty much own mastheads like the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or USA Today that can pump out their vile swill to the masses under a cover of being "hard/establishment news". They have MSNBC and a number of internet-based allied information sources, but not everybody uses -- or even trusts -- what they see on the internet. (Something that The Muskrat seems to be going out of his way to make sure remains a permanent state of affairs. 😒 )
I'm not sure how we can rectify this situation (re-start the old local newspapers that had "Democrat" somewhere in the name? Engage more with local progressive/"underground" papers?), but it's definitely something that has to be addressed sooner rather than later.
Is part of the Democrats messaging problem that to speak bluntly about Trump and his supporters is to perhaps fatally injure fragile civic trust necessary for democracy?
“Trump is a rapist who wants to force women to bare their rapists babies “
“Trump wants every traffic stop for a Hispanic to end potentially in a concentration camp”
“Trump wants cops to execute people for selling dime bags and shoplifting six packs”
These three sentences seem clearly true, demonstrated in court cases, Republican Party platforms, and Trumps own words. If we made that the center of Democratic messaging, I think we could win in 2024. But this message is one of such intense disgust for Trump and by extension his supporters, I don’t know if we could ever go back after that to civil disagreement over marginal tax rates.
“Trump is a rapist who wants to force women to bare their rapists babies “ (Interesting typo there.)
“Trump wants every traffic stop for a Hispanic to end potentially in a concentration camp”
“Trump wants cops to execute people for selling dime bags and shoplifting six packs”
The problem is that The Fascist Gasbag has normalized (one could probably even argue that it's reached the point of fetishization) violence to the point that the MAGAtry *wants* these things (and more) without regard for whether even *they* may one day suffer the consequences of Rule by Trump. They just want *someone* to suffer!
Right. But the problem with “the cruelty is the point” or the “deplorable” gaffe, is that you can’t save democracy by pointing out that a plurality of Republican primary voters have demonstrated themselves unworthy of the respect due a fellow citizen. Even (maybe especially) if it’s true. You just activate them to further extremism and make yourself seem equally intolerant to persuadable voters.
I don't pretend to have a cure for it. As Jonathan Swift observed: "You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place."
I agree and am simultaneously uncertain as to how/who to improve the messaging and create the storylines. In my opinion -- and I don't know that this is useful because I spend a lot of time on national-level political viewing, not state and local because: Texas and I'm still reeling from my neighbor's saying how she "hates Beto O'Rourke" -- we either need to clone our few really excellent messengers and/or deputize others in their image and send them out far and wide. Thinking of: Pete Buttigieg, Jamie Raskin, John Fetterman, and others. I cannot for the life of me bring to mind a really stand-out female messenger other than AOC, who I adore, but who's considered 'too radical' for way too many people; Elizabeth Warren, and Katie Porter. There are many others who are uniquely gifted to do this kind of work; these people are all blunt, nimble on their feet speech-wise, accessible emotionally, and whip-smart. They need to somehow just all get on a train and start traveling around the U.S. and speak at local meetings. May I suggest Llano, Texas, as a potential destination? The smallish town on the Texas border whose citizens recently voted to try to prevent anyone travelling through their town out of state to get an abortion? Or, some of the Texas border cities where the Latinos aren't necessarily sure that Democrat is the way to go this time around ... Maybe each state's Democrat Party could create this kind of cadre suited to their needs. We need to get out more is what I'm trying to say ... and I don't mean online or in paywalled publications that many many voters never see or read.
My SIL was more offended by Beto calling Uvalde LEO motherf*****s than by the massacre. I have no idea how to respond to to that.
There are times, in my opinion, that cursewords are the only 'proper' response to something and the Uvalde massacre was one of those events. I'm so sorry your SIL chose to clutch her pearls rather than deal with the absolute horror of the massacre of innocent schoolchildren. I appreciate Beto's passion as well as his commitments. I can understand someone disagreeing perhaps w/some of his policy positions, but to 'hate' him? I don't get that ... But, the person expressing that opinion also said when I questioned her as to how she could justify what the GOP/Gov. Abbott is doing/has done in Texas responded that, "She didn't agree with everything Abbott has done...". No response to my ? of the razorwire and sawblades barriors in the Rio Grande, for instance... I guess I got an answer to MY question which was, "Are you a MAGA cult member?"
100%! It's so exasperating dealing with people who are more concerned with propriety than horror.
Your observation that "it means politics is more about information warfare and less about governing excellence" seems to be truer than I/we would like. But, just because we don't like it doesn't mean that it's not true.
Boy, howdy!
That's a mouthful!
The idea that politics is more about information warfare than governance seems plainly correct. Part of that is because I've been reading Brian for years, but much of it is based on my own experiences with persuading audiences. As a trial lawyer, I've learned that if it is important that a jury to believe something, you can't dance around it and expect them to draw the inferences you want on their own. Instead, you need to say it plainly and directly (and repeatedly). It's important to marshal evidence and build credibility, but, if you need them to believe it, you gotta say it.
Multiple trial lawyers have made this exact point to me before, and every time I think... aren't there some former trial lawyers in the Dem party???
Ha. Given that very little goes to trial these days, many trial lawyers are more “trial” lawyers, doing pretrial litigation work up but never going before a jury. And I suspect true trial lawyers are less likely to leave to go into politics.
(FWIW, many prosecutors go to trial regularly and develop serious trial skills. But trying cases as a prosecutor can also be like lawyering with training wheels on: jurors love you automatically, many of your witnesses are investigative professionals and have testified many times, judges will rule for you unless there's no possible basis for doing so (and sometimes even then), etc. Prosecutors often do but need not learn the hard lessons other trial lawyers do.)
I will say it again and again. It's an advertising problem. The people making ads for the Democrats are spectacularly incompetent. Democrats need to hire the guys that make and distribute for example F150 commercials and get out of the way. Can't anybody here play this game?
Obama beat probably the best-qualified Republican nominee since Eisenhower with 8% unemployment because Romney was kind enough to make the debate about tax cuts for the rich, where it proved voters did not share his views.
Clinton lost to probably the least-qualified candidate ever because the campaign was focused on her years-old email management practices.
If Dems pull a Romney and collude in focusing the campaign on areas they are weak on, which includes inflation, it's not gonna help them win.
Ding ding ding! And they have to realize: Trump is not going to be "kind enough to make the debate about tax cuts for the rich" like Romney did.
Very insightful.
I would just point out that economic opinion doesn't *have* to remain a permanently polarized indicator of partisanship. After all, it's really only in the last decade that it's become polarized in the first place; before that, Bush 41 famously lost an election over his economic policy.
I would say that the synthesis of your assessment and past evidence is that economic opinion, like all opinion, is a product of narrative. And narratives don't have to be true in order to create their own reality. Bush 41 lost re-election over one narrative; his predecessor just 8 years earlier won on a different narrative despite an even worse economic reality at the time.
IMO these examples demonstrate that electoral outcomes are the result of a sort of attitudinal gestalt between the political class and swing voters. No one factor is entirely determinative; it's a whole bunch of them. But part of it starts with spaces like this and conversations like you're having. It's not just about building alternative media like Crooked and The Bulwark. It's about understanding how what we do in these spaces shapes the larger gestalt. Which is an incredibly messy process! Nevertheless, hopefully it can amount to more than the giant waste of pixels that most other commentary amounts to.
Well, we're less than a year away from the 2024 elections, and there has been erosion in 3 key Democratic constituencies.
What's the plan? What's the communications strategy?
This isn't rocket science...we're for individual freedoms, the rights of families to determine to make decisions free of government interference, a strong middle class, and preserving Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. They are religious extremists who want to ban abortion, impose their religious beliefs, destroy public education, eliminate taxes on the wealthy and corporations, destroy the middle class, interfere with your family.
If the Democrats don't make the case for why this is a choice between freedom and extremism, Republicans and media will define this race.
What precisely are they waiting for?
Undercooked theory: They're running this campaign as if Republicans were mired in a competitive primary, instead of seeing what the rest of us can see: Absent an amazing fall, Trump is the nominee.
I'd go further....they don't really seem to be running a campaign against anyone.
Trump is a uniquely malevolent danger, but all Republican candidates fall within the same spectrum (and capitulate to the same dark interests).
It's well past time to define the stakes of 2024. Biden may want to unite the country, but the country isn't ready to be united.
Lots to chew on here! It’s hard for me to put myself in the shoes of people who have forgotten the dangers of Trump, tbh. I, like a lot of privileged white dudes in their twenties, hadn’t really paid attention to politics until 2016. But I haven’t stopped paying attention since. The January 6th committee hearings are fresh in my mind; they were some of the most harrowing, impactful television I’ve ever seen, and between his legal woes and the fallout of January 6th, it doesn’t *feel* like he’s ever left the public consciousness. It feels like hardly a day has gone by in the past two-plus years where we haven’t had an update on one of Trump’s many legal woes, or some insane Truth he Trothed.
What do you think is the best way to get the message across that Trump is dangerous, while not playing into his desire to be a scary strong-man? For normies like me who try and talk to friends, coworkers, and post on social media?
I think an attitude/rhetorical approach that conveyed "we've stopped him once, we'll stop him again" is much more appealing than one that conveys "oh no, if he wins it'll be so horrible." Exploit the fact that most people think Trump is bad! And when homing in on specific outrages, don't do so in ways that convey fear—"omg what if he's hitler?" —so much as contempt and disdain. We all heard what you said about us, and we're coming for you next November. Call him a crook and a liar.
"Oh no, what's going to happen to democracy?!" <<< "Democracy IS on the line, and that's why we're gonna rise up and stop you."
"the best way to get the message across"
I'm afraid that Mr. Beutler has a point; saying something straight up and true is a necessary but insufficient part of any effective and successful argument. We liberal progressives very often tip-toe around issues that are offensive to hear as much as we do with offensive statements.
Say the nasty part - out loud. Clearly and with emotion.
Then take the time to explain the ramifications and effects of the fascist conservative program.
If the Dems were your child, Brian, they would grow up, move away and never visit or call. The expectations! The media messaging control superpowers you ascribe to Dems border on the fantastic. If only they’d say A or B, the media would cover it and the message would get through. Sorry, no.
No matter what Dems say, no matter how they respond, they are doing it wrong (at least it seems in your eyes). They say the economy is great and you all say, “insensitive, no it’s not for everybody!” Now you say why aren’t they saying the economy is great? It’s simple. Even though it isn’t and it is right to educate the public about the factors driving things like inflation--which is down, but hey “it’s still too expensive so they are making excuses.”
You bring up the Semafor piece (seriously who reads Semafor? Five people?) about the campaign worrying they will be aligned with Hitler (ya think?) then chastise Dems for comparing the vermin remark to Hitler’s as being the wrong thing to say--instead they should say it makes him an unfit leader. Well duh, yes he is unfit. But since so many people do not know history, it doesn’t hurt to remind them who else said it. (Though they forget Rawanda.)
Dems have said repeatedly that he is unfit and should never be near the WH again--until the media responded “oh yawn boring move on. Look, they’re talking about Trump because they don’t like us yelling every day about the looming recession” (which never emerged). Not to mention Trump fatigue among voters.
I’m sorry but the media does have a bias against Biden, just as they did against Gore and Kerry and HRC. (It wasn’t voters driving “but he’s too old yuk!”) Politico journos loved Obama because he was hip, listened to rap, played hoops with NBA gods, and snuck smokes. But that didn’t stop them from covering scandals like the tan suit, the fist bump, and Dijon mustard.
If voters have forgotten the horrors of Trump, it’s not the Dems’s fault for not reminding them every day. It is the fault of a complicit media which refuses to take the threat seriously--and it is a threat--or call him out for being unfit. The fear I feel about Trump and his fascist crew’s plans energizes me to help defeat them. I think Hitler and Mussolini rose in part because they were not feared and the threat wasn’t taken or covered seriously until it was too late. A perfect example? That Times’ headline. And why aren’t there nonstop front page stories dissecting Trump’s plans on the scale of but her emails? Stories could be written for days on aspects of Project 2025.
I understand you are on the right side (you want the GOP and Trump defeated) and that you know it’s complicated. Criticize the Dems when they make a huge blunder. But in the meantime please, YOU write the message you want to hear. Dedicate columns to the messages you think we need instead of making it all about “well it’s their responsibility to say X or Y.” You touch on things here, but IMHO you should devote whole columns to each.
Facing the future they have planned for us, it is all of our responsibilities to speak out, not just “the Dems.”
wtf !
We all have a job. Including the Dems.
We all do our jobs as best we can. Surely you don't believe you couldn't do yours better. I know the Democratic Party can do better.
Why not encourage them to do that?
I appreciate your thoughtful response. I do agree with many of your points, and of course I agree we have to focus on things we can control. I just get so tired of watching the Dems play in a rigged arena (billionaires, Electoral College/Senate mal apportionment, corrupt judiciary, MSM in thrall to RW “news,” etc etc), and then get criticized by their own supporters for not being able to Green Lantern it all away. I look forward to reading your column tomorrow, and will certainly consider subscribing.
This column shows why, even though I agree with you on many things, I often find reading you very frustrating and don’t subscribe. The missing element is the Republicans’ utter dominance of the media (directly through Fox et al and also through their influence over the MSM). Like many commentators, you seem to ascribe the Dems’ messaging problems to problems with them, rather than to the very well funded system that the Republicans have and the Dems can’t afford. (Note, eg, Fox is still in business after an almost $1 billion liability judgment, and hasn’t changed its behavior much at all.). I realize that you are trying to direct the Dems to focus on aspects that they have control over, but it often feels to me like you’re blaming the victim for being abused. To take just one obvious example, the public worries about Biden’s age much more than Trump’s because they’ve been reminded of the former over and over. The Dems can’t do that, they don’t have those resources. I think there are valid criticisms to make of how they direct their resources (I would like a much greater investment in media, rather than endless ActBlue fundraising for hopeless candidates in red states/districts), but they don’t have billionaires in their back pockets to nearly the same extent as the GOP does, and that’s a huge problem.
Hi Becky. Well, I hope you'll reconsider subscribing—maybe after tomorrow's free column, which touches on many of these themes at length. But I don't think anyone would say I take it easy on Fox News or Republican propaganda generally, and I stipulate that it's a huge problem all the time. I just also know that I have no influence over Republican actors. By contrast there are Democrats who take me seriously, and so I feel an obligation to pressure them to do the most they can with the tools available in the world as it is. There are definitely enough resources in liberal politics for Democrats to wage better earned media campaigns (they're also called "free media" campaigns for a reason.) And there are enough liberal billionaires and centimillionaires to buy up or build major media outlets (though I think those outlets would have a harder time than Fox succeeding financially).
The great American public does not, as a rule, read the New York Times, the Washington Post, or any political blogs, including, I'm afraid, this one. The ordinary voter will pay no attention to any of these publications until the presidential primaries begin. A more realistic approach to election coverage in the mass media would certainly warm the hearts of political junkies like myself, but it will have little impact on 2024 election results. What may make a difference is the mass of negative commercials launched by the Dems and their supporting campaign finance organizations. If they know their business -- and I hope they do -- that "vermin" clip and a dozen more nauseating Trump moments will be instilled deeply into the consciousness of Mr. and Ms. Voter. That may not guarantee a Biden win, but it's one of our best hopes -- "our" meaning US citizens of good will and at least two neurons to rub together.
"Why is it that, seven years later, the word 'deplorables' remains a galvanizing term for Republicans and an embarrassment for Democrats."
This does not require a grand theory of media strategy: most Americans felt Clinton's gaffe was directed at them, including *Democratic* voters. She made the remark in the context of decades of concerted effort to conflate individual bigotries with systemic ones, while simultaneously making individual bigots the stock villain of every story.
In other words, her "deplorables" comment resonated and felt personal to voters in a way that Trump's "vermin" comment never will, despite the fact that it was dehumanizing and a little scary. The idea of trying to keep it alive in voters' minds is deeply cringe; the objection to Trump's rhetoric has an extremely small constituency.
“and it’s easier to husband public approval in prosperity than in recession.”
Yglesias constantly repeats that Clinton won because of the economy in 92 and walks right up to saying any Dem would have won given long incumbency and the recession but how then does he explain Major winning in 92 and Keating (who was directly blamed for the Australian recession given his long run as treasurer and ill advised ‘this if the recession Australia had to have’ press conference) winning in 93
Turns out having political skill in government still matters and not looking unelectable from opposition is important too
One of the problems, at least as I see it, is that the Dems don't have a 24/7/365(366 on leap years) propaganda mouth-piece like Pox News; nor do they pretty much own mastheads like the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or USA Today that can pump out their vile swill to the masses under a cover of being "hard/establishment news". They have MSNBC and a number of internet-based allied information sources, but not everybody uses -- or even trusts -- what they see on the internet. (Something that The Muskrat seems to be going out of his way to make sure remains a permanent state of affairs. 😒 )
I'm not sure how we can rectify this situation (re-start the old local newspapers that had "Democrat" somewhere in the name? Engage more with local progressive/"underground" papers?), but it's definitely something that has to be addressed sooner rather than later.
Is part of the Democrats messaging problem that to speak bluntly about Trump and his supporters is to perhaps fatally injure fragile civic trust necessary for democracy?
“Trump is a rapist who wants to force women to bare their rapists babies “
“Trump wants every traffic stop for a Hispanic to end potentially in a concentration camp”
“Trump wants cops to execute people for selling dime bags and shoplifting six packs”
These three sentences seem clearly true, demonstrated in court cases, Republican Party platforms, and Trumps own words. If we made that the center of Democratic messaging, I think we could win in 2024. But this message is one of such intense disgust for Trump and by extension his supporters, I don’t know if we could ever go back after that to civil disagreement over marginal tax rates.
“Trump is a rapist who wants to force women to bare their rapists babies “ (Interesting typo there.)
“Trump wants every traffic stop for a Hispanic to end potentially in a concentration camp”
“Trump wants cops to execute people for selling dime bags and shoplifting six packs”
The problem is that The Fascist Gasbag has normalized (one could probably even argue that it's reached the point of fetishization) violence to the point that the MAGAtry *wants* these things (and more) without regard for whether even *they* may one day suffer the consequences of Rule by Trump. They just want *someone* to suffer!
Right. But the problem with “the cruelty is the point” or the “deplorable” gaffe, is that you can’t save democracy by pointing out that a plurality of Republican primary voters have demonstrated themselves unworthy of the respect due a fellow citizen. Even (maybe especially) if it’s true. You just activate them to further extremism and make yourself seem equally intolerant to persuadable voters.
I don't pretend to have a cure for it. As Jonathan Swift observed: "You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place."