Ignoring the strained contrarianism of The Atlantic is good evergreen advice. I don't know if it was in The Atlantic or somewhere else that I read, early in Trump II, that we shouldn't mock him this time. And I thought it was wrong. I'm not a Newsom fan but have to say that I prefer his trolling to whatever it is that the rest of the Democrats (with a few exceptions) are doing.
The strategy of the national Democratic party, with some notable exceptions, seems to be, "what if we acted like what is happening isn't really happening?" What if Donald Trump wasn't heading up an openly fascist, white supremacist government, but rather was just a "normal" Republican doing normal Republican things? What if ICE wasn't a lawless paramilitary organization clearly staffed by right wing militia and openly targeting minority communities, but just a federal police force that needs a little better oversight? And so on. Brian calls it "rectitude," which is charitable of him, but to anyone paying attention it seems almost psychotic in its detachment from reality.
One reason Newsom's posts have traction, I think, is that they implicitly acknowledge the reality of the present circumstances. The mockery wouldn't work if the president was a "normal" Republican, rather than Donald Trump, a vindictive, deranged, addled and incoherent old man who is governing like it. It holds up a mirror to reality, as Brian says, and in a way validates the experience of every person of conscience who is living through this nightmare. That is galvanizing, far more so than the gaslighting national Dems seem to have adopted as a communication strategy.
'The strategy of the national Democratic party, with some notable exceptions, seems to be, "what if we acted like what is happening isn't really happening?"
JVL over at the Bulwark wrote in the Triad newsletter about this phenomenon this morning regarding Jerome Powell and It's a good read. Dems and those in supposedly neutral positions are typically 'responsible', and want to preserve the institutions. He states he: "applaud[s] that sentiment. But I have to ask: Why isn’t a direct, plain-language confrontation with Trump, in which Powell speaks transparently and fully about what the president is trying to do and why it is dangerous, also a way to preserve the institution?"
"Why does “preserving the institution” always seem to involve subtlety and deep-reading? Why does it preclude saying the true and obvious things, explicitly and out loud?"
it seems that when there is, for better or worse, a consensus across government about the independence and political neutrality of institutions like the Fed, it makes some sense for those institutions to speak in subtle and apolitical ways. their strength comes in part from nurturing that broad sense and belief in their independence, even if the reality is probably a little more complicated than that.
but absent that consensus, when institutions are at risk of hostile takeover or destruction by malign forces, to continue with the ruse of being above the fray is delusional unilateral disarmament. institutions like the Fed need to fast become accustomed to making clear, affirmative cases for themselves and against the depredations of Trump and his fascist cohort. similarly, Dems need to realize that there is no consensus anymore that even multiracial democracy is a good thing, and start affirmatively defending that institution and attacking Trump and company as enemies of the principles that make America worth fighting for in the first place.
e.g., there are secret police in the streets of america, a state of affairs that would be intolerable to the founders. maybe go to war against that instead of the price of eggs or electricity.
Speaking of dictatorial takeover, the line I want to see, starting yesterday, is that running for a third term would be _treason_, and will be stopped “by force if necessary.”
It’s time to start stiffening spines for that possibility, and clearly establishing to wavering security services that’s a bright line that nobody will accept the legitimacy of crossing. Call the very notion of a third term a “treasonous” idea, and use the label to brush back right wing commentators and activists who want to play a joking-not-joking two-step to try to normalize it.
Amen. Gavin is doing it right. Put them in front of a mirror
Kamala bad a moment with brat summer and coconuts, then the consultants took over.
Right now Trump has created the most anti billionaire progeessive policies in history. He took 15 pct of the equity of a public mining company. That immediately reduced the net worth of all their shareholders , including billionaires. Wealth tax #1
He made nvidia , the most valuable company in the world, pay 15pct on chips sold to China. Again reducing shareholders value. Wealth tax #2
Now he wants to take 10pct of Intel for previously agreed upon grants. Wealth tax #3
I told several ranking progressives they should publicly thank Trump for introducing wealth taxes and offer to help him come up with more.
Bernie , who I didn't talk to,stepped up and thanked him.
These are awful taxes. But they are a progressive's dream. Taking a Gavin newsome approach to these would put maga world in a tizzy
The BAEs (Bernie AOC Elizabeth Warren) agree with trump and thank him for his wealth taxes.l, asking for more. It would be the ultimate Fox News segments
This part is depressing and makes me think it's already too late if this is the only comeuppance we can promise like the less powerful partner in an abusive relationship: "When the time comes, there will be turnabout, or another kind of reckoning, and you will regret your complicity."
I'm pretty sure their reply is: "Ooo, I'm so afraid!".
In this moment, today, they are certain that they will never be out of power and can continue diligently dismantling all the mechanisms that might hold them to-account. Newsom's brilliant mockery must now, today, be accompanied by a thousand punches to their smug fascist faces before it's too late - even if they are only, mostly, figurative punches.
Your idea to engage as many senators as possible in direct confrontation is exactly what is needed. Equally important is that if the Dems ever get back in power, they need to ruthlessly reverse all of this Trumpian Fascism.
What is the best means of getting other Democrats to do this? They are all sedated and wandering through local festivals and grocery store visits. Just so hard to imagine more catching on after all this learned helplessness.
The Democrats are like physically abused spouses who hope that if they 'pipe down' the abuser won't hit them. Recall P2025 admonition. 'The revolution will be bloodless 'if you allow it' It's like hubby saying if you let me do what I want I won't beat you'. And Schumer obeyed.
A-fucking-men. (BTW, "Your Rectitude Isn't Helping" is Robert Mueller's middle name.)
Warren has been okay, but so have Raskin, Swalwell, and especially Jasmine Crockett. Any time a Dem expresses the contempt and anger we all feel, it's a tonic. As I keep saying, the Dems may not have the votes, but they just as much of the internet and the airwaves as the GOP. Meanwhile, whenever I hear of Schumer's stern letters or see Jeffries' calm, useless dignity...well, as Tony Shalhoub says in the movie Big Night, "You want to KILL yourself! You want to KILL yourself!"
It occurred to me that Jeffries may be doing what Obama did: maintain a calm, cool demeanor lest he seem like An Angry Black Man. It's not helping. Leadership does not consist of doing nothing while letting the enemy self-destruct. It consists of fighting back and *forcing* the enemy to self-destruct.
What Newsome is doing is good, for all the reasons that you explain. It is also good because I think it'll kick the party in gear. The base wants a fearless fighting back, and will flock towards whoever will give it to them. Right now, that's Newsome, but I think (and hope) that pretty quickly the rest of party, especially 2028 hopefuls, will start to follow suit.
I'd like to add something. One thing that I like about Newsom's posts is they are funny. They are just genuinely funny. They don't come across (yet -- maybe they'll get tired) as a canned media strategy. Most Democratic humor ends up being along the lines of, "Isn't it funny when Trump's hair flipped up when he was really just taking taxes away from the middle class to hurt your health care?" I.e. not funny, just strained attempts to shoehorn their focus group points into whatever. Newsom's posts are in some senses heavy handed, but in other senses more respectful. They are just funny, and let you draw the political moral: which is how people want to be treated.
Idea: develop a rubric to evaluate Democratic elected officials on their assertiveness in opposing Trump. Any politician not meeting a minimum score must be primaried.
Are they any individuals or organizations who are working on primarying Democratic officials who are not meeting the moment?
I share your self-absorption in thinking you(I) should get some credit for the FINALLY discovered worth of comedy and consistent, powerful, oppositional messaging. I'VE been jumping up and down screaming about this for well over a decade, you young whippersnapper. Jay Rosen screamed at the media about it in a prescient article in pressthink as T-Rump was assuming power the first time. Now, if you can just catch up to me on the subject of our lack of election integrity and how easy it would be to remedy and how there's no way we escape our current trajectory of ever more fuckedtitudiness till we do, maybe we can begin to get somewhere.
Ignoring the strained contrarianism of The Atlantic is good evergreen advice. I don't know if it was in The Atlantic or somewhere else that I read, early in Trump II, that we shouldn't mock him this time. And I thought it was wrong. I'm not a Newsom fan but have to say that I prefer his trolling to whatever it is that the rest of the Democrats (with a few exceptions) are doing.
It is always worth keeping in mind that élite liberal media strongly prefers Republicans to the quote-unquote "far left".
The strategy of the national Democratic party, with some notable exceptions, seems to be, "what if we acted like what is happening isn't really happening?" What if Donald Trump wasn't heading up an openly fascist, white supremacist government, but rather was just a "normal" Republican doing normal Republican things? What if ICE wasn't a lawless paramilitary organization clearly staffed by right wing militia and openly targeting minority communities, but just a federal police force that needs a little better oversight? And so on. Brian calls it "rectitude," which is charitable of him, but to anyone paying attention it seems almost psychotic in its detachment from reality.
One reason Newsom's posts have traction, I think, is that they implicitly acknowledge the reality of the present circumstances. The mockery wouldn't work if the president was a "normal" Republican, rather than Donald Trump, a vindictive, deranged, addled and incoherent old man who is governing like it. It holds up a mirror to reality, as Brian says, and in a way validates the experience of every person of conscience who is living through this nightmare. That is galvanizing, far more so than the gaslighting national Dems seem to have adopted as a communication strategy.
'The strategy of the national Democratic party, with some notable exceptions, seems to be, "what if we acted like what is happening isn't really happening?"
JVL over at the Bulwark wrote in the Triad newsletter about this phenomenon this morning regarding Jerome Powell and It's a good read. Dems and those in supposedly neutral positions are typically 'responsible', and want to preserve the institutions. He states he: "applaud[s] that sentiment. But I have to ask: Why isn’t a direct, plain-language confrontation with Trump, in which Powell speaks transparently and fully about what the president is trying to do and why it is dangerous, also a way to preserve the institution?"
"Why does “preserving the institution” always seem to involve subtlety and deep-reading? Why does it preclude saying the true and obvious things, explicitly and out loud?"
i think this a good observation.
it seems that when there is, for better or worse, a consensus across government about the independence and political neutrality of institutions like the Fed, it makes some sense for those institutions to speak in subtle and apolitical ways. their strength comes in part from nurturing that broad sense and belief in their independence, even if the reality is probably a little more complicated than that.
but absent that consensus, when institutions are at risk of hostile takeover or destruction by malign forces, to continue with the ruse of being above the fray is delusional unilateral disarmament. institutions like the Fed need to fast become accustomed to making clear, affirmative cases for themselves and against the depredations of Trump and his fascist cohort. similarly, Dems need to realize that there is no consensus anymore that even multiracial democracy is a good thing, and start affirmatively defending that institution and attacking Trump and company as enemies of the principles that make America worth fighting for in the first place.
e.g., there are secret police in the streets of america, a state of affairs that would be intolerable to the founders. maybe go to war against that instead of the price of eggs or electricity.
Speaking of dictatorial takeover, the line I want to see, starting yesterday, is that running for a third term would be _treason_, and will be stopped “by force if necessary.”
It’s time to start stiffening spines for that possibility, and clearly establishing to wavering security services that’s a bright line that nobody will accept the legitimacy of crossing. Call the very notion of a third term a “treasonous” idea, and use the label to brush back right wing commentators and activists who want to play a joking-not-joking two-step to try to normalize it.
Amen. Gavin is doing it right. Put them in front of a mirror
Kamala bad a moment with brat summer and coconuts, then the consultants took over.
Right now Trump has created the most anti billionaire progeessive policies in history. He took 15 pct of the equity of a public mining company. That immediately reduced the net worth of all their shareholders , including billionaires. Wealth tax #1
He made nvidia , the most valuable company in the world, pay 15pct on chips sold to China. Again reducing shareholders value. Wealth tax #2
Now he wants to take 10pct of Intel for previously agreed upon grants. Wealth tax #3
I told several ranking progressives they should publicly thank Trump for introducing wealth taxes and offer to help him come up with more.
Bernie , who I didn't talk to,stepped up and thanked him.
These are awful taxes. But they are a progressive's dream. Taking a Gavin newsome approach to these would put maga world in a tizzy
The BAEs (Bernie AOC Elizabeth Warren) agree with trump and thank him for his wealth taxes.l, asking for more. It would be the ultimate Fox News segments
Cats and dogs living in harmony !
This is the best column of yours that I’ve ever read. Bravo.!!
This part is depressing and makes me think it's already too late if this is the only comeuppance we can promise like the less powerful partner in an abusive relationship: "When the time comes, there will be turnabout, or another kind of reckoning, and you will regret your complicity."
I'm pretty sure their reply is: "Ooo, I'm so afraid!".
In this moment, today, they are certain that they will never be out of power and can continue diligently dismantling all the mechanisms that might hold them to-account. Newsom's brilliant mockery must now, today, be accompanied by a thousand punches to their smug fascist faces before it's too late - even if they are only, mostly, figurative punches.
And, eventually, literal punches.
Your idea to engage as many senators as possible in direct confrontation is exactly what is needed. Equally important is that if the Dems ever get back in power, they need to ruthlessly reverse all of this Trumpian Fascism.
What is the best means of getting other Democrats to do this? They are all sedated and wandering through local festivals and grocery store visits. Just so hard to imagine more catching on after all this learned helplessness.
The Democrats are like physically abused spouses who hope that if they 'pipe down' the abuser won't hit them. Recall P2025 admonition. 'The revolution will be bloodless 'if you allow it' It's like hubby saying if you let me do what I want I won't beat you'. And Schumer obeyed.
You may have done it first, but JB Pritzker did it before Gavin afaik
Here he is mocking Trump’s gulf of America 6 months ago
https://youtu.be/059lXXlPD08?si=uPatGGh4gomU1eLI
But let’s not let this turn into a pissing contest. Anyone can mock him and Gavin does it very well
Regardless, the 2028 Dem primary is shaping up to be a doozy.
The good news is that, assuming that it occurs normally, all of the frontrunners are likely to be pugilists who are good at capturing attention.
A-fucking-men. (BTW, "Your Rectitude Isn't Helping" is Robert Mueller's middle name.)
Warren has been okay, but so have Raskin, Swalwell, and especially Jasmine Crockett. Any time a Dem expresses the contempt and anger we all feel, it's a tonic. As I keep saying, the Dems may not have the votes, but they just as much of the internet and the airwaves as the GOP. Meanwhile, whenever I hear of Schumer's stern letters or see Jeffries' calm, useless dignity...well, as Tony Shalhoub says in the movie Big Night, "You want to KILL yourself! You want to KILL yourself!"
It occurred to me that Jeffries may be doing what Obama did: maintain a calm, cool demeanor lest he seem like An Angry Black Man. It's not helping. Leadership does not consist of doing nothing while letting the enemy self-destruct. It consists of fighting back and *forcing* the enemy to self-destruct.
What Newsome is doing is good, for all the reasons that you explain. It is also good because I think it'll kick the party in gear. The base wants a fearless fighting back, and will flock towards whoever will give it to them. Right now, that's Newsome, but I think (and hope) that pretty quickly the rest of party, especially 2028 hopefuls, will start to follow suit.
I'd like to add something. One thing that I like about Newsom's posts is they are funny. They are just genuinely funny. They don't come across (yet -- maybe they'll get tired) as a canned media strategy. Most Democratic humor ends up being along the lines of, "Isn't it funny when Trump's hair flipped up when he was really just taking taxes away from the middle class to hurt your health care?" I.e. not funny, just strained attempts to shoehorn their focus group points into whatever. Newsom's posts are in some senses heavy handed, but in other senses more respectful. They are just funny, and let you draw the political moral: which is how people want to be treated.
Shoot this directly into the veins of every public servant in the country...starting with the Democratic leadership. #NoNotes
Fight back every day!!!
Idea: develop a rubric to evaluate Democratic elected officials on their assertiveness in opposing Trump. Any politician not meeting a minimum score must be primaried.
Are they any individuals or organizations who are working on primarying Democratic officials who are not meeting the moment?
Of course not. Dems haven't even thought of this. A report card like this is a great idea. This is what the right wing would do.
I share your self-absorption in thinking you(I) should get some credit for the FINALLY discovered worth of comedy and consistent, powerful, oppositional messaging. I'VE been jumping up and down screaming about this for well over a decade, you young whippersnapper. Jay Rosen screamed at the media about it in a prescient article in pressthink as T-Rump was assuming power the first time. Now, if you can just catch up to me on the subject of our lack of election integrity and how easy it would be to remedy and how there's no way we escape our current trajectory of ever more fuckedtitudiness till we do, maybe we can begin to get somewhere.