Trump Redux: The Death of Democracy, or Overblown Hyperbole?

[Auroras In Ice]

Who has been added to the FBI may turn out to be more important than who was removed. The deputy director is the person who runs the day to day operation of 38,000 agents. Hard right podcaster with no relevant experience Dan Bongino has just been appointed to the position. Usually the Director chooses his deputy, but there's reason for speculation that this may have been a Trump appointment.

My implication was more that the admin shitcanning and pissing off a bunch of people whose vocation is demolishing governments and political movements is maybe making very dangerous enemies to the Trump admin especially since he's filling the government with idiots.

Says the intern who spent their time making jokeless memes for the professional golfer and occasional paper signer.

People are suffering and losing their jobs because of our administration's very deliberate actions, better make fun of them durr hurr.

We're being ruled by fucking fourth graders.

Just more red meat to his base who really have no actual principles or interests beyond their grievances and inflicting cruelty. They'll get fucked too, but they don't mind as long as the people they're encouraged to shit on get fucked harder. Nothing makes right-wingers happier than punching down on someone.

[Lucem Ferre]

The Lee Atwater method.

[Lisnaholic]

Bashing the Dems too much makes me a bit uneasy, for reasons that are best explained with a plumbers-for-hire analogy: the Dems were offering their services to fix the plumbing of America and arranged a day (Nov 5, 2024) to be allowed in. If what SGR says about donors abandoning the Dems, this is now the position of people criticising the Dems:
"Those Dem plumbers are useless: I didn't show up at the ballot box/front door to let them in, now I'm not paying them, but it's their fault that they haven't done the job. The plumber I did let in is drowning my house in a deluge of sewage, and those Dem plumbers are not helping."

[Weekender]

In modern history Democrats have on average overperformed and overdelivered despite facing a number of disadvantages compared to Republicans.

What Pelosi and Chuck lack in charisma they have more than made up for in political acumen.

Maybe it's time for new leadership but I think the left will quickly find that they're not easy to replace.

[SGR]

Bashing the Dems too much makes me a bit uneasy, for reasons that are best explained with a plumbers-for-hire analogy: the Dems were offering their services to fix the plumbing of America and arranged a day (Nov 5, 2024) to be allowed in. If what SGR says about donors abandoning the Dems, this is now the position of people criticising the Dems:
"Those Dem plumbers are useless: I didn't show up at the ballot box/front door to let them in, now I'm not paying them, but it's their fault that they haven't done the job. The plumber I did let in is drowning my house in a deluge of sewage, and those Dem plumbers are not helping."

How do our political analogies always inevitably end up with plumbing and pipes?  There must be something in the air...



Firstly, the Dem donors would not be upset at all if the Democrats had won. The quotes from them and things they are saying make it sound like they think the Democrats are hopeless/useless/etc. But if they didn't believe the Democrats had a convincing strategy to win, they wouldn't have donated. So in some sense, they're bemoaning the fact that they feel fooled and/or taken for believing they did. Had the Dems won, the donors wouldn't have any problems at all with the 'vision' or 'message' of Democrats and they'd be happy to keep the cash coming and let them do their thing and if their strategy for the midterms/2028 was mostly "do the same thing we did last time", they wouldn't be bothered at all because it would have worked in 2024. In some ironic sense, you could even argue the Dems were trepidatious in 2024 campaigning because they didn't want to upset or spook these same donors. They didn't want to take a different position on Israel/Gaza, they didn't want to talk about universal health care, they wanted everything to be straight-laced and donor-acceptable, and this is where it got them.

Regardless, I think the way you framed the analogy was a bit overly charitable to the Dems. It could be said the the Dems were already in the house and working on the plumbing for four years. The homeowner was not happy with the way things were going and how long it was taking. Then a different plumber showed up (a plumber who the homeowner had already fired years ago), but now that old plumber has a felony conviction - but yet he tells the homeowner that despite that, he'll come in and do the plumbing job better, cheaper, and faster than their current plumber. Instead of focusing on telling the homeowner all the plans they have to fix the plumbing problems and do better if they keep them, they focus on telling the homeowner all the reasons why they shouldn't hire the loudmouth plumber outside their house banging on the door. His tools are outdated, he's incompetent, his previous plumbing jobs resulted in many leaky faucets, he is a felon, etc. The homeowner, at the end of his rope, kicks his current plumber out and gives his old (and now criminally convicted) plumber a second chance.

For better or for worse, James Carville's "It's the economy, stupid" still has a lot of resonance and import. Remember that little sign Truman had on his desk? "The Buck Stops Here"?



That's not exactly the truth, but that's the perception among American voters. They need someone to blame. And Biden/Kamala aren't the first to be on the bad end of that blame. I don't think Herbert Hoover for example caused the great depression, but he certainly suffered the political consequences for it. And many presidents get credit for booming economies when they don't deserve credit for it either, simply because they're presiding over it at the time.

This election wasn't a vast country-wide mandate in the sense that it wasn't close. It was close. Trump won the popular vote by around ~3 million votes. He won the election. In 2016, Hillary won the popular vote by around ~3 million votes, but she lost the election. But in this election, the Dems raised over a billion more than the GOP, and by some accounts, they ended up (somehow) in debt afterwards. The Dems did show signs that they realized this was a 'change' election, so they dropped Biden after his cadaverous debate performance, but their replacement for him still said she couldn't think of anything she'd do differently than him:

Such a layup question, and it was just completely missed. Let's be honest, this is politics. She could have at least lied about something she'd do different! At least it would show you cared enough to realize that saying you'd do the same thing wouldn't fly.

Regardless, the Democrats need some tough love, but not from Republicans or conservatives - they need it from their own constituency. If the donors just kept the cash flow going and, since we're talking about spongebob memes, gave them the following treatment after this loss, nothing would change:



If they want to win again, something needs to change, and so the incentives need to change too to catlyze said change. To Weekender's point, the left is not going anywhere. I don't know about the Democratic Party, but the left as a constituency will always be there. If the Democrats don't get their act together, something else will be born in their wake to capture their constituency. To be the 'party of democracy', and then blame/scold the voters, while patting the Democratic Party/DNC on the back and telling them they tried their best when the election doesn't go your way is just a losing strategy. They need the critique, and they need the pain, and they need the dissatisfaction if they are to grow and improve. They need a fire lit under their ass and they need to be more amenable to a bottom-up approach than a top-down approach. Otherwise, they should get used to the idea of losing to Vance (or god knows who) in 2028, after trying the same strategies and approaches as they have the past 10 years and unsurprisingly, failing again.

[Lisnaholic]

How do our political analogies always inevitably end up with plumbing and pipes?  There must be something in the air...

Well, I chose plumbers with you in mind, SGR, and realised as I wrote it that the analogy wouldn't stand up to much scrutiny. For next time, I'm going to up my game, inspired by these "analogies", which, in fact, are almost all similies:-

Regardless, I think the way you framed the analogy was a bit overly charitable to the Dems. It could be said the the Dems were already in the house and working on the plumbing for four years. The homeowner was not happy with the way things were going and how long it was taking. Then a different plumber showed up (a plumber who the homeowner had already fired years ago), but now that old plumber has a felony conviction - but yet he tells the homeowner that despite that, he'll come in and do the plumbing job better, cheaper, and faster than their current plumber. Instead of focusing on telling the homeowner all the plans they have to fix the plumbing problems and do better if they keep them, they focus on telling the homeowner all the reasons why they shouldn't hire the loudmouth plumber outside their house banging on the door. His tools are outdated, he's incompetent, his previous plumbing jobs resulted in many leaky faucets, he is a felon, etc. The homeowner, at the end of his rope, kicks his current plumber out and gives his old (and now criminally convicted) plumber a second chance.

For better or for worse, James Carville's "It's the economy, stupid" still has a lot of resonance and import.

Yep, that unhappy plumbing story is closer to what happened to the US last year, and as for Carville's quote about the economy, I think it needs a small adjustment, so that it also covers Trump's inability to kerb rocketing egg prices: "It's what people can be tricked into imagining about the economy, stupid." 

As you mention, the economy wasn't so bad under the Dems and although you blame the Dems for their position of "carry on as before", I think may still yet be a winning policy if, as I suspect, America starts to hurt under the chaos, corruption and confusion that Trump/Musk and allies are ushering in. Suddenly, going back to the way things were may begin to look more attractive.

Case in point, the fiasco of Musk's "five things you did" email. I imagine that Musk's own reply would go something like this:-

1. Sent email threatening to fire thousands of Federal workers.
2. Posted bogus savings and attributed them to DOGE
3. Rescinded item #1 email threat.
4. Retracted statement of savings in item #2.
5. Still waiting in vain for Trump to clarify my own position re item #1 email.

In my mind, I am projecting this chaos going forward in other areas of government: the CDC will be vacillating about which disinfectant you should ingest to prevent measles. NOOA will be waiting on hurricane warnings until Trump tells America where he wants the hurricane to go.

 

Too scary to imagine what's going to happen to the FBI, or on the international stage, or with the US economy isolated behind its own tariff walls, and perhaps for that reason the Dem policy is inspired by that other piece of political/military wisdom: never interrupt your enemy when he is making mistakes.

I know that Trump/Hitler comparisons sound a bit overblown, but the way the democratic Germany of the 1930s voted its way to a corrupt fascist power grab has many parallels to recent events in the US. One difference is this,though: although they had a bunch semi-insane ideas, the Nazi's were sufficiently tethered to reality that they placed competent and experienced people into positions of authority. Trump's appointments, in contrast, are barely capable people pulled (largely) from show-biz, so that even if they were well-intentioned (which they decidedly are not) they are way out of their depth.

In short: I see a bad moon rising, and (to go from a great song to a lousy one) the Dems, even when not doing much, are like Friends, "I'll be there for youoo."   
 

[Lexi Darling]

@Lisnaholic on that note...

[SGR]

Well, I chose plumbers with you in mind, SGR, and realised as I wrote it that the analogy wouldn't stand up to much scrutiny. For next time, I'm going to up my game, inspired by these "analogies", which, in fact, are almost all similies:-

My goodness, our analogies don't look half bad when you compare them to the ones in that video. 

Yep, that unhappy plumbing story is closer to what happened to the US last year, and as for Carville's quote about the economy, I think it needs a small adjustment, so that it also covers Trump's inability to kerb rocketing egg prices: "It's what people can be tricked into imagining about the economy, stupid."

As you mention, the economy wasn't so bad under the Dems and although you blame the Dems for their position of "carry on as before", I think may still yet be a winning policy if, as I suspect, America starts to hurt under the chaos, corruption and confusion that Trump/Musk and allies are ushering in. Suddenly, going back to the way things were may begin to look more attractive.

You may have misunderstood me just a bit. While I'm saying that I don't think Biden/Kamala/Dems were primarily responsible for the inflation/economy, I don't mean to say that the economy 'wasnt so bad'. It's not like we were in a depression, or even a recession, but people's wallets were hurting, and I think it's no question that this was one of the primary reasons that Trump won. He'd hammer Biden/Kamala and the Dems on this every possible chance he'd get, and he'd promise to 'end inflation' (like it was possible to just go in and wave a magic deflation wand, and the Democrats simply didn't know how to cast the spell or something), obviously extremely light on the details of how he'd fix it - "...and this is all you need to know, they broke it, and I'll fix it."

It's not about what voters 'imagine' about the economy - it's about the perception of the economy in their daily lives, separate from aggregated statistics. Perception may not be reality strictly, but perception largely is political reality, unless you can change that perception.

Democrats messaging on this simply was not good. I don't hold anything against them when it's not campaign season, but once it's time to campaign and earn votes, talking about the CPI, how the inflation rate is actually down from what it was, and how it's actually a global phenomenon (which it was) as a way to basically try to tell voters "Actually, you're wrong about how you feel about the economy and the prices you're paying, and here's why" - voters don't typically want to be told they're wrong and be presented with statistics (that they don't understand) and quotes from economists as to why, they want their fears assuaged and their concerns empathized with. A perfect example would be Bill Clinton during one of his debates with HW Bush - you remember I'm sure - "I feel your pain"? Starting off with a question to the audience member: "Tell me how it's affected you again?" Just masterful. He made HW Bush seem completely out of touch. Bill Clinton's personal life is obviously very controversial, but he was an excellent politician.

To provide a defense for Kamala though - and again, some day I hope we'll read the books and tell-alls that give us all the juicy details so we can completely understand and contextualize all of this - she, unlike Bill Clinton (in that debate) or Trump (this last election) was running as an incumbent VP. So not only was she saddled with providing a vision and plan for the future, but she had the unenviable task of taking stock of and defending the current administration. The question still remains on why she seemed so reticent to ever lay a bit of blame on Biden for cheap political points and to ensure voters a President Kamala would not be the same as a President Biden. She did have opportunities, even in friendly environments, but she simply didn't do it for one reason or another. Some have said that it's because she has a strong loyalty to Biden - but I think it's more likely that she had the shortest time of any presidential nominee to run a winning campaign and she got saddled with Biden's then campaign staff to help her, and she took their advice of what and what not to do and say. I've made no secret that I don't think Kamala is naturally talented as a political speaker or a messenger, but it was the right play to switch Biden out for her. With Biden, the Dems would've been doomed (even though many Dems couldn't see it at the time), with Kamala they had a chance. If the incumbent party losing continues to be a trend, perhaps we'll need to collectively reassess the assumption we have of the 'incumbency advantage'? 

As I've stressed though, this next go-around, the Dems need to allow a completely open primary and let their voters decide on the nominee (no DNC giving debate questions to their favored candidate, or striking cabinet deals with other nominees to get them to drop out to ruin the progressive candidate before Super Tuesday, etc.). Believe it or not, if you let the voters decide on their nominee, rather than letting party big-wigs choose the nominee in the backrooms like the old days, they're more likely to show up on Election Day to vote for them.

To your thought that perhaps the Dems best play (or at least, an effective play) is to simply 'carry on as before' - or in other words, do nothing (and let Trump's admin make mistakes)/then do the same thing they've done before, maybe it will work, but I wouldn't bet on it. To me, it seems more like a tacit admission of 'we got nothing, let's just wait and see if the other side falls apart - that Trump/Elon bromance has to end at some point, right?'. It's wishful thinking, poor political strategy, and the complete opposite of proactive; how has it worked out for them in the last 10 years? - but in your defense, it will sell to the Democrat base (because they have no other real alternatives). But it's going to take more to get the independents/unaffiliateds. Keep in mind, Trump probably would have won 2020 if it wasn't for a global pandemic that completely shut countries down. The Democrats, if they're lying in wait for Trump's mistakes, obviously need to effectively pounce when he does make mistakes to rebuild their political capital. Do you think Trump's made mistakes yet? If so, have the Democrats pounced and capitalized?

[Weekender]

It's not the president's job to reach down and improve citizen's lives. That's what you ask your specific representatives in Congress to do. Even then, they don't control the economy, at best they regulate it.


Still Biden's economy was pretty good. Maybe it's the high levels of income inequality that's driving everyone insane.

[SGR]

It's not the president's job to reach down and improve citizen's lives. That's what you ask your specific representatives in Congress to do. Even then, they don't control the economy, at best they regulate it.


Still Biden's economy was pretty good. Maybe it's the high levels of income inequality that's driving everyone insane.

Technically, you might be correct - but the 'bully pulpit' in the Teddy Roosevelt sense, along with the (as the years have gone by) increased power of the executive branch, voters look to their presidential nominees for answers. If you're not touting an improvement to the lives of citizens, good luck running for president.

And per the economy, polls would contradict your assessment. If income inequality was the real economic concern, Dems shouldn't have lost the popular vote (as Kamala, as would be expected, promised to tax the rich). I think financial pressures on voters at the gas station and at the grocery store are more pressing a concern than how much they're making relative to the rich and powerful, at least in this past election.

[DJChameleon]

It's not the president's job to reach down and improve citizen's lives. That's what you ask your specific representatives in Congress to do. Even then, they don't control the economy, at best they regulate it.


Still Biden's economy was pretty good. Maybe it's the high levels of income inequality that's driving everyone insane.

Biden economy being pretty good is worthless when talking to the everyday worker because they are feeling it hard with common expenses. Whatever is happening they just want something different and to be able to afford stuff. Saying the economy is good while inflation is terrible did no good for the Dems along with Harris saying she wouldn't do anything different from what Biden did. She needed to throw his ass under the bus.

[Jwb]

I think it's fairly safe to say that out of all the election strategies the Dems deployed, trying to debate the working class out of the perception that they're being raped by inflation might have been the most ineffectual.

Like SGR said, perception matters more than the actual economy does. People actually only care about their personal finances,  not the economy.  They just conflate the two.  So if the economy is good on paper,  but you still end up with less money left over at the end of each month,  nobody is actually all thar interested in or impressed by economic metrics that they don't even understand in the first place.

Also,  re: the plumbing analogy.... in the case of these politicians, getting elected is the most essential part of their job. You can't think about it as if it's like the job interview or something.  Getting elected is the job itself.  Especially as far as the donors are concerned.  They aren't donating all that money cause they care about the country so much.  They're attempting to buy political influence. Which they obviously can't do if you don't get elected.  So obviously they're going to be frustrated  at sinking their money into a party that runs a dumpsterfire of a campaign like the one we just watched,  with their money.  Here's the world's smallest violin for all that wasted donor money. So sad.

And they have to be extra salty seeing that Elon has managed to purchase for himself not just political influence but a position so powerful that it's not obvious he's Trump's subordinate.

[Jwb]

Trump posts SpongeBob meme to poke fun at outrage over Elon Musk's email asking federal workers what they did last week

Enough of this shit.  Elon has a choice to make: either you can be the evil oligarch trying to enslave us all,  or you can be an out of touch boomer posting cringe SpongeBob memes.  This shit is so embarrassing.

[Jwb]

Democrats: We Have NO PLAN To Fight Trump

I don't really disagree with what they're saying,  but how can Cenk and Ana really criticize anyone else's strategy for dealing with MAGA? They have less room than anyone to talk. 

Up until the election Cenk was running with "Trump is a fascist" and then as soon as he won Cenk declares victory for "populism" and goes on an apology tour of right wing podcasts and events kissing the ass of MAGA based on the utterly naive idea that he was going to be able to find common cause between the *populist right" and the "populist left" and work together on issues they both supposedly care about. Have you ever heard of a dumber plan from someone who's been doing this shit for like 20 years?

[Weekender]

Technically, you might be correct - but the 'bully pulpit' in the Teddy Roosevelt sense, along with the (as the years have gone by) increased power of the executive branch, voters look to their presidential nominees for answers. If you're not touting an improvement to the lives of citizens, good luck running for president.

And per the economy, polls would contradict your assessment. If income inequality was the real economic concern, Dems shouldn't have lost the popular vote (as Kamala, as would be expected, promised to tax the rich). I think financial pressures on voters at the gas station and at the grocery store are more pressing a concern than how much they're making relative to the rich and powerful, at least in this past election.

The electorate doesn't know anything. The data shows that the answer to "Are you better off now than 4 years ago" should be yes, but the people answered no.

The trend globally is towards extremist politics and I suspect it correlates with the exploding levels of income inequality.

Although I think it's also possible that Trump is a phenomenon specific to the US and has more to do with our history of racism than the economy.