Stumblebumming Democrats?

I have just read the couple dozen comments to yesterday's post — perhaps my shortest ever — and I read them with no little interest. Within them runs the partisan theme (heroically countered in places) that Democrats are proceeding, in the face of Trumpian triumphalism, as the usual bunch of blind, unthoughtful stumblebums they always have been — you know, from the stumblebumming of FDR battling a Great and Global Depression as well as liberating half the world from fascism, to the equal stumblebumming of Barack Obama also battling a great and global near depression as well as suffering, with ineffable grace, this nation's historically most backward gang of political cutthroats.

Do Democrats stumble about nevertheless? Of course they do. All political parties do, given the vagaries of political events. Will Democrats roam in the wilderness for months or perhaps a year? Again, that wouldn't surprise. It takes time to recover from such senseless blows to common human decency and sane public policy, such as Trumpism and Ryanism have delivered.

But I can say this much for national Democrats: I'm goddamn proud of them. With near uniformity they have condemned and promised to fight the GOP brutality that has befallen us. For now, could we reasonably ask for any more? I think not. And I further think their better, if not best, days are ahead of them, as Trumpism exposes itself as the national and international blight that it is.

***

Now, excuse my brief absence. A dear friend is about to wheel me, as though I'm some sort of retired British colonel in plaid lap blanket, into a local park for some fresh air and sunshine, neither of which have I indulged for weeks. I wish you all an equally dreamy day. Life is good — and so much more appreciated when one knows that it, and the family and friendships that go with it, will be around a bit longer. (Sorry, I'm feeling exceptionally emotional today.)

 

Comments

[Peter G]

Enjoy the sunshine. I surely did. I expect the Democrats will sort things out in due course. The hardest part was probably recruiting young people to the cause. Problem solved. And thanks Donald.

I am truly delighted to hear you are convalescing. There's a touch of selfishness in that because I miss your writing. But most of it is the simple delight that you aren't going to miss the history about to unfold. We may all live to see the Democrat's finest hour. This will not be about parsing and negotiating factional interests. This will be about rediscovering common purpose and values.

[WDC]

I believe the onus is on responsible Republicans to separate themselves from this madman before the whole party implodes.Like a dying star they are burning their own.The Democrats should just let them go down on their own.

[Anne J]

So nice to see you writing again and out of the hospital. Enjoy your day in the sunshine you deserve it. The Democrats and you are both on the mend. It's amazing how quickly and how large the opposition to this unfolding horror show has been. Democrats in Congress are losing most of the battles, but they continue fighting the war while giving Republicans no cover. Perhaps in a sick, twisted way, Trump is making America great again. Be well, sir!

[Tony]

As a lifelong Democrat, I am all too aware of my Party's shortcomings. Too many of our politicians are susceptible to the twin evils of corruption and ego, fueled by money. Too many of our rank-and-file insist on ideological purity and are willing to throw away half a loaf because they didn't get the whole thing.

But I remain a Democrat, and am proud of it for the reasons enumerated by a recovering PM Carpenter. If we survive our current national crisis, it will be because the only people who are motivated to acheive this live in the current Democratic Party.

[marc]

Democrats FTMWF

[marc]

What is the white man's explanation for why 94% of black women voted for Hillary?

[David & Son of Duff]

Well, no-one here seems prepared to think rationally about the future of the Democrat party but here's a man who does. Sorry for the length but it was too good an article for me to edit:

"Remember the Democratic Party? They were the future once, surfing America’s demographic wave towards permanent California-tanned victory. Then, with the beach in sight, catastrophe. The surfboard hit a rock named Donald Trump and now everyone’s bobbing about in the sea wondering what to do next, not waving but drowning. Never has the old joke been truer: “I’m not a member of an organised political party — I am a Democrat!”

Which is why there is so much interest in a meeting taking place in Atlanta, Georgia, on Saturday that in normal times would pass under the radar. A new boss is being chosen for the Democratic National Committee, essentially the leadership of the party until there is a presidential candidate in place in 2020.

The choice in Atlanta will push the party in one of two very different directions: either it will use all its energy to win back the white working class or it will wash its hands of them, double down on demography, double down on identity, head for the cities where socialism and rapid transit feed off each other and bet on America following that route. To illustrate the dilemma look at Florida, where the party is trying to find someone to run for this crucially important governorship in 2018. Their losing candidate last time was a white, wealthy, grey-haired lawyer called Charlie Crist, who had already served as governor as a Republican. This time? A lawyer buddy of Crist is looking like the favourite because he has the money and the name recognition to run. As the political commentator Jim Geraghty put it: “Never mind finding a candidate from a different demographic; Florida Democrats can’t even find a candidate from a different law firm.”

Ouch. But does the party dare to take up the challenge of the Bernie Sanders left and head not just for a different law firm, but (whisper it) away from all the law firms, away from Wall Street, away from big money and the centre ground where the big money gathers. Sanders, remember, the junior senator from Vermont, was a staggeringly successful candidate when he ran against Hillary Clinton for the nomination in 2016. Despite being a cantankerous oddball from a state very few Americans have even heard of, he raised prodigious sums of money from a huge base of highly energised young people.

Is this a post-Trump model? Could the right candidate pull it off? If the Democrats decide it is the right approach, they will probably opt for a man named Keith Ellison, a black Muslim congressman who represents an entire city: Minneapolis in the northern state of Minnesota. I have been watching him since I covered his election as the first Muslim congressman in 2007. He is enormously charming and energetic and he has a jaw-dropping calling card.

It is a clip from a Sunday morning TV show in July 2015 in which Ellison tells the host that Trump may well be the Republican candidate in 2016 and could win. Everyone laughs. One of the commentators is so amused she can’t speak. Ellison says: “No really — stranger things have happened.”

Google it: Ellison predicts Trump. That is Keith Ellison’s pitch: he gets modern politics, and has an offer to the party of city-based, Muslim-embracing, socialist-friendly policies and endeavours that can energise enough voters to win.

The party establishment is terrified of Ellison. They think a man who once toyed with the Nation of Islam group run by the populist firebrand Louis Farrakhan is a figurehead too far outside the mainstream to represent the Democratic Party. They wonder how a city-based black Muslim convert will go down with the hillbillies of rural Pennsylvania. They will fight for the party to stay true to the Clinton, Biden, Obama path.

But the party is in the mood for change. Another serious candidate in Saturday’s vote is the 35-year-old mayor of the city of South Bend, Indiana. Pete Buttigieg has a Harvard degree, a first in philosophy, politics and economics from Oxford, and has served as an intelligence officer in Afghanistan.

It is, safe to say, unlikely that he will be content to remain in South Bend. A couple of years ago he was described by The Washington Post as “The Most Interesting Mayor You’ve Never Heard Of”. More recently in another paper: “The First Gay President?”

This is the point of the choices to be made in Atlanta — it’s a chance to usher a new generation into positions of power but it’s an opportunity to take a risk as well, to trust that all that talk of demographic and identity politics working in the Democrats’ long-term interests was, and still is, true. A chance to look at the anti-Trump protests and attach the party to them rather than harrumphing from the sidelines.

All of this might matter very much, very soon. If Trump’s White House really is “in disarray”, as the Republican senator John McCain put it last week, then the chances of the 2018 mid-term congressional elections providing an early chance for a nationwide anti-Trump moment would seem to be greater. Think Bill Clinton and 1994 when, only two years into another chaotic presidency, his party lost both houses of Congress in an epic slaughter.

It could happen. And if Keith Ellison predicts it, perhaps the party, this time, will listen."

Justin Webb presents the Today programme on BBC Radio 4

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/can-democrats-find-the-man-to-take-on-trump-g059xpssc

[shsavage]

The purpose of trolling

One of the best definitions I’ve found comes from Ann Coulter’s How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must).

You must outrage the enemy. If the liberal you’re arguing with doesn’t become speechless with sputtering, impotent rage, you’re not doing it right. People don’t get angry when lies are told about them; they get angry when the truth is told about them. If you are not being called outrageous by liberals, you’re not being outrageous enough. Start with the maximum assertion about liberals and then push the envelope, because, as we know, their evil is incalculable.

And yeah, Coulter’s “logic” is crazy. People hate when you lie about them. This isn’t what she cares about though.

What she cares about is the “speechless” part. This is her way of “winning” in a similar way to Nick Naylor.

She wants liberals to not know how to respond. Or to respond by attacking her.

This is what trolls want. They win when:

You’re calling them names
You’re calling them dumb or making fun of their intelligence
You’re wasting your time on them
You’re angry
You’re not winning over those who are winnable

So how can you deal with trolls?

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/2/19/1634327/-How-to-turn-trolls-into-your-best-friends

[Peter G]

Actually quite a lot of people are thinking about the future of the Democratic Party. Including me. And the one future they must oppose is the one you want them to take. It is pretty obvious that you are seeking support for the racial and religious divisions you hope will be the future. We must all become like you. Nope. The philosophy you endorse lost the popular vote and has considerable opposition even within the Republican Party. I think you've reached high tide. And I sense the panic in your posts. There will be no paradise as the result of the dim witted policies advanced by the Trump administration nor the foolishness of Brexit.

[Anne J]

What does the worthless limey piece of shit care , once again because the insufferable asshole that just can't let it go, what Democrats do? It's so pathetically transparent, with it's fake concern over a party it hates, that it thinks no one notices it's just trying to rub people's noses in the Democrats' electoral defeat, and that only speaks volumes about itself while saying nothing about the Democrats. It's so busy reveling in the defeat of others, that it fails to see that Democrats and the country have already processed their defeat and have picked up the pieces and taken up the fight against this shit bag president, corrupt cabinet and the Republicans in Congress who enable him. From their very actions, the Democrats have "gotten over it" and are now working to minimize the damage that Republicans and Trump are intentionally inflicting on this country. They will lose a lot of battles with their numbers decimated and their powers diminished, but they're not whining and crying, they're working. If they can't stop the destruction, they will at least make sure the American people will know who hurt them, the party with all the power now, the Republicans. When the Democrats lost the election, the Republicans lost their excuses. Nobody knows yet how this scary new situation will work out, and nobody owes the worthless limey piece of shit any answers to questions about people it hates. The stupid ass troll can go pound sand.

[The Dark Avenger]

I guess you missed the following in November, WLPOS:

http://www.pmcarpenter.com/2016/11/democrats-should-oppose-early-and-often.html

http://www.pmcarpenter.com/2016/11/why-cant-democrats-learn-how-to-play-politics-.html

http://www.pmcarpenter.com/2016/11/democratic-recriminations-and-patience.html

http://www.pmcarpenter.com/2016/11/where-republicans-are-and-democrats-should-be.html

And that was just from November.

Having a problem remembering things, old sport?

[Peter G]

Or you can just make fun of them. I would not for one pico second assume that such as Duff is persuadable about anything. But that's not why he should be answered. What he does now is classic concern trolling. Does anybody seriously think Duff gives a rat's ass about the Democratic Party? Of course not. He hates everyone associated with it. See his website if you have doubts. But I made my position clear above. I see what he wants. He wants to be normalized. He wants his opinions accepted. His "jokes" he would have made real. He wants to present toxic bullshit as the way forward for the Democratic Party.

I'm not having that. I dissect him for others to see. And I am obviously not the only person to do this.

[Anne J]

I don't know why the worthless limey piece of shit thinks it's fooling anybody here. It's not that I think the w.l.p.o.s. is stupid, it's the way it treats others like they are stupid that is so off putting.

[Tony]

Good post and good link. Thanks

[John S]

I agree with Tony completely on the vice and virtue of the Democratic party but must respond to the whole of this commentary. Everyone is making this analysis too hard. Democrats who aspire to political power for their party need to start by looking at a map and recognize the ways our democracy is regionalized as a system -- the electoral college, the Senate, the way house districts can be gerrymandered and the role of states. I have been very impressed by the mayor of South Bend, but that starts with a key criteria -- he won two elections in South Bend and follows with the down to earth ways he explains local politics. The most important Democrats right now -- whether Democrats recognize it or not -- are people who know how to win elections in places the Democrats have lost in the last eight years -- which is why Minnesota Senators are more interesting to me than New York and Massachusetts Senators. The Minnesota Senators have meetings going on all over rural Minnesota gathering opinions from farmers for the next farm bill. Of course the farm bill is socialism Republicans tolerate and even advocate because that's where their power lies. And Democrats need to win in some of those places, and other places not entirely liberal with different local issues.

The DNC chair needs to be someone who can empower local organizing in 50 states and not be a distraction from the messaging. For everyone whining about HRC not being a good candidate - yes she should have campaigned in Michigan et al more - the first step to her losing was Democrats losing all those Congressional seats in the preceding years, some of which were worker oriented but need their socialism packaged as patriotism and more rural areas that Obama managed to win in Presidential elections.

Maybe the mayor of South Bend can eventually be President despite being in the Eastern Time Zone. Has anyone else noticed that Trump in the first President from the Eastern Time Zone since Carter and the first from the Northeast US since Kennedy (admittedly HW Bush was Connecticut repackaged as Texas)?

As a general proposition I ignore Duffer as I have yet to hear anything from him that is simultaneously true and new information, but the reference to the chaotic first two years of the Clinton administration does disservice by omission. In that Congress taxes were raised enough to lower the deficit and interest rates (a fact Alan Greenspan acknowledged and the Wall Street journal reported, albeit deep in the paper) to begin the economic boom, which was not some coincidental turn of the business cycle; in 1993 Lloyd Bentson, then Treasury Secretary told a dubious Louis Rukyser to expect an economic boom like we hadn't seen in decades. In reality the Laffer curve is a very real phenomenon -- just drastically overrated as insight and too utterly obvious to justify branding as Laffer's unique insight -- and Rubin, Summers et al figured out how far up the left slope of the curve they could go without putting a drag on the economy. It was a tax increase on those of us in the top 10% of earners at the time, though the Republicans won the Congressional election claiming (lying it's called in common parlance) taxes increased for 80% of people and predicting economic doom -- they were wrong, though we do now have Kasich claiming credit for balancing the budget in the last term of the Clinton administration.

Simple message for the Democrats -- look at a map and figure out how to win elections in fly-over country -- where our Presidents have come from. We don't need one wing of the party triumphing over another wing of the party -- we need new faces claiming the adult supervision brand.

And finally Amy Klobuchar 2020!!!! Because I just can't let go of the woman thing (given the misogyny of our current administration, I hasten to add that phrasing indicative of grasping, grabbing or hanging onto is entirely metaphorical, expressing attachment to and yearnings for progress, ideology, shared values and political goals).

[Tony]

Well, I guess he has metamorphosed into a concern troll from the Trump-worshiping troll he was prior to the election. I wouldn't know, since I don't read any posts by him or the comments under his posts. One saves time by realizing that some people were born without a conscience, and while it is important to recognize that fact, there is not much one can do about it.

Making fun of our current Republican leadership IS a valid strategy however. But, with your quite good skills at doing this, I would recommend aiming a little *higher* than our inconsequential British guest.

[Anne J]

I would suggest that they also include the red parts of the blue states as well. Like Orange County, Inland Empire, Central Valley here in California for example. This state is much more conservative than people think it is and I'm sure other blue states have similar areas that are bright red as well. As important as it is to be in flyover country, the blue states should not be taken for granted either. I have lived in southern California my whole life in very Republican areas. Remember that in 2008 Barack Obama won California but it was also the same election that gave us prop. H8, the anti marriage equality ballot initiative that sadly a majority of the electorate voted 'Yes" on. The only reason why I voted "No" on it was because "Fuck No!" wasn't an option. I think that says something about how complicated and complex our politics really are here. I am Republican but I vote for Democrats because I support their policies. You may call me a concern troll if you want, but as Republican, I think the Democrats have a great product, they just don't seem very good at selling it.