Quo Vadis, Democrats?

[crazy canuck]

I was just gonna ask if Obama is doing anything. The same for Bush on the other side. But I guess neither is interested in fighting the dismantling of democracy and rule of law.

The Dem leadership and never trumpers lose all credibility when they say democracy is at stake during an election, and then when democracy really is at stake they go silent

[The Minsky Moment]

In other news, Obama is tweeting about his March Madness picks. Nothing about Trump in months.

At least put "Columbia Faculty and Students" in every single bracket slot FFS.

[Oexmelin]

Which remainds me:

Call your alumni office in your universities, and ask them to stand up against the Trump attacks on higher education.

[Sheilbh]

Well, what you are describing is the way the party already is.  The leadership of the party doesn't have much say in most elections.  What the more radical elements of the party have never understood is that they are a minority, not because they are being held back by the party elites, but because they fundamentally unpopular.  They represent maybe a third of the Democrats, who in turn make up less than half the voting public.

I think the frame of radical v moderate is wrong in this case - and I think it's wrong in a really interesting way.

So first of all the the identitarian turn I think starts in 2016 with Clinton's campaign, and I think it's a way of outflanking an attack from the left. It starts with (often justifiable) attacks on "Bernie bros" and Sanders' very bad record on racial diversity in the staffers he's hired. There was a very celebrated (loads of articles written about it) attack line Clinton used that "breaking up the banks won't end racism". I really distinctly remember even at the time (and at this point I had too much faith in Americans) being struck by the last ad I think her campaign released being entirely about who was supporting her rather than any sense of what she wanted to do (I think it was a riff on "I'm with her").

In that DNC Chair Forum that Jonathan Chait wrote about in the article you posted about - the one candidate for DNC Chair who refused to commit to increasing at-large DNC seats for transgender people or creating a Muslim caucus was Faiz Shakir. He was the "populist left" candidate and formerly of Sanders campaign. The reason was that he was "frustated by the way in which we utilise identity to break ourselves apart". He wanted the DNC to focus on people who are "driven by program and mission [who can bring] identities to the problems we need to solve [...] let's get into that, not separate ourselves out, give pats on the head for being in various identity groups." The guy who won backed both of those proposals and quite strongly pushed back on that line of argument. He's also the guy making the "good billionaire"/"bad billionaire" distinction and is reaching out to "mend fences" with Silicon Valley plutocrats frustrated at their competitors seizure of power and rents. I don't think a moderate v radical framework explains things here.

And I'd go further than that. I'd love to see a US poll on this but there's been amazing polling in the UK on some of these issues. When you explain privilege in terms people understand well over 60% of people think it's an issue in Britain; when you talk about privilege that falls to under 30%. Some people just hate the phrase and swing from agreeing to disagreeing - but the big swing is lots of people move to "don't know", because they don't know what you're talking about. I've banged on about this for ages but I think most people basically agree with what is characterised as "wokness". But its been communicated in the language of a grad school seminar (again to go to your Chait article, watching the clip of Harrison breaking down the "intricate" rules on gender and non-binary candidates and it's very academic categorising); often it's been communicated by HR departments and corporate leaders; and it's been enforced by parts of the media as if it were already hegemonic. I think it's that combo more than the underlying issues or positions (as I always say policy is possibly the least important thing in party politics) that is the problem and is exceptionally alienating when politics needs to bring people in.

So I don't think it's moderates v radicals as Ken Martin, the Clinton campaign, Delta airlines and the NYT, for example, were intensely comfortable with this turn. I think a more useful frame is insurgents v establishment - and I think there are both within radical and moderate wings of the Democrats. I think there are times when the establishment works - when a dominant order has been established, is well-functioning and it's basically about sharing the proceeds of growth (you think of the high ideal days of the New Deal order, or the neo-liberal/end of history peak in the 90s). But I don't think that describes the current moment or need.

I also think there's a series of decisions that have been made by establishment Democratic leaders that have been consequential failure. Obama's deal with the Clintons and pressuring not to stand in 2016 (an election I think Biden would have won, ending Trump then), changing the primary rules and times to prevent a challenge to Biden and sticking by him as the candidate for far too long, seamlessly swinging to Harris and then in that campaign the, as someone, put it Liz Cheney Eras Tour. There's political incompetence there from consultants and party leaders and apparatchiks behind the scenes that should be really unforgivable if you're a partisan. But what I find really striking is that at the same time their message was: "the republic, constitutional government and democracy is in danger" and I think there's just a profound mismatch between the seriousness of that message and the callowness of those decisions. At best people think they don't really mean it, at worst that they don't care.

OSC may be too left for my personal taste, but she is one the few that seems to grasp the urgency of the situation.  If she primaried Schumer tomorrow, she'd have my virtual vote.  And if some more radical proposals get thrown out - it's about time the Democrats start pushing the Overton window back there way.  I'm not saying do it stupid like "defund the police" - which is the GOP platform now anyways. But how about send out Bernie or some younger firebrand to advocate a "Patriot Tax" - a one-time 100% tax on all personal wealth over $100 million, used to fund tax cuts for the working stiffs and expanded health care and childcare coverage?  Stir shit up.  Seize the agenda.  Flood their fucking zone.

I think AOC is a really impressive political talent - even if I'm not actually sure on her politics.

But I agree - and I'd also look at the progressive era (if we're in a Gilded Age time of imperialism, praise for President McKinly and obscene wealth) and rabble rouse about good government, trust-busting, political reform. For example it's been proposed by AOC and Matt Gaetz (bizarrely) in the past but I'd look at proposals to restrict share purchases by members of Congress and their families. Instead of mending fences with Silicon Valley and talking about good or bad billionaires - I'd say no billionaires in government.

It ties to the establishment v insurgent frame that I think matters - but I think it's really important that the alternative to Trump (or radical or far right wherever else you're looking at) must not be a defence of the status quo.

[Sheilbh]

Again I'm not actually a massive fan of Bernie, but this is what I mean. Him and AOC doing a "stop oligarchy" rally in Denver:


34,000 attendees - according to the Sanders team over half of the people who signed up to attend were not from Sanders' (very large) supporter list. I saw a clip of Sanders saying lots of nice things about AOC but also making this point:

Sanders: She worked hard, and she pulled off a major upset. The reason I say all of that is not just to praise Alexandria, but to tell you—and the people of America—that what Alexandria did, you can do. There are millions of young people out there who love this country, who are disgusted with what they are seeing, and who are prepared to get involved in the political process.

When you've got 30,000+ people turning up for a rally in a non-election year there's an appetite and demand out there for politics and they're not getting it from a lot of Democrats right now.

[mongers]

Again I'm not actually a massive fan of Bernie, but this is what I mean. Him and AOC doing a "stop oligarchy" rally in Denver:

34,000 attendees - according to the Sanders team over half of the people who signed up to attend were not from Sanders' (very large) supporter list. I saw a clip of Sanders saying lots of nice things about AOC but also making this point:

Sanders: She worked hard, and she pulled off a major upset. The reason I say all of that is not just to praise Alexandria, but to tell you—and the people of America—that what Alexandria did, you can do. There are millions of young people out there who love this country, who are disgusted with what they are seeing, and who are prepared to get involved in the political process.

When you've got 30,000+ people turning up for a rally in a non-election year there's an appetite and demand out there for politics and they're not getting it from a lot of Democrats right now.

The democratic project needs a modern Tom Paine to step forward now, otherwise the forces of democracy in the USA are shut up in a valley forge till when?

[Sheilbh]

Reading the stories from books about Biden's administrations, for example Ron Klain talking to writer of this book:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/apr/02/biden-ron-klain-trump-debate-prep-book-chris-whipple
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/apr/03/biden-white-house-meeting-trump-debate-photoshoot

And the Democrats need to clear house. The approach of insisting Biden is actually very sharp, attacking people for raising questions about his age to smoothly moving to acknowledging that of course we all knew Biden wasn't in great shape and I can reveal all the gory details in my upcoming book is not edifying. Anyone involved needs to go.

I'd add that I think there are genuine constitutional and national security questions from all of this - I genuinely wonder who was running things. In a very practical way, what happened with decisions when Biden was not having a good day? Were they just being pushed until he was on form, were they being made by subordinates in the White House, by the relevant cabinet members? No doubt we'll get all the details after years of fierce denial in, say, Jake Sullivan's memoir.

[Neil]

The problem with purging anyone who was aware of the fraudulent state of Biden's capacity is that means poleaxing much of the senior figures of the Democratic Party.  And while I know that's appealing due to the incompetence of those people, there's some talent in there that you'd like to have on side.  And by that, I'm mostly thinking of Buttigieg and Granholm.  Maybe Lloyd Austin too.  You do want to preserve some of the history and knowledge of the institution, even while you're chucking Schumer and Pelosi into the woodchipper of history.  That's the sort of thing that gets you the Trumpublican Party.

[viper37]

Joe Biden Was "a Shell of Himself" by End of Term. Hunter Biden Didn't Help.

Veteran political journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes share details from their new book about Joe Biden's decline; his relationship with Hunter Biden, his "closest political adviser"; and his campaign's attempt to undermine Kamala Harris.