The Democrats in power in Congress and in the executive branch are about as centrist as you can get, Charlie. It's a small minority that aren't. It's gotten them squat. They're up against a historical trend with midterm elections. Being centrist enough isn't the issue. It's a seeming unwillingness in the Biden administration to go on the attack constantly at the GOP.
The " center" only cares about the price of a gallon of gas. Other than title 42 Biden hasn't changed much of Trumps immigration policies at border other than halting a wall. You know technology right out of antiquity. People who are desperate are going to come no matter what so either fix the problem at the source or have something better in place than a wall. As far as bail probably not a winner with rising crime but there's also plenty of crimes committed by people on bail. There hasn't been anything passed in this administration that resembles something out the of mainstream. The BBB failure wasn't a big progressive overreach I don't think but then I'm not a republican so there's that. So Charlie wants Dems to be republican lite without the deplorable aspect? If we haven't learned anything these past 5 or 6 years it doesn't matter what democrats do, half the country is against it and there isn't a thing that will convince them otherwise. If I had the reason why Latinos have bled off I wouldn't need to go to my 9 to 5 Monday. Probably should start if I had to guess with they aren't a monolithic block and are susceptible to same fears and misinformation as anyone else start there. As far as " independents" well see " price of gas"...
I think The Bulwark should open a discussion of what happens if Biden gets another shot at a Supreme Court nominee, when the Republicans are in control of the Senate.
McConnell’s theft of Obama’s Supreme Court pick was, in my mind, a purely Unconstitutional gambit that paid off, mainly owing to the fact of its audacity as a wholly unprecedented act of norm-breaking. The public was not outraged, partly because it was a power-grab that a large minority was completely on board with, and partly because any objection coming from the remainder of the electorate was diffuse and confused (and the fact that Obama was not willing to go scorched-earth over it, because, well, he never went scorched-earth. The Best lack all Conviction and all that).
But the new power that McConnell has arrogated for the Majority Leader in Supreme Court nominations, viz. the ability to simply deny the President his/her appointment if they belong to the opposing party, is beyond outrageous and cannot stand as a precedent for future nominations to the Court. McConnell’s gambit has Constitutional Crisis written all over it, and it’s something that has the potential to spill over into political violence.
So we should get out ahead of this kind of scenario, and wargame what the messaging should be, if McConnell is in position to try to re-run the Garland gambit.
My take (for what it is worth), is that Article II Sec. 2 accords the President the prerogative obligation to make appointments to the Supreme Court. “Obligation” because making needed appointments is what the text says the President shall do; the President does not have the prerogative to sit on a nomination until the Senate has an ideological composition favorable to the nominee. But the Senate’s ‘advise and consent’ prerogative is pursuant to this prerogative obligation of the President’s; they cannot act in such a way (notably, by refusing to play their Constitutional role and acting as if the nominee doesn’t exist) that puts the President in violation of his/her duties. The Senate, in other words, must make an affirmative response to the nominee, with a hearing or at least a Yea/Nay vote. For the Majority Leader to short-circuit the process of appointments by simply refusing to respond to a nomination, is in effect a cancellation of the President’s appointment-power – and it is a violation o the Separation of Powers regards the Court itself, in the bargain. It is Unconstitutional, coming and going.
A Majority Leader pulling the Garland gambit is throwing the country into a Constitutional Crisis; and in such an event, the President should have the prerogative to directly appoint the nominee. After all, the clear implication of the text is that the Senate must respond to nominees (“advise and consent” are affirmative, transitive verbs, not intransitive verbs indicating acting by omission). Nonaction by the Senate can and should be taken as implied consent. A President with audacity equal to McConnell’s can call a press conference, announce the appointment, and send the new Justice in a limo direct to the Supreme Court. What can the Majority Leader do about it? How many divisions does he have? McConnell is smart enough, I reckon, that if a Democrat President seriously threatens to do this, he will back down, and agree to abide by our traditions for hearings and vote. And it will help the President’s case, if there is a public conversation about all this before we are right in the thick of a (entirely foreseeable) crisis.
His #1 priority is getting then keeping power. Morality is way down his list of priorities. Which means that if Trump becomes the Republican presidential nominee in 2024, OF COURSE McConnell will support him because a Republican POTUS means more power for Senate Republicans.
McConnell doesn't have to be amoral or immoral. He just needs to prioritize power over morality. Which he does. In spades.
Given his sincere confusion over the line of questioning about “moral red lines” I wonder what exactly he meant when he said that DJT was morally responsible for January 6. What if anything does he mean by that word?
The root problem of illegal immigration are those who employ them. Until we get serious about seizing assets and putting those who employ illegal immigrants in prison, it will not stop. As long as there are jobs, they will come. Those actually seeking asylum usually go through proper channels. When plants get raided and hundreds are rounded up, the employer carries on and just keeps the revolving door open because they never face any repercussions. The fines imposed make nary a dent on their profits.
Charlie, I think there are a lot of voters who aren't being called out. The ones who religiously split tickets and vote against the party in power, for "balance" or whatever they *say*. Many couldn't stomach Trump for another term, but now it's back to the same program: keep everything frozen until parts atrophy.
10 years ago I hated listening to Charlie Sykes on TV or reading his articles. But I did, in a constant attempt to challenge myself and prove myself wrong. Now, I rarely ever miss a podcast and his writings help me digest the insanity of our times. There are 2 types of people. Those that challenge their thought patterns and realize that complexities not seen are possible. And those that challenge their thought processes zero and are locked into running their lives with entrenched beliefs out of security. So did I move closer to Charlie's world or did he move closer to mine?
The constant admonishments by Bulwark for Dems to tack to the center (i.e., center-right) are more indicative of the staff's desire for Democrats to become more like the Republican Party of the 1970s, so they have somewhere to land.
After hearing McConnell's stumbling bumbling response to moral red lines. Perhaps it's time for our law makers to have an Ethics Refresher training webinar or something.
It was almost like Mitch was scoffing at the notion of ethics being an important topic of discussion. Wow...from the former Senate Majority leader. Sad.
Democrat messaging is bad. It has been bad pretty much my entire life. It will continue to be bad.
Why is it bad. I suspect it is tied to Democrat identity (just as GoP messaging is tied to GoP identity). The Democrats see themselves as the party of policy and solutions. The party of rationality. They are intrinsically incapable of "lowering" themselves to making the types of appeals and using the types of language that they need to use in order to effectively combat GoP messaging.
Not only do they tend to hold themselves to that standard, they are also held to that standard by the media.
When they try to use the type of rhetoric they need to use, they then turn around and walk it back--either because the membership objects to it or the media objects to it (or both). They then apologize for it all over the place. This makes them look weak and inconstant. Milquetoasts.
HC was bold enough to call some people deplorable. You would have thought the world was coming to an end. Especially from the screaming from the people who regularly think of and talk about the Democrats essentially being the spawn of Satan.
Part (maybe even a large part) of what we are seeing can be attributed to the mechanism of schismogenesis (self-conscious differentiation). This occurs when you have adjacent cultures/systems that are continually defining and redefining themselves in opposition to each other. We are not X.
I am a professional rhetorician. I have a pretty good idea of the advice that another professional rhetorician would give them. They apparently aren't listening to it--because, in essence, they are unable or unwilling to follow it.
The GoP got in early and staked out their ground in religion and common-sensical notions. They wrapped themselves up in biblical language and morality (particularly and specifically Old Testament tropes) and as the defenders of Holy tradition.
This, of course, ignores a lot of New Testament morality that is better espoused by the Democrats--but Americans have always preferred fire and brimestone over love thy neighbor.
So because the GoP got in first and because the Democrats are adverse to being identified with a specific religious tradition, this ground is closed off to them.
Long story short, the Democrats do not have a lot of effective rhetorical ground that they are actually willing/capable to use. Being a diverse coalition just serves to limit options further.
The Democrats are not capable of solving their message problem.
Someone has to solve it for them, somebody who ISN'T a Democrat. There are people in the center who are well positioned to do this. There are people in the media who are well positioned to do this.
They don't see it as their problem and/or they see it as not making them money. So they don't really do it.
If, at some point, they don't do it--well, then. we ARE screwed.
Question. You cite Virginia as being a case where Dems didn't move to the center. But in Virginia, they literally nominated a centrist candidate. They nominated the most centrist candidate that you could possibly find. And he lost. You can't be like 'actually the centrist was a socialist all along' when there's no evidence of that. It would be like claiming that Hillary lost in 2016 because she was too much like Bernie. It's nonsense.
The other question is this: what exactly is the thesis here? That Democrats need to focus more on kitchen table issues? Well if that's the case the people holding things up are not liberals but moderates like Manchin who refuse to vote on anything. He's the guy who let the Tax Credit expire, remember? Not liberals, but moderates.
It's also worth noting that poll wise, voters prefer the GOP on the child tax credit despite the fact that they oppose it, which tells you that the voters are not responding to policy, and that outcomes are not being driven based on what is actually happening. But we already knew that, because every GOP president since Reagan has crashed the economy before he left office, and every Democratic president has righted the ship, only for voters to think the GOP are fiscally responsible.
You can yell all about 'moving to the center' but you have no cases where this resulted in anything good or successful.
Move to the middle has become a catchphrase and less effective of an answer to what needs to be done. The Dems problem is they come up with their solutions in the vacuum of "like minded*" people. Once they present their great idea to the public they have spent so much time telling each how ground breaking and transformational it is, it is unimaginable to them when they get pushback. The information is out there for what most people want but it takes the ability to listen and then act instead of presenting what you think is best for all. 2/3s of the country could pretty much peacefully coexist if it were possible to ignore the 1\6 on both side that get the most attention.
The idea that the political discourse will improve at all is, to say the least, far fetched. The American populace is, to a gravely large degree, ignorant of history. Profoundly gullible. Self serving and able to perform incredible feats of moral ( or amoral) mental gymnastics. Or worse. If such a large chunk is chronically and deliberately determined to support amoral politicians, there really is no solution. Add social media to the witches brew ( which is here to stay) and you have an endless buffett of shit sandwiches . Sorry to be so cynical but every day gets worse. Having a moral compass is a quaint notion. For many. Too many I fear. An unquenchable thirst for power and subjugation of ‘ the other’ is no way to run a country.
Yesterday JVL asked whether anything the Democrats might do would be able to improve their midterm situation. I found his analysis convincing. However, two things: Democrats should try to avoid making their situation worse, and nihilism is not an option.
The Democrats in power in Congress and in the executive branch are about as centrist as you can get, Charlie. It's a small minority that aren't. It's gotten them squat. They're up against a historical trend with midterm elections. Being centrist enough isn't the issue. It's a seeming unwillingness in the Biden administration to go on the attack constantly at the GOP.
The " center" only cares about the price of a gallon of gas. Other than title 42 Biden hasn't changed much of Trumps immigration policies at border other than halting a wall. You know technology right out of antiquity. People who are desperate are going to come no matter what so either fix the problem at the source or have something better in place than a wall. As far as bail probably not a winner with rising crime but there's also plenty of crimes committed by people on bail. There hasn't been anything passed in this administration that resembles something out the of mainstream. The BBB failure wasn't a big progressive overreach I don't think but then I'm not a republican so there's that. So Charlie wants Dems to be republican lite without the deplorable aspect? If we haven't learned anything these past 5 or 6 years it doesn't matter what democrats do, half the country is against it and there isn't a thing that will convince them otherwise. If I had the reason why Latinos have bled off I wouldn't need to go to my 9 to 5 Monday. Probably should start if I had to guess with they aren't a monolithic block and are susceptible to same fears and misinformation as anyone else start there. As far as " independents" well see " price of gas"...
I think The Bulwark should open a discussion of what happens if Biden gets another shot at a Supreme Court nominee, when the Republicans are in control of the Senate.
McConnell’s theft of Obama’s Supreme Court pick was, in my mind, a purely Unconstitutional gambit that paid off, mainly owing to the fact of its audacity as a wholly unprecedented act of norm-breaking. The public was not outraged, partly because it was a power-grab that a large minority was completely on board with, and partly because any objection coming from the remainder of the electorate was diffuse and confused (and the fact that Obama was not willing to go scorched-earth over it, because, well, he never went scorched-earth. The Best lack all Conviction and all that).
But the new power that McConnell has arrogated for the Majority Leader in Supreme Court nominations, viz. the ability to simply deny the President his/her appointment if they belong to the opposing party, is beyond outrageous and cannot stand as a precedent for future nominations to the Court. McConnell’s gambit has Constitutional Crisis written all over it, and it’s something that has the potential to spill over into political violence.
So we should get out ahead of this kind of scenario, and wargame what the messaging should be, if McConnell is in position to try to re-run the Garland gambit.
My take (for what it is worth), is that Article II Sec. 2 accords the President the prerogative obligation to make appointments to the Supreme Court. “Obligation” because making needed appointments is what the text says the President shall do; the President does not have the prerogative to sit on a nomination until the Senate has an ideological composition favorable to the nominee. But the Senate’s ‘advise and consent’ prerogative is pursuant to this prerogative obligation of the President’s; they cannot act in such a way (notably, by refusing to play their Constitutional role and acting as if the nominee doesn’t exist) that puts the President in violation of his/her duties. The Senate, in other words, must make an affirmative response to the nominee, with a hearing or at least a Yea/Nay vote. For the Majority Leader to short-circuit the process of appointments by simply refusing to respond to a nomination, is in effect a cancellation of the President’s appointment-power – and it is a violation o the Separation of Powers regards the Court itself, in the bargain. It is Unconstitutional, coming and going.
A Majority Leader pulling the Garland gambit is throwing the country into a Constitutional Crisis; and in such an event, the President should have the prerogative to directly appoint the nominee. After all, the clear implication of the text is that the Senate must respond to nominees (“advise and consent” are affirmative, transitive verbs, not intransitive verbs indicating acting by omission). Nonaction by the Senate can and should be taken as implied consent. A President with audacity equal to McConnell’s can call a press conference, announce the appointment, and send the new Justice in a limo direct to the Supreme Court. What can the Majority Leader do about it? How many divisions does he have? McConnell is smart enough, I reckon, that if a Democrat President seriously threatens to do this, he will back down, and agree to abide by our traditions for hearings and vote. And it will help the President’s case, if there is a public conversation about all this before we are right in the thick of a (entirely foreseeable) crisis.
How hard is it to figure out McConnell?
His #1 priority is getting then keeping power. Morality is way down his list of priorities. Which means that if Trump becomes the Republican presidential nominee in 2024, OF COURSE McConnell will support him because a Republican POTUS means more power for Senate Republicans.
McConnell doesn't have to be amoral or immoral. He just needs to prioritize power over morality. Which he does. In spades.
Given his sincere confusion over the line of questioning about “moral red lines” I wonder what exactly he meant when he said that DJT was morally responsible for January 6. What if anything does he mean by that word?
The root problem of illegal immigration are those who employ them. Until we get serious about seizing assets and putting those who employ illegal immigrants in prison, it will not stop. As long as there are jobs, they will come. Those actually seeking asylum usually go through proper channels. When plants get raided and hundreds are rounded up, the employer carries on and just keeps the revolving door open because they never face any repercussions. The fines imposed make nary a dent on their profits.
Early 2023 prediction: After many decades, "Volodymyr" finally overtakes "Vladimir" in popular American/European boy's baby names.
Charlie, I think there are a lot of voters who aren't being called out. The ones who religiously split tickets and vote against the party in power, for "balance" or whatever they *say*. Many couldn't stomach Trump for another term, but now it's back to the same program: keep everything frozen until parts atrophy.
10 years ago I hated listening to Charlie Sykes on TV or reading his articles. But I did, in a constant attempt to challenge myself and prove myself wrong. Now, I rarely ever miss a podcast and his writings help me digest the insanity of our times. There are 2 types of people. Those that challenge their thought patterns and realize that complexities not seen are possible. And those that challenge their thought processes zero and are locked into running their lives with entrenched beliefs out of security. So did I move closer to Charlie's world or did he move closer to mine?
The constant admonishments by Bulwark for Dems to tack to the center (i.e., center-right) are more indicative of the staff's desire for Democrats to become more like the Republican Party of the 1970s, so they have somewhere to land.
After hearing McConnell's stumbling bumbling response to moral red lines. Perhaps it's time for our law makers to have an Ethics Refresher training webinar or something.
It was almost like Mitch was scoffing at the notion of ethics being an important topic of discussion. Wow...from the former Senate Majority leader. Sad.
Here is what I see:
Democrat messaging is bad. It has been bad pretty much my entire life. It will continue to be bad.
Why is it bad. I suspect it is tied to Democrat identity (just as GoP messaging is tied to GoP identity). The Democrats see themselves as the party of policy and solutions. The party of rationality. They are intrinsically incapable of "lowering" themselves to making the types of appeals and using the types of language that they need to use in order to effectively combat GoP messaging.
Not only do they tend to hold themselves to that standard, they are also held to that standard by the media.
When they try to use the type of rhetoric they need to use, they then turn around and walk it back--either because the membership objects to it or the media objects to it (or both). They then apologize for it all over the place. This makes them look weak and inconstant. Milquetoasts.
HC was bold enough to call some people deplorable. You would have thought the world was coming to an end. Especially from the screaming from the people who regularly think of and talk about the Democrats essentially being the spawn of Satan.
Part (maybe even a large part) of what we are seeing can be attributed to the mechanism of schismogenesis (self-conscious differentiation). This occurs when you have adjacent cultures/systems that are continually defining and redefining themselves in opposition to each other. We are not X.
I am a professional rhetorician. I have a pretty good idea of the advice that another professional rhetorician would give them. They apparently aren't listening to it--because, in essence, they are unable or unwilling to follow it.
The GoP got in early and staked out their ground in religion and common-sensical notions. They wrapped themselves up in biblical language and morality (particularly and specifically Old Testament tropes) and as the defenders of Holy tradition.
This, of course, ignores a lot of New Testament morality that is better espoused by the Democrats--but Americans have always preferred fire and brimestone over love thy neighbor.
So because the GoP got in first and because the Democrats are adverse to being identified with a specific religious tradition, this ground is closed off to them.
Long story short, the Democrats do not have a lot of effective rhetorical ground that they are actually willing/capable to use. Being a diverse coalition just serves to limit options further.
The Democrats are not capable of solving their message problem.
Someone has to solve it for them, somebody who ISN'T a Democrat. There are people in the center who are well positioned to do this. There are people in the media who are well positioned to do this.
They don't see it as their problem and/or they see it as not making them money. So they don't really do it.
If, at some point, they don't do it--well, then. we ARE screwed.
Question. You cite Virginia as being a case where Dems didn't move to the center. But in Virginia, they literally nominated a centrist candidate. They nominated the most centrist candidate that you could possibly find. And he lost. You can't be like 'actually the centrist was a socialist all along' when there's no evidence of that. It would be like claiming that Hillary lost in 2016 because she was too much like Bernie. It's nonsense.
The other question is this: what exactly is the thesis here? That Democrats need to focus more on kitchen table issues? Well if that's the case the people holding things up are not liberals but moderates like Manchin who refuse to vote on anything. He's the guy who let the Tax Credit expire, remember? Not liberals, but moderates.
It's also worth noting that poll wise, voters prefer the GOP on the child tax credit despite the fact that they oppose it, which tells you that the voters are not responding to policy, and that outcomes are not being driven based on what is actually happening. But we already knew that, because every GOP president since Reagan has crashed the economy before he left office, and every Democratic president has righted the ship, only for voters to think the GOP are fiscally responsible.
You can yell all about 'moving to the center' but you have no cases where this resulted in anything good or successful.
Move to the middle has become a catchphrase and less effective of an answer to what needs to be done. The Dems problem is they come up with their solutions in the vacuum of "like minded*" people. Once they present their great idea to the public they have spent so much time telling each how ground breaking and transformational it is, it is unimaginable to them when they get pushback. The information is out there for what most people want but it takes the ability to listen and then act instead of presenting what you think is best for all. 2/3s of the country could pretty much peacefully coexist if it were possible to ignore the 1\6 on both side that get the most attention.
The idea that the political discourse will improve at all is, to say the least, far fetched. The American populace is, to a gravely large degree, ignorant of history. Profoundly gullible. Self serving and able to perform incredible feats of moral ( or amoral) mental gymnastics. Or worse. If such a large chunk is chronically and deliberately determined to support amoral politicians, there really is no solution. Add social media to the witches brew ( which is here to stay) and you have an endless buffett of shit sandwiches . Sorry to be so cynical but every day gets worse. Having a moral compass is a quaint notion. For many. Too many I fear. An unquenchable thirst for power and subjugation of ‘ the other’ is no way to run a country.
Yesterday JVL asked whether anything the Democrats might do would be able to improve their midterm situation. I found his analysis convincing. However, two things: Democrats should try to avoid making their situation worse, and nihilism is not an option.