The Progressive Caucus is 99/435th of the House (99/221th or 45% or the Dems) and only 1/100th of the Senate. That leaves plenty of Dems to be non-Progressive. I'm not understanding why wanting the Progressive Caucus (who, I assume, represent districts that share their politics) to be less progressive makes any more sense than the wanting the Black Caucus to be less Black.
You are spot on here, Helen, and those percentages seen accurately to me. I have never heard a Democratic politician say any of things we are accused of believing, but the rights' messaging doninates the conversation, so the Democrats have to come up with a countervailing messsge.
And my personal experience, with all of my friends being Portland liberals, is that none of us believe the things the press and right wingers try to say that we think and espouse
On a separate note, and in the defense of those who were trying to change the way some of the brutal police forces operated, I would add too that even their "defund the police" slur was taken out of context and misinterpreted....on purpose.
I think we are fiddling while Rome burns because we don't know how to put out the fire — and it hasn't reached our street yet, so we still have some time to close our eyes and pretend arguing with our spouse about rearranging the furniture is the only thing we have to worry about.
Sorry, but the coat hanger stuff really should go away as it's not helpful - and criminalizing healthcare (hello Louisiana) seems better. Also, you know, I think maybe they have a point that women WILL HAVE NO CHOICE after Dobbs. If you have to really look for material for these Morning Shots newsletters so much so that you're going to write articles about things that are not newsworthy, then please consider going to every other day with it. This stuff just detracts from anything that is newsworthy.
Again, the language meisters are at it again--- now with abortion.
It reminds me of 2016 when people were reacting to the Sandernista tendency to embrace perceived socialist policies. "But, but, but Social democracy isn't socialism." Which is true. BUT any campaign that has to begin educating average voters about the nuances between social democracy, democratic socialism and socialism is already lost.
Equally true for choice and decision. The differences would make a great 30 minute talk show topic---there are interesting things to be learned. But not in the context of political campaigns.
"Legal, Safe and Rare" has been the understandable phraseology that reflects the majority of Democratic voters. And it is easily understood by average voters.
Other than replacing "rare" with "accessible," I didn't see anything terribly objectionable in the updated Democratic talking points.
As someone on the "Right" who is nonetheless generally in favor of legal abortion, I've always thought the term "pro-Choice" was an unfortunate euphemism, but I guess it flows off the tongue better than "pro-Decision." It also at least recognizes the significance of the issue, since the connotation of "choice" is that it's something one deliberates over.
"Safe, legal, and rare" is a brilliant formulation, which I would never tamper with. Here, I agree strongly with Charlie. Changing that one to remove the part that appeals across the aisle is a huge communications mistake. "Safe, legal, and accessible" sounds like a pro-lifer's nightmare scenario of abundant abortions performed on whim. If Charlie's criticism had focused on that one point, then I would entirely agree. But there is a lot more in these talking points...
"Unwanted pregnancy" (from the original talking points) sounds callous, because it seems to ignore the ethical importance of the issue. "Unexpected pregnancy" might be slightly less jarring. This one gets a "meh" from me.
"Conscience clause" versus "refusal of care" doesn't raise any hairs on my neck, but I'd be open to persuasion.
The one point on which I think the new talking points are a significant improvement is the last one: "Back-alley abortions/coat hangers" versus "Criminalizing healthcare." While I have my objections to using the term "healthcare" (again, a morally neutral term to describe what should be a profound ethical choice), the gory images are counterproductive. They turn people off thinking about the issue in the first place, and they remind people that abortion is a serious procedure rather than a "decision." People have a strong psychological tendency to "kill the messenger" — that is, to turn against the person who raises an unpleasant image they'd rather not have to think about.
So on the whole, these changes are a mixed bag. I love the "safe, legal, and rare" formulation, and I think killing that one is a scandal. But I don't understand the generalized anger at the rest of these talking points.
The Bulwark+ was created for a purpose. Not that I'm reading their mission statement but I'm just going by my own reason for subscribing and loving it. The friggin' GOP went off the deep end. In hindsight, I realized there were signs of some cultish behavior, but NOTHING even close to how it fast and deeply it devolved into one.
Many of us former GOP'ers became homeless and still are in a way. Currently....I have zero intentions of becoming a democrat but you can 100% count on me to fight to the death for our country, Republic and in response to our enemies and I include many of the GOP in that category. I will NOT be voting GOP for a very long time unless its under very specific circumstances where the other candidates are worse.
Regarding the discussion about Bulwark+/Charlie et al being hard on the Dems and that's making people mad is hard to fathom. OMG...let me remind you...this website ONLY exists because of Charlie and like-minded folks like him. What is this site? One of the VERY few that both the Left and Right can come and fairly exchange philosophies and ideas. That's HUGE!
I'm sort of seeing why I was attracted to the GOP in the first place with some of these discussions. I feel like some of the Dems walk into a busy intersection with a semi-truck barreling toward them and you guys want to point out that the truck's license tab expired.
You may say that Charlie does the same thing with his criticism of the Dems, but I totally disagree. FFS...he disowned his own tribe and started this great site and you are taking the site and pounding his head with it. You wouldn't even have been able to do that if it weren't for the originators that really took the courageous step to create this site and make it successful.
The further left leaning readers are posting their honest opinions so that's great and what this is all about, but let's remember where we were before (no Bulwark+) and where we are today and acknowledge and realize that this site is a very important step toward the middle.
Charlie - Do you have any input in what MTG or Madison Cawthorne do or say? No? Well, why rant at The Left or Dems for what Ilhan Omar or AOC have to say? Most of us are here because we see The Bulwark as a tiny light in the darkness that is the today’s Republican Party. Let’s concentrate on what we have in common - a belief in democracy, fair mindedness and basic human decency. And together find a way out of the looming catastrophe that threatens us all.
One of the comments I seem to see (that sticks out to me) is that why should The Bulwark (or other non-D organization) help out the D's with their messaging. The D's need to fix that themselves. It's their problem.
Why would you do it? Because it is better for the country and the survival of the republic than not doing it.
Whose problem is it? It is everyone's problem.
In an ideal political universe, with multiple functional and reasonable political parties, this is not an issue. It does not raise it's ugly head.
That is NOT where we are currently at.
Well, the D's need to earn my support!
They have--simply by not being ethno-nationalist thugs busy destroying the legitimacy of the foundations of our system and institutions. If that isn't enough to win your support in comparison to the other side, then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Regardless of whether they have a good message or rhetorically kiss you behind or cozy up to you.
Sometimes you hold you nose and do what is best for the country. It is seemingly an antiquated perspective.
I don't know where Ruy has been put the Democrats have been winning. In 2018 they won the House. In 2020 they kept the House and won the Presidency and the Senate. And I hate to break it to you doomsayers but I'm putting a Bulwark subscription up that the Dems retain the House and build on their Senate majority.
Primary season will be over in a few months and then the general election starts with the focus being on the absolute batshit crazy candidates the GOP primary voters can't help but to vote for. You have literal child abusers, rapists, wife beaters and QAnons running and winning GOP primaries.
All this handwringing over Dem messaging overlooks that Dem messaging has always been terrible but here we are with them controlling the Legislature and Executive branches.
And maybe if you want to criticize the Dems how about criticizing them for things they are actually doing and stop criticizing them for things they are not doing. For example the Senate abortion bill has 61% support when the House was passing it (https://reproductiverights.org/hart-research-poll-whpa-2021/). It is not an unpopular bill and turning a 70/30 Dem win into a 40/60 Dem loss. GOP state pols are literally chomping at the bit to criminalize women.
The Dems win this midterm against the historical odds.
The Democrat left wing, epitomized by the squad, are succeeding in sucker punching the ever tolerant party into irrelevance: Defund The Police vying for the grand prize of political malpractice. Don’t these zealots understand that their extremism undermines the ground on which they stand? Obviously not because they are guided by the light of righteousness and will lead their party right down the swirling drain of the crapper. What righteous morons! Perhaps equally as destructive as their counterparts on the right. The danger, to quote Yeats, is the center cannot hold! It is the center upon which our democracy rests with authoritarianism on either side. The times are perilous and show no sign of improving.
So just to be clear here.. hispanics don't care about policies or statements, they will be turned off from voting Democratic by the term 'latinx'? Never mind that the basis of the term is not something disparaging, but wanting to be more inclusive. Never mind that it seems to be something that is preferred by younger Hispanic activists. I'm curious, was there pushback to the terms 'African American' and 'Native American'? ? Were those terms supposed to lose liberals votes from those communities?
1) The GoP and the GoP adjacent have demonstrated an ever-increasing tendency (and acceptance) towards:
a) Racism;
b) Sexism;
c) Denial of rights to Other People;
d) A will (and action) to destroy the legitimacy of our system in order to gain and retain power;
e) A servile behavior towards an unsuccessful business man turned entertainer whos gives every indication of being not entirely sane;
f) willful lying and obstruction in pursuit of (e) while hypocritically bad-mouthing the person in private;
g) a willingness to accept, encourage or actually use political violence in pursuit of all of the above;
h) A will to use the power of government to enforce ethno-nationalist norms;
i) A willingness to use political power to openly punish opponents and threats made to do so;
j) Isn't really interested in governing other than apparently enforcing their ethno-nationalist agenda, punishing/owning opponents, and letting corporations have as much control of you as possible as long as the corp keeps politically quiet... oh, and the graft.
2) The Democratic party is a Chinese fire drill of competing and often antagonistic sub-groups ranging from extreme left to center-right that can barely find it's ass with both hands--that couldn't pass a far left agenda because half of them would vote against it.
Which one do you trust the future of the Republic with? Which one should you?
I know who I trust, if only because of their incompetence.
Hi Charlie, your piece on what you see as the bad word choices of the left are reminded me of a couple of comments made by Will Hurd in your excellent interview with him. He implied that he, poor thing, gets smeared with the implication that the craziest right-wingers in his party represent the whole party, while that never happens to Democrats. Or did I mis-hear that?
And then he said, the lesson of the 2020 election was, "don't be a jerk, and don't be a socialist," as if Joe Biden was a socialist, and. that's the reason for his lack of coattails. He seems to me to be imbibing too much Fox News himself to see that the problem that anyone who takes on Trumpism will face is a brutal smearing of their reputations, untethered to reality. Expect to be called a groomer, a sexual deviant, and a traitor from your fellow Republicans, Mr. Hurd, if you are really going to run a campaign that is critical of the Trump cult and the Big Lie.
The Progressive Caucus is 99/435th of the House (99/221th or 45% or the Dems) and only 1/100th of the Senate. That leaves plenty of Dems to be non-Progressive. I'm not understanding why wanting the Progressive Caucus (who, I assume, represent districts that share their politics) to be less progressive makes any more sense than the wanting the Black Caucus to be less Black.
You are spot on here, Helen, and those percentages seen accurately to me. I have never heard a Democratic politician say any of things we are accused of believing, but the rights' messaging doninates the conversation, so the Democrats have to come up with a countervailing messsge.
And my personal experience, with all of my friends being Portland liberals, is that none of us believe the things the press and right wingers try to say that we think and espouse
On a separate note, and in the defense of those who were trying to change the way some of the brutal police forces operated, I would add too that even their "defund the police" slur was taken out of context and misinterpreted....on purpose.
I think we are fiddling while Rome burns because we don't know how to put out the fire — and it hasn't reached our street yet, so we still have some time to close our eyes and pretend arguing with our spouse about rearranging the furniture is the only thing we have to worry about.
Welcome to Humpty Dumpty Land:
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
Win the definitional battle, win the war.
Sorry, but the coat hanger stuff really should go away as it's not helpful - and criminalizing healthcare (hello Louisiana) seems better. Also, you know, I think maybe they have a point that women WILL HAVE NO CHOICE after Dobbs. If you have to really look for material for these Morning Shots newsletters so much so that you're going to write articles about things that are not newsworthy, then please consider going to every other day with it. This stuff just detracts from anything that is newsworthy.
Again, the language meisters are at it again--- now with abortion.
It reminds me of 2016 when people were reacting to the Sandernista tendency to embrace perceived socialist policies. "But, but, but Social democracy isn't socialism." Which is true. BUT any campaign that has to begin educating average voters about the nuances between social democracy, democratic socialism and socialism is already lost.
Equally true for choice and decision. The differences would make a great 30 minute talk show topic---there are interesting things to be learned. But not in the context of political campaigns.
"Legal, Safe and Rare" has been the understandable phraseology that reflects the majority of Democratic voters. And it is easily understood by average voters.
Other than replacing "rare" with "accessible," I didn't see anything terribly objectionable in the updated Democratic talking points.
As someone on the "Right" who is nonetheless generally in favor of legal abortion, I've always thought the term "pro-Choice" was an unfortunate euphemism, but I guess it flows off the tongue better than "pro-Decision." It also at least recognizes the significance of the issue, since the connotation of "choice" is that it's something one deliberates over.
"Safe, legal, and rare" is a brilliant formulation, which I would never tamper with. Here, I agree strongly with Charlie. Changing that one to remove the part that appeals across the aisle is a huge communications mistake. "Safe, legal, and accessible" sounds like a pro-lifer's nightmare scenario of abundant abortions performed on whim. If Charlie's criticism had focused on that one point, then I would entirely agree. But there is a lot more in these talking points...
"Unwanted pregnancy" (from the original talking points) sounds callous, because it seems to ignore the ethical importance of the issue. "Unexpected pregnancy" might be slightly less jarring. This one gets a "meh" from me.
"Conscience clause" versus "refusal of care" doesn't raise any hairs on my neck, but I'd be open to persuasion.
The one point on which I think the new talking points are a significant improvement is the last one: "Back-alley abortions/coat hangers" versus "Criminalizing healthcare." While I have my objections to using the term "healthcare" (again, a morally neutral term to describe what should be a profound ethical choice), the gory images are counterproductive. They turn people off thinking about the issue in the first place, and they remind people that abortion is a serious procedure rather than a "decision." People have a strong psychological tendency to "kill the messenger" — that is, to turn against the person who raises an unpleasant image they'd rather not have to think about.
So on the whole, these changes are a mixed bag. I love the "safe, legal, and rare" formulation, and I think killing that one is a scandal. But I don't understand the generalized anger at the rest of these talking points.
The Bulwark+ was created for a purpose. Not that I'm reading their mission statement but I'm just going by my own reason for subscribing and loving it. The friggin' GOP went off the deep end. In hindsight, I realized there were signs of some cultish behavior, but NOTHING even close to how it fast and deeply it devolved into one.
Many of us former GOP'ers became homeless and still are in a way. Currently....I have zero intentions of becoming a democrat but you can 100% count on me to fight to the death for our country, Republic and in response to our enemies and I include many of the GOP in that category. I will NOT be voting GOP for a very long time unless its under very specific circumstances where the other candidates are worse.
Regarding the discussion about Bulwark+/Charlie et al being hard on the Dems and that's making people mad is hard to fathom. OMG...let me remind you...this website ONLY exists because of Charlie and like-minded folks like him. What is this site? One of the VERY few that both the Left and Right can come and fairly exchange philosophies and ideas. That's HUGE!
I'm sort of seeing why I was attracted to the GOP in the first place with some of these discussions. I feel like some of the Dems walk into a busy intersection with a semi-truck barreling toward them and you guys want to point out that the truck's license tab expired.
You may say that Charlie does the same thing with his criticism of the Dems, but I totally disagree. FFS...he disowned his own tribe and started this great site and you are taking the site and pounding his head with it. You wouldn't even have been able to do that if it weren't for the originators that really took the courageous step to create this site and make it successful.
The further left leaning readers are posting their honest opinions so that's great and what this is all about, but let's remember where we were before (no Bulwark+) and where we are today and acknowledge and realize that this site is a very important step toward the middle.
Charlie - Do you have any input in what MTG or Madison Cawthorne do or say? No? Well, why rant at The Left or Dems for what Ilhan Omar or AOC have to say? Most of us are here because we see The Bulwark as a tiny light in the darkness that is the today’s Republican Party. Let’s concentrate on what we have in common - a belief in democracy, fair mindedness and basic human decency. And together find a way out of the looming catastrophe that threatens us all.
One of the comments I seem to see (that sticks out to me) is that why should The Bulwark (or other non-D organization) help out the D's with their messaging. The D's need to fix that themselves. It's their problem.
Why would you do it? Because it is better for the country and the survival of the republic than not doing it.
Whose problem is it? It is everyone's problem.
In an ideal political universe, with multiple functional and reasonable political parties, this is not an issue. It does not raise it's ugly head.
That is NOT where we are currently at.
Well, the D's need to earn my support!
They have--simply by not being ethno-nationalist thugs busy destroying the legitimacy of the foundations of our system and institutions. If that isn't enough to win your support in comparison to the other side, then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Regardless of whether they have a good message or rhetorically kiss you behind or cozy up to you.
Sometimes you hold you nose and do what is best for the country. It is seemingly an antiquated perspective.
I don't know where Ruy has been put the Democrats have been winning. In 2018 they won the House. In 2020 they kept the House and won the Presidency and the Senate. And I hate to break it to you doomsayers but I'm putting a Bulwark subscription up that the Dems retain the House and build on their Senate majority.
Primary season will be over in a few months and then the general election starts with the focus being on the absolute batshit crazy candidates the GOP primary voters can't help but to vote for. You have literal child abusers, rapists, wife beaters and QAnons running and winning GOP primaries.
All this handwringing over Dem messaging overlooks that Dem messaging has always been terrible but here we are with them controlling the Legislature and Executive branches.
And maybe if you want to criticize the Dems how about criticizing them for things they are actually doing and stop criticizing them for things they are not doing. For example the Senate abortion bill has 61% support when the House was passing it (https://reproductiverights.org/hart-research-poll-whpa-2021/). It is not an unpopular bill and turning a 70/30 Dem win into a 40/60 Dem loss. GOP state pols are literally chomping at the bit to criminalize women.
The Dems win this midterm against the historical odds.
So the real question is-is Barbette too crazed or just. black ? And in that Cheap Shot they are not detached just despicable grifters
The Democrat left wing, epitomized by the squad, are succeeding in sucker punching the ever tolerant party into irrelevance: Defund The Police vying for the grand prize of political malpractice. Don’t these zealots understand that their extremism undermines the ground on which they stand? Obviously not because they are guided by the light of righteousness and will lead their party right down the swirling drain of the crapper. What righteous morons! Perhaps equally as destructive as their counterparts on the right. The danger, to quote Yeats, is the center cannot hold! It is the center upon which our democracy rests with authoritarianism on either side. The times are perilous and show no sign of improving.
So just to be clear here.. hispanics don't care about policies or statements, they will be turned off from voting Democratic by the term 'latinx'? Never mind that the basis of the term is not something disparaging, but wanting to be more inclusive. Never mind that it seems to be something that is preferred by younger Hispanic activists. I'm curious, was there pushback to the terms 'African American' and 'Native American'? ? Were those terms supposed to lose liberals votes from those communities?
Brass tacks:
1) The GoP and the GoP adjacent have demonstrated an ever-increasing tendency (and acceptance) towards:
a) Racism;
b) Sexism;
c) Denial of rights to Other People;
d) A will (and action) to destroy the legitimacy of our system in order to gain and retain power;
e) A servile behavior towards an unsuccessful business man turned entertainer whos gives every indication of being not entirely sane;
f) willful lying and obstruction in pursuit of (e) while hypocritically bad-mouthing the person in private;
g) a willingness to accept, encourage or actually use political violence in pursuit of all of the above;
h) A will to use the power of government to enforce ethno-nationalist norms;
i) A willingness to use political power to openly punish opponents and threats made to do so;
j) Isn't really interested in governing other than apparently enforcing their ethno-nationalist agenda, punishing/owning opponents, and letting corporations have as much control of you as possible as long as the corp keeps politically quiet... oh, and the graft.
2) The Democratic party is a Chinese fire drill of competing and often antagonistic sub-groups ranging from extreme left to center-right that can barely find it's ass with both hands--that couldn't pass a far left agenda because half of them would vote against it.
Which one do you trust the future of the Republic with? Which one should you?
I know who I trust, if only because of their incompetence.
Vote Democratic, save the Republic.
See how easy that is?
Hi Charlie, your piece on what you see as the bad word choices of the left are reminded me of a couple of comments made by Will Hurd in your excellent interview with him. He implied that he, poor thing, gets smeared with the implication that the craziest right-wingers in his party represent the whole party, while that never happens to Democrats. Or did I mis-hear that?
And then he said, the lesson of the 2020 election was, "don't be a jerk, and don't be a socialist," as if Joe Biden was a socialist, and. that's the reason for his lack of coattails. He seems to me to be imbibing too much Fox News himself to see that the problem that anyone who takes on Trumpism will face is a brutal smearing of their reputations, untethered to reality. Expect to be called a groomer, a sexual deviant, and a traitor from your fellow Republicans, Mr. Hurd, if you are really going to run a campaign that is critical of the Trump cult and the Big Lie.