Looking at the handful of actual cases: Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, the Lincoln Project, I didn't see much evidence of purity testing. The neocon dissenters were viewed with a bit more suspition since they oftne opposed Trump for the wrong reasons and are inclined to back him now that he has returned to open mitliarism (Bret Stephens a prime example).
Are they willing to stand with us if we do not give up our positions?
They can vote the same way as us without being welcomed. They don't need to be love bombed or welcomed in to be allies of convenience.
But every letter like this I've read, from yours to Yglasias's, strongly imply that you'd prefer to have conservatives in your coalition than lefties. Usually followed by "and that's why the party needs to shut up about X".
If they can stand with me without demanding I change my positions, awesome. But I'm not making concessions to get them to do the things it's obvious they need to do.
Mike, Putting 'trans rights' at the top of the list by which you characterize the position of 'the left' puts you in the company of the Republican advertising creatives who have run more ads portraying the left as having that as top priority than on any other issue in recent elections. Is it somewhere on the list? Sure. Is it top of the list? Only in the fever dreams of the GOP-propaganda addled.
We have several friends with trans kids. We know our friends' politics well. While the human rights of their kids are on their lists (as on ours), it's not the top issue. They're far more concerned with saving democracy, and quite open to allies on that.
I have trans people in my life that I love and care about too, Whit. And I might suggest they agree with my stance. I am simply trying to move the boulder in the direction of moral progress. I cannot do this by performing purity tests on each person along the way.
Just want to point out that not all your readership is composed of people enamored of purity tests and the like (speaking for and of myself). In fact, I'd guess that a lot of your readers are pretty thoughtful people rather than professional Democratic Party operatives.
Problem is, too few Republicans have taken the bold step of actually speaking out against Trumpian overreach, so there have been too few opportunities for political types to experience marching together to achieve a mutually-desirable result.
Political posturing -- too much "Heads I win, Tails you lose" one-upmanship.
I am taking the initiative to create permission structure. I am advising any Republican within the sound of my voice, that if they wish to return to the side of good, that I will raise my sword in their defense. I am offering them a gesture, you see.
I sincerely hope that some will respond to your gesture. So far, odds are against it, but if the R's are listening to the public's displeasure, they might start to break rank in sufficient numbers and with sufficient resolve to actually make a difference.
Is JD Vance still an ally? Lindsey Graham? Ann Coulter? Mitch McConnell? Marco Rubio? Because all of these mopes and grifters -- and dozens more -- would've passed your very, very low bar for ouchless absolution at one point or another. But none of their "conversions" stuck because the wind shifted and the base roared and face it, anyone who still marches under the Republican banner at this point is either genuinely evil or completely amoral. Marjorie Taylor Greene turned her back on MAGA, but is still hateful, nuts & aggressively America First, but you wouldn't know it from the way Wolf Blitzer & the gang at The View drooled over her. No litmus test for Madge! Instead she swapped her MAGA bona fides for deflecting every question about her behavior with a barrage of "Both Sides Do It" claptrap, because she knows the legacy media will forgive any abomination as long as, in exchange, you say the magic words: "Both Sides Do It". So no, for what it's worth I absolutely do not consent to you arrogating to yourself the right to excuse any of them for their decades of monstrous behavior.
If I understand Mike correctly, he's not excusing anyone, nor asking us to excuse anyone, for their monstrous behavior. He is simply saying that even people who have behaved, and even continue to behave, in despicable ways, can sometimes trip and do the right thing. Ok, that was snarky. Sometimes despicable people can CHOOSE to do the correct thing. It's THAT morally correct choice that Mike would welcome because THAT choice, even if it's their only decent one, could be the first step needed to right our sinking ship. Think of it as a type of triage for the nation.
I think where it stops making sense to me is to think that one decent step is more than a fluke. Everyone accidentally does the right thing sometimes for some reason or another. So to do so once and then have everything terrible that they have done and the criminal ways that they have behaved overlooked seems like a non-starter to me. Maybe I'm not really understanding the argument but it almost feels like some sort of Reconstruction era thing where we are going to sweep the problems back under the rug like we did then and it will continue to fester. I think we messed up during Reconstruction by welcoming the South back without consequences and that that needs to be rectified this time.
I truly understand your position and concerns and how it feels counterintuitive on a moral scale. And admittedly, it is asking a lot. But the way I see it is, fluke or not, you embrace the fluke for the sake of the nation, for the sake of saving our democracy. If our nation and democracy does not survive, everything else that you are rightly concerned about becomes a moot point. The idea is not that we overlook or forgive past bad behavior or even ongoing bad behavior. But consequences, or discussions, or arguments, or elections addressing those bad behaviors will never take place without our democracy intact.
Think of it this way... it might feel better to you. We save the nation first, then we beat the shit out of, or jail, all those individuals who brought us to the brink. ;-)
If only there were a Republican defector to welcome. House Repubs are 100 % behind Trump, except occasionally for Massie. In the Senate, Susan Collins gets to cosplay "concerned centrist" as long as it doesn't matter, but she is in the tank for fascism when it counts.
In general, Repubs only break with Trump when they are already on the way out, and therefore of no use to us.
Ukraine-supporters have been dealing with this for years. There are stalwart Republican politicians who back Ukraine. Also many moderate Democrats. Yet many progressives won’t accept or support these people because of their positions on other issues or because they took money from some PAC they despise.
Who are these stalwart Republicans? It would only take two or three to break Trump's control of Congress, and set an agenda that would include regular votes supporting Ukraine. Why aren't they doing it.
And what is a "moderate Democrat" in the current context? Sotmeone who is concerned about the slide to dictatorship, but is waiting for a bipartisan consensus on the subject.
Don Bacon and Joe Wilson are two of the better known Republicans supporting Ukraine. We're all frustrated with how Trump has shut down any GOP dissent in Congress, but it's not all about passing resolutions. They exert the pressure they can on the White House. Trump would love to drop all supports to Ukraine, but it's basic politics. Constituents want the US to support Ukraine. If politicians don't do what constituents ask them to, they lose the next election. The politicians want to stay in office. Trump wants his party's politicians in office. So, he does the minimal to keep them happy.
As for moderate Democrats, there is one in my district, currently in Congress, running for the Senate seat that opened up this year. Good record on Ukraine and other issues. But, progressives are undermining the campaign because he took AIPAC money. There are no other viable Democratic candidates who can win against the Republican in the race. At a time when it is vital to reduce the GOP majority in Congress, the progressives are taking an intolerant stance that would help put a Republican in that seat.
The US, functionally, has dropped all support for Ukraine all they're still doing is intelligence.
"Don Bacon and Joe Wilson are two of the better known Republicans supporting Ukraine" and what exactly has that "support" achieved? The US still abandoned Ukraine, betrayed Europe and enables Putin.
Are they willing to break ranks over it or are they just rubber stamping every single Republican policy indistinguishable from Mike Johnson whilst making Susan Collins concerned noises? Because I'm not seeing any signs of any GOP dissent for this in the way that for instance the Freedom Caucus will tank anything that they don't agree with.
The intelligence the US supplies is vital, and no other country can at this point duplicate it. The US also allows Ukraine to use certain US weapon systems like the Patriot. Every time the President tries pulling back these supports, outraged conservative Ukraine supporters call their GOP Congress-people, who lean on the president, who restores support.
I already explained that in my previous comment, btw.
The argument was they are supporting Ukr looking at whether they are achieving anything isn't a purity test or dragging in unrelated topics it's a measure of their effectiveness at their self proclaimed cause. It's the only measure we have because "leaning on the president" can't be measured, we don't know if it actually happens and the results are at best ineffective.
Bipartisan sanctions bill? Gone
Sanctions on Russian oil? Gone
NATO? De facto if not de jure the US has withdrawn
The house majority is tiny if they really wanted it there are pressure points available and they chose not to exercise them.
I acknowledge it may look different internally but if RT is running segments gloating about how effective Trump is and European news is running think pieces about how to defend against US invasion public handwringing isn't, from an external perspective, meeting the moment / standing up/ insert cliché here.
I do really, genuinely appreciate the good faith response and that we can agree on the facts if not the interpretation. Have a good weekend.
But we already have Republicans who are speaking out against the war. At least two. Congressman Thomas Massie and Senator Rand Paul, who seem to have finally remembered that "libertarian" does not mean "MAGA cultist", which is more than you can say for half the Libertarian Party.
I disagree with the premise that it is the left that has issues with this, but I agree with your solution. The centrist/right democrats are who I routinely see have issues. I think I could write a dissertation on the “why”. As I am thinking this through, I think that definition of left may be part of the problem.
Its a cult. The Heritage Foundation and corps have been wining and dining and funding Repubs bank accts for years. Hope you can draw a few into conversation.
See this will convince no one because you left the context out entirely.
That's really the root of the problem described in the article. Too many on the left focus entirely on telling us how bad others are relative to themselves and not at all on convincing those others to be less bad.
Which is why we manage to repeatedly lose to people as incompetent and terrible as Trump. Trump supporters are like "Why shouldn't I vote for Trump? I love the guy." And the response is "You're a terrible person." I mean that may be true, but being a good person means helping others be less terrible.
Heather Cox Richardson says this has happened at other crucial times in American history and must happen now:
"We don't need to agree about anything except we need to hold our democracy. We can hash everything else out on the other side."
Poland is an example
Looking at the handful of actual cases: Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, the Lincoln Project, I didn't see much evidence of purity testing. The neocon dissenters were viewed with a bit more suspition since they oftne opposed Trump for the wrong reasons and are inclined to back him now that he has returned to open mitliarism (Bret Stephens a prime example).
Are they willing to stand with us if we do not give up our positions?
They can vote the same way as us without being welcomed. They don't need to be love bombed or welcomed in to be allies of convenience.
But every letter like this I've read, from yours to Yglasias's, strongly imply that you'd prefer to have conservatives in your coalition than lefties. Usually followed by "and that's why the party needs to shut up about X".
If they can stand with me without demanding I change my positions, awesome. But I'm not making concessions to get them to do the things it's obvious they need to do.
Mike, Putting 'trans rights' at the top of the list by which you characterize the position of 'the left' puts you in the company of the Republican advertising creatives who have run more ads portraying the left as having that as top priority than on any other issue in recent elections. Is it somewhere on the list? Sure. Is it top of the list? Only in the fever dreams of the GOP-propaganda addled.
We have several friends with trans kids. We know our friends' politics well. While the human rights of their kids are on their lists (as on ours), it's not the top issue. They're far more concerned with saving democracy, and quite open to allies on that.
I have trans people in my life that I love and care about too, Whit. And I might suggest they agree with my stance. I am simply trying to move the boulder in the direction of moral progress. I cannot do this by performing purity tests on each person along the way.
OK Mike, message received.
Just want to point out that not all your readership is composed of people enamored of purity tests and the like (speaking for and of myself). In fact, I'd guess that a lot of your readers are pretty thoughtful people rather than professional Democratic Party operatives.
Problem is, too few Republicans have taken the bold step of actually speaking out against Trumpian overreach, so there have been too few opportunities for political types to experience marching together to achieve a mutually-desirable result.
Political posturing -- too much "Heads I win, Tails you lose" one-upmanship.
I am taking the initiative to create permission structure. I am advising any Republican within the sound of my voice, that if they wish to return to the side of good, that I will raise my sword in their defense. I am offering them a gesture, you see.
I sincerely hope that some will respond to your gesture. So far, odds are against it, but if the R's are listening to the public's displeasure, they might start to break rank in sufficient numbers and with sufficient resolve to actually make a difference.
Here's hoping.
Is JD Vance still an ally? Lindsey Graham? Ann Coulter? Mitch McConnell? Marco Rubio? Because all of these mopes and grifters -- and dozens more -- would've passed your very, very low bar for ouchless absolution at one point or another. But none of their "conversions" stuck because the wind shifted and the base roared and face it, anyone who still marches under the Republican banner at this point is either genuinely evil or completely amoral. Marjorie Taylor Greene turned her back on MAGA, but is still hateful, nuts & aggressively America First, but you wouldn't know it from the way Wolf Blitzer & the gang at The View drooled over her. No litmus test for Madge! Instead she swapped her MAGA bona fides for deflecting every question about her behavior with a barrage of "Both Sides Do It" claptrap, because she knows the legacy media will forgive any abomination as long as, in exchange, you say the magic words: "Both Sides Do It". So no, for what it's worth I absolutely do not consent to you arrogating to yourself the right to excuse any of them for their decades of monstrous behavior.
If I understand Mike correctly, he's not excusing anyone, nor asking us to excuse anyone, for their monstrous behavior. He is simply saying that even people who have behaved, and even continue to behave, in despicable ways, can sometimes trip and do the right thing. Ok, that was snarky. Sometimes despicable people can CHOOSE to do the correct thing. It's THAT morally correct choice that Mike would welcome because THAT choice, even if it's their only decent one, could be the first step needed to right our sinking ship. Think of it as a type of triage for the nation.
I think where it stops making sense to me is to think that one decent step is more than a fluke. Everyone accidentally does the right thing sometimes for some reason or another. So to do so once and then have everything terrible that they have done and the criminal ways that they have behaved overlooked seems like a non-starter to me. Maybe I'm not really understanding the argument but it almost feels like some sort of Reconstruction era thing where we are going to sweep the problems back under the rug like we did then and it will continue to fester. I think we messed up during Reconstruction by welcoming the South back without consequences and that that needs to be rectified this time.
Hi Allie,
I truly understand your position and concerns and how it feels counterintuitive on a moral scale. And admittedly, it is asking a lot. But the way I see it is, fluke or not, you embrace the fluke for the sake of the nation, for the sake of saving our democracy. If our nation and democracy does not survive, everything else that you are rightly concerned about becomes a moot point. The idea is not that we overlook or forgive past bad behavior or even ongoing bad behavior. But consequences, or discussions, or arguments, or elections addressing those bad behaviors will never take place without our democracy intact.
Think of it this way... it might feel better to you. We save the nation first, then we beat the shit out of, or jail, all those individuals who brought us to the brink. ;-)
If only there were a Republican defector to welcome. House Repubs are 100 % behind Trump, except occasionally for Massie. In the Senate, Susan Collins gets to cosplay "concerned centrist" as long as it doesn't matter, but she is in the tank for fascism when it counts.
In general, Repubs only break with Trump when they are already on the way out, and therefore of no use to us.
Ukraine-supporters have been dealing with this for years. There are stalwart Republican politicians who back Ukraine. Also many moderate Democrats. Yet many progressives won’t accept or support these people because of their positions on other issues or because they took money from some PAC they despise.
Who are these stalwart Republicans? It would only take two or three to break Trump's control of Congress, and set an agenda that would include regular votes supporting Ukraine. Why aren't they doing it.
And what is a "moderate Democrat" in the current context? Sotmeone who is concerned about the slide to dictatorship, but is waiting for a bipartisan consensus on the subject.
Don Bacon and Joe Wilson are two of the better known Republicans supporting Ukraine. We're all frustrated with how Trump has shut down any GOP dissent in Congress, but it's not all about passing resolutions. They exert the pressure they can on the White House. Trump would love to drop all supports to Ukraine, but it's basic politics. Constituents want the US to support Ukraine. If politicians don't do what constituents ask them to, they lose the next election. The politicians want to stay in office. Trump wants his party's politicians in office. So, he does the minimal to keep them happy.
As for moderate Democrats, there is one in my district, currently in Congress, running for the Senate seat that opened up this year. Good record on Ukraine and other issues. But, progressives are undermining the campaign because he took AIPAC money. There are no other viable Democratic candidates who can win against the Republican in the race. At a time when it is vital to reduce the GOP majority in Congress, the progressives are taking an intolerant stance that would help put a Republican in that seat.
https://247wallst.com/politics/2024/08/15/the-most-pro-ukraine-republicans-in-the-house/
The US, functionally, has dropped all support for Ukraine all they're still doing is intelligence.
"Don Bacon and Joe Wilson are two of the better known Republicans supporting Ukraine" and what exactly has that "support" achieved? The US still abandoned Ukraine, betrayed Europe and enables Putin.
Are they willing to break ranks over it or are they just rubber stamping every single Republican policy indistinguishable from Mike Johnson whilst making Susan Collins concerned noises? Because I'm not seeing any signs of any GOP dissent for this in the way that for instance the Freedom Caucus will tank anything that they don't agree with.
The intelligence the US supplies is vital, and no other country can at this point duplicate it. The US also allows Ukraine to use certain US weapon systems like the Patriot. Every time the President tries pulling back these supports, outraged conservative Ukraine supporters call their GOP Congress-people, who lean on the president, who restores support.
I already explained that in my previous comment, btw.
Also, I note you are doing exactly what the OP is urging people not to do.
The argument was they are supporting Ukr looking at whether they are achieving anything isn't a purity test or dragging in unrelated topics it's a measure of their effectiveness at their self proclaimed cause. It's the only measure we have because "leaning on the president" can't be measured, we don't know if it actually happens and the results are at best ineffective.
Bipartisan sanctions bill? Gone
Sanctions on Russian oil? Gone
NATO? De facto if not de jure the US has withdrawn
The house majority is tiny if they really wanted it there are pressure points available and they chose not to exercise them.
I acknowledge it may look different internally but if RT is running segments gloating about how effective Trump is and European news is running think pieces about how to defend against US invasion public handwringing isn't, from an external perspective, meeting the moment / standing up/ insert cliché here.
I do really, genuinely appreciate the good faith response and that we can agree on the facts if not the interpretation. Have a good weekend.
But we already have Republicans who are speaking out against the war. At least two. Congressman Thomas Massie and Senator Rand Paul, who seem to have finally remembered that "libertarian" does not mean "MAGA cultist", which is more than you can say for half the Libertarian Party.
Love is all we need.
Once again, the Union is at stake. We fucked it up the last time.
I disagree with the premise that it is the left that has issues with this, but I agree with your solution. The centrist/right democrats are who I routinely see have issues. I think I could write a dissertation on the “why”. As I am thinking this through, I think that definition of left may be part of the problem.
Its a cult. The Heritage Foundation and corps have been wining and dining and funding Repubs bank accts for years. Hope you can draw a few into conversation.
Yes. To all of your points. It is like you speak/ write what I am thinking. P,ease keep in writing and speaking out.
Agreed. Let's have some ruthless pragmatism. It's going to get tougher than you think; but we are tougher than we think. Get down.
See this will convince no one because you left the context out entirely.
That's really the root of the problem described in the article. Too many on the left focus entirely on telling us how bad others are relative to themselves and not at all on convincing those others to be less bad.
Which is why we manage to repeatedly lose to people as incompetent and terrible as Trump. Trump supporters are like "Why shouldn't I vote for Trump? I love the guy." And the response is "You're a terrible person." I mean that may be true, but being a good person means helping others be less terrible.