Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I don’t mind disagreement at all—in fact, I welcome it. But it’s important to clarify: my critique of Newsom isn’t about his policy positions. I agree with many of them.
What concerns me is his posture—his decision to engage authoritarian collapse on its own terms. His use of Trump’s language (“strong bord…
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I don’t mind disagreement at all—in fact, I welcome it. But it’s important to clarify: my critique of Newsom isn’t about his policy positions. I agree with many of them.
What concerns me is his posture—his decision to engage authoritarian collapse on its own terms. His use of Trump’s language (“strong border,” “we need a reckoning”) isn’t an effort to “dialogue” with voters. It’s an effort to appropriate authoritarian grammar, and that comes at a cost.
Why? Because democracy doesn’t just depend on policy. It depends on shared meaning. On moral clarity. On the ability to recognize certain behaviors—like defying court orders—as violations of constitutional order, not political preferences. When Newsom frames those violations as “distractions,” he’s not persuading new voters—he’s helping dissolve the distinction between lawful governance and unlawful rule.
That’s not leadership. It’s capitulation.
And that’s the heart of my argument: in a moment of democratic erosion, we need leaders who can make virtue legible again. Who can say no—not just to Trump’s policies, but to the entire performance of authoritarianism. Not mimic it. Not accommodate it. Refuse it.
So yes, I want Democrats to listen to voters. But not by abandoning their moral architecture. Not by mirroring Trump’s style. And certainly not by treating constitutional defiance as just another item on the campaign to-do list.
Because if we lose the ability to recognize meaning in democratic refusal, we’ve already lost more than an election.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I don’t mind disagreement at all—in fact, I welcome it. But it’s important to clarify: my critique of Newsom isn’t about his policy positions. I agree with many of them.
What concerns me is his posture—his decision to engage authoritarian collapse on its own terms. His use of Trump’s language (“strong border,” “we need a reckoning”) isn’t an effort to “dialogue” with voters. It’s an effort to appropriate authoritarian grammar, and that comes at a cost.
Why? Because democracy doesn’t just depend on policy. It depends on shared meaning. On moral clarity. On the ability to recognize certain behaviors—like defying court orders—as violations of constitutional order, not political preferences. When Newsom frames those violations as “distractions,” he’s not persuading new voters—he’s helping dissolve the distinction between lawful governance and unlawful rule.
That’s not leadership. It’s capitulation.
And that’s the heart of my argument: in a moment of democratic erosion, we need leaders who can make virtue legible again. Who can say no—not just to Trump’s policies, but to the entire performance of authoritarianism. Not mimic it. Not accommodate it. Refuse it.
So yes, I want Democrats to listen to voters. But not by abandoning their moral architecture. Not by mirroring Trump’s style. And certainly not by treating constitutional defiance as just another item on the campaign to-do list.
Because if we lose the ability to recognize meaning in democratic refusal, we’ve already lost more than an election.