On another note, this story is everything you need to know about Democratic leadership right now. They don't think Donald Trump is a threat to democracy, or a threat to whatever power they hold. They're happy to see him do what he's doing (even as they might make the occasional finger-wagging tweet about it) because they think that they will get the executive branch back again in four years' time and have all that power to themselves--and if they're just a bit lucky, all the moderate Republicans will finally realise that the modern Republican Party has left them behind and they'll have an actual coalition that will win elections for decades! They just need not to offend those moderates by saying that the person they voted for this time is obviously corrupt or destroying the country or whatever alarmist rhetoric you care to give.
Couldn't agree more that patriotic fury is the right emotion but none of the existing wings of the Democratic party are set up to channel it effectively:
1. The blue dogs who can hold down Trump districts are too afraid to come out aggressively and resort to kitchen table euphemisms while our treasury is being looted.
2. The clueless "empty suit" centrists (see Hakeem, Chuck) are themselves craven gravy-train passengers and cannot attack corruption
3. The left wing is agitating but comes across as "outsiders" to the low info national median voter as they lack in-group legitimacy.
Who can credibly channel patriotic anger? Outside of non-MAGA Republicans like Adam Kinzinger, I would say perhaps no one?
The simplicity really is the point. “We call you for filth, and there will be justice.” Fire all the consultants. If any of our leaders need focus groups right now they need to find the door.
I particularly like that this is the beginnings of the Agenda 2026 that we desperately need in order to get onto the front foot. And like the Marc Eliases and ACLUs, inter alia, we need to start putting it into play now, using every opportunity. We have to be fully charged, locked and loaded, by the time a Democratic majority is won, and well advanced by the time the presidential elections roll around. We won't make it to November 2026 without it, never mind beyond, and the agenda is so long -- rebuilding a proper administration is monumental, and fully/deeply democratizing corporations will be equally monumental. People will need to time to get their heads around how basic these are to functioning properly and democratically as a people. People need to be salivating over the coming opportunities we need to build.
Have you listened to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse? Personally I don’t think the Democratic Congressmen alone, even united and clear in their understanding, are in a position to save our republic. Only the people can, and at this stage, it will have to be drastic. No one seems to want to say it out loud but there are people who are preparing for it. Maybe I’m an alarmist but there seems to be only one path of action.
"The idea that Jeffrey Epstein—a man who trafficked children for decades while operating in elite circles—kept no records of his powerful clients defies basic logic."
And yet just yesterday you said this:
"But now that Trump controls the Justice Department and Pam Bondi serves as Attorney General, they are discovering what investigators have known all along: there is no client list."
If it "defies basic logic" that there was no client list, then how could "investigators have known [that there is no client list] all along"? (Given photographic evidence of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein together, my own speculation is that any release of information would necessarily implicate the former and thus it is being covered up because the current administration is afraid that it would break through even to part of the MAGA base.)
As for running on the platform you propose, given what I've seen about how the right-wing narrative on the price of eggs flipped (from "Biden is making eggs too expensive" to "eggs are expensive because of complex economic factors beyond the control of the President"), plus ongoing attempts to prevent voting, I am skeptical at best that there is a sufficient winning coalition among those who will be able to vote on this message (or on any message). A lot of people are happy just to have the metaphorical trains run on time (never mind that Mussolini almost certainly didn't make the trains run on time).
Well, there's a difference between making an internal critique of MAGA's own logic, and establishing my own view. What I said yesterday was meant as an internal critique of MAGA talking points. What my own view is: this is all very suspicious and demands transparency.
No. It's a wondrous display to Trump supporters of the lies and bullshittery they live and breathe. It's worthwhile to invest in creating some cognitive dissonance there. We can do that while pursuing justice for these seditionist kleptocrats.
I agree that it's all very suspicious and demands transparency. For my part I am extremely skeptical of the claims of Epstein's associates like Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and the Duke of York, among many others, that they had no knowledge of Epstein's heinous acts. (I've heard, but can't reliably source, that one reason Bill Richardson, former Governor of New Mexico, never ran for higher office, at least after 2008, is because of probable links to Epstein.)
But I don't see how the latter statement I quoted is an "internal critique". The MAGA base, as I understand it, was convinced that the Epstein client list existed and would include the names of any number of political opponents of the current administration (and not the names of those who are associated with it, such as the person unconstitutionally heading it). They weren't listening to any investigators who said there wasn't a client list, so to introduce that seems like bringing in external information to critique the claim. That's what seemed inconsistent to me: that on the one hand you would cite information from outside the MAGA base and then on the other hand say that it defies logic that such information (the lack of a client list) could be true.
(That said, I freely admit that I have not been following MAGA's conspiracy theories that closely, so there may have been some investigators more closely linked to that segment of the population who were claiming no client list existed and the MAGA base ignored them in favour of their suppositions.)
Perhaps the better critique, it seems to me, is that the MAGA base wasn't listening to anyone who said that if the client list does exist, then Donald Trump's name is necessarily on it (because he outright denied knowing Epstein despite photographic evidence, and they believe him over their own eyes on almost everything), so of course the list wouldn't be released by his administration.
Consultant-class cowardice is indeed cowardly - or just foolishly unimaginative. But partisan rage cannot be patriotic, almost by definition. Partisan rage conflates the voters and the politicians on the other side, and that, in my humble opinion, is a mistake.
Author Sam Keen says it well: "It's better to be outraged than enraged." The public is being violated and terrorized. Rage is the appropriate response. Do we direct it against ourselves or towards ending the abuse?
Hopefully you regularly send your essays to members of Congress!
https://www.bangordailynews.com/2024/07/02/opinion/opinion-contributor/jared-golden-donald-trump-going-to-win-election-democracy-be-just-fine/
On another note, this story is everything you need to know about Democratic leadership right now. They don't think Donald Trump is a threat to democracy, or a threat to whatever power they hold. They're happy to see him do what he's doing (even as they might make the occasional finger-wagging tweet about it) because they think that they will get the executive branch back again in four years' time and have all that power to themselves--and if they're just a bit lucky, all the moderate Republicans will finally realise that the modern Republican Party has left them behind and they'll have an actual coalition that will win elections for decades! They just need not to offend those moderates by saying that the person they voted for this time is obviously corrupt or destroying the country or whatever alarmist rhetoric you care to give.
Surely this time it will work.
EDIT: In fact, not only are they not concerned about him, they like his being around because he helps them raise money: https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/295846-pelosi-trump-is-gift-that-keeps-on-giving-for-democratic/
Couldn't agree more that patriotic fury is the right emotion but none of the existing wings of the Democratic party are set up to channel it effectively:
1. The blue dogs who can hold down Trump districts are too afraid to come out aggressively and resort to kitchen table euphemisms while our treasury is being looted.
2. The clueless "empty suit" centrists (see Hakeem, Chuck) are themselves craven gravy-train passengers and cannot attack corruption
3. The left wing is agitating but comes across as "outsiders" to the low info national median voter as they lack in-group legitimacy.
Who can credibly channel patriotic anger? Outside of non-MAGA Republicans like Adam Kinzinger, I would say perhaps no one?
The simplicity really is the point. “We call you for filth, and there will be justice.” Fire all the consultants. If any of our leaders need focus groups right now they need to find the door.
I particularly like that this is the beginnings of the Agenda 2026 that we desperately need in order to get onto the front foot. And like the Marc Eliases and ACLUs, inter alia, we need to start putting it into play now, using every opportunity. We have to be fully charged, locked and loaded, by the time a Democratic majority is won, and well advanced by the time the presidential elections roll around. We won't make it to November 2026 without it, never mind beyond, and the agenda is so long -- rebuilding a proper administration is monumental, and fully/deeply democratizing corporations will be equally monumental. People will need to time to get their heads around how basic these are to functioning properly and democratically as a people. People need to be salivating over the coming opportunities we need to build.
Have you listened to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse? Personally I don’t think the Democratic Congressmen alone, even united and clear in their understanding, are in a position to save our republic. Only the people can, and at this stage, it will have to be drastic. No one seems to want to say it out loud but there are people who are preparing for it. Maybe I’m an alarmist but there seems to be only one path of action.
"The idea that Jeffrey Epstein—a man who trafficked children for decades while operating in elite circles—kept no records of his powerful clients defies basic logic."
And yet just yesterday you said this:
"But now that Trump controls the Justice Department and Pam Bondi serves as Attorney General, they are discovering what investigators have known all along: there is no client list."
If it "defies basic logic" that there was no client list, then how could "investigators have known [that there is no client list] all along"? (Given photographic evidence of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein together, my own speculation is that any release of information would necessarily implicate the former and thus it is being covered up because the current administration is afraid that it would break through even to part of the MAGA base.)
As for running on the platform you propose, given what I've seen about how the right-wing narrative on the price of eggs flipped (from "Biden is making eggs too expensive" to "eggs are expensive because of complex economic factors beyond the control of the President"), plus ongoing attempts to prevent voting, I am skeptical at best that there is a sufficient winning coalition among those who will be able to vote on this message (or on any message). A lot of people are happy just to have the metaphorical trains run on time (never mind that Mussolini almost certainly didn't make the trains run on time).
Well, there's a difference between making an internal critique of MAGA's own logic, and establishing my own view. What I said yesterday was meant as an internal critique of MAGA talking points. What my own view is: this is all very suspicious and demands transparency.
I agree. But isn’t Epstein yet another distraction ?
No. It's a wondrous display to Trump supporters of the lies and bullshittery they live and breathe. It's worthwhile to invest in creating some cognitive dissonance there. We can do that while pursuing justice for these seditionist kleptocrats.
Yes.
I agree that it's all very suspicious and demands transparency. For my part I am extremely skeptical of the claims of Epstein's associates like Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and the Duke of York, among many others, that they had no knowledge of Epstein's heinous acts. (I've heard, but can't reliably source, that one reason Bill Richardson, former Governor of New Mexico, never ran for higher office, at least after 2008, is because of probable links to Epstein.)
But I don't see how the latter statement I quoted is an "internal critique". The MAGA base, as I understand it, was convinced that the Epstein client list existed and would include the names of any number of political opponents of the current administration (and not the names of those who are associated with it, such as the person unconstitutionally heading it). They weren't listening to any investigators who said there wasn't a client list, so to introduce that seems like bringing in external information to critique the claim. That's what seemed inconsistent to me: that on the one hand you would cite information from outside the MAGA base and then on the other hand say that it defies logic that such information (the lack of a client list) could be true.
(That said, I freely admit that I have not been following MAGA's conspiracy theories that closely, so there may have been some investigators more closely linked to that segment of the population who were claiming no client list existed and the MAGA base ignored them in favour of their suppositions.)
Perhaps the better critique, it seems to me, is that the MAGA base wasn't listening to anyone who said that if the client list does exist, then Donald Trump's name is necessarily on it (because he outright denied knowing Epstein despite photographic evidence, and they believe him over their own eyes on almost everything), so of course the list wouldn't be released by his administration.
I have been railing against the consultant class for years. They should all be purged.
Consultant-class cowardice is indeed cowardly - or just foolishly unimaginative. But partisan rage cannot be patriotic, almost by definition. Partisan rage conflates the voters and the politicians on the other side, and that, in my humble opinion, is a mistake.
You don't think it's patriotic to stand up for the rule of law and the constitution by subjecting those who undermine these things to justice?
Author Sam Keen says it well: "It's better to be outraged than enraged." The public is being violated and terrorized. Rage is the appropriate response. Do we direct it against ourselves or towards ending the abuse?