I answer questions about what Dems can do to win back voters, whether Barack Obama did a good job responding to the 2008 financial crisis, and how much we should fear the evangelical-Trump alliance
I deeply appreciate the time and thought you put into replying to my question about Lincoln at Gettysburg.
I have read the Wills book, but decades ago. In any case, you were correct in assuming that I was referring to the Address, not to any examination of it.
I take your point about the danger inherent in projecting grand conflicts between good and evil upon our current political maelstrom, yet In reply to Michelle Togut, you noted:
"Let me put the point in a slightly different way: Our institutions have all kinds of problems. But the bigger problem is … us. Half the electorate voted for Trump after everything it saw from 2016 through 2024. If that astonishing fact isn’t seared in your brain—if it doesn’t shape all of your thinking about what comes next—then I think you will be led astray into wishful thinking.”
For me, the critical phrase in the Address is “Now we are engaged in a great Civil War, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure”. War, of course, for all its horrors, is simply a very loud and violent argument with armies. Clearly we have not reached that stage (and obviously I hope we never do again), and so Lincoln’s references to what happened at Gettysburg are not relevant.. Yet with you, I find it impossible to ignore that which you noted, that half of us voted for Trump. Even if many of them did so without recognizing the full nature of his intent (along with that of the figures behind Project 2025), given his proven disdain for our electoral process, our Constitution, and the rule of law, I’m not sure how that does not constitute a civil war.
As to grand conflicts between good and evil, yes, it can be hard to project that upon the sheer, venal, self serving grubbiness that constitutes so much of what Trump is and does. But as an atheist, I tend not to see Evil as something capitalized, but rather inherent in just the kind of utter selfishness Trump has demonstrated all his life.
Great answers, as always Damon, but I would note that two of your responses seem to be in tension with each other, or at least suggest the intractability of America's present dilemmas. Specifically, I am profoundly dubious about the possibility of doing this...
"My one piece of advice for Democrats would be one Matthew Yglesias often emphasizes: the party should moderate on culture (and admit errors and overreach, as myrna loy's lazy twin advocates) so that the party can win more Senate races."
...when we have a world characterized by this:
"We appear to be living at a time when technology (especially the network effects made possible by smart phones and social media) encourages populist reaction to … whatever development is pissing people off at a given moment."
When every comment by every TikToker can potentially be used to indict Democrats and "the Left" everywhere on Fox News, how exactly can some statement of moderation (like the ones which actually exist, like Pete Buttigieg and Gavin Newsom explicitly okaying the idea that trans individuals could legitimately and probably should be sometimes prevented from competing in sports, for example) move elections when the GOP's primary electorate is deeply shaped by Fox News? I'm not denying there are marginal cases in certain races; I'm just saying that I don't really see the evidence that the first should be recommended as a general matter when the latter obtains pretty much universally.
Oh, I'm certainly aware of that tension, Russell, but it runs in two directions. The Dems might not be able to win the Senate without moderating on culture, and the left in blue areas might not be willing to go along it any such effort, with technology helping the latter to make a big stink, demanding purity tests, anytime a Dem breaks from the party orthodoxy. And then, yes, Fox, et al., will always find the more extreme statement from someone on the left and weaponize it to paint the whole party as embracing that position. You've hit on one dimension of why I tense up whenever a reader asks me to propose solutions to our present problems!
I think the larger reality is that this “progressive lunacy” will simply migrate to something else if recanted/apologized for/disowned. The number of persuadable voters not integrated in to one of the two major tribes is vanishingly small, and kicking trans kids out of sports will simply result in some new outrage taking its place, persuading almost no one in the process.
The right has one thing correct that the left could learn from: stop apologizing.
The answer to the Goldfrank question is right on target. The proliferation of protected classes and the often petty moral surveillance seemed to often be at odds with free speech and free association rights. The resentment it generated was exponentially greater than any benefit that accrued. The trans- issue is an extreme example.
Your prescription for the Democratic Party going forward is I think pretty widely acknowledged with the exception of some Progressive and Left dead-enders. Short of strangling them in their sleep I don't know how to rob them of oxygen so they don't scotch Democratic chances in the next election.
I had problems with your answer to that cluster of questions that begin with Dallesandro.
The trust question it seems to me is of the chicken-egg variety. Did that collapse in trust follow displays of Progressive irrationality or did they precede them? No doubt those subsequent displays were just weaponized to add more fuel to the fire. But going back 45 years and excavating the conversations I had and events since then I would say that collapse - but let's call it what it is, "demolition" - of trust began in the 80's, maybe earlier. And while it came sometimes from the Left and sometimes from the Right it was the Right that eventually put it on steroids, gave it a bayonet and aimed it directly at the heart of the body politic.
The hesitation to "not punish one party or another" would normally be sensible is I think in this case misplaced; "reforms enacted by one party alone (inevitably for its own benefit)... will give the other side further evidence that the system is rigged to favor their enemies". I think we're so far past this being a consideration. The rigging is being done by the Trump regime; the acquiescence of the Republican Congress and Supreme Court; with scant regard for the Constitution or such questions.
New York, Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul:
"... I cannot ignore that the playing field has changed dramatically, and shame on us if we ignore that fact and cling tight to the vestiges of the past. That era is over — Donald Trump eliminated it forever.
This is a war. We are at war. And that’s why the gloves are off.”
I really have problems imagining a Democrat who is “moderate” enough to win in your typical red state. What do you think that looks like? Democrats running for Senate in red states who oppose abortion rights and are comfortable with guns? I mean, that already happens relatively frequently.
Unfortunately, I think the label “Democrat” itself is toxic in red states due to 30 plus years of Fox News, hate radio, etc. As you write elsewhere in this column, one of the fundamental facts of American politics is that approximately 50 percent of the electorate voted for Donald Trump after he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was unfit for office. I’d suggest that one of the root causes of that is irrational antipathy for the mainstream opposition.
Oh, and I don’t have a good solution. I just don’t think this is an area where Democrats themselves bear a lot of the blame.
Any Democrat would have to be as flexible as of one those acrobatic art thieves winding their way through a museum's web of laser scanners to get past all the cultural alarms and triggers it would take to win a red state. Especially since just being a Democrat is already a disqualification.
Jay Dalesanndro wrote "Now that he has done us the service of demonstrating that our constitutional structure is rotted through and full of little passageways for the rodents to eat away at the foundation, how does the rebuilding process begin? We obviously cannot merely brush ourselves off and say, “well that was unpleasant” and pretend we are getting back to what used to be called normalcy; we need massive reforms. How can this be made to happen?"
What I don't understand is all the commentary on how bad things are under Trump and how worse they are going to be all seem to omit the one obvious constitutional solution to the constitutional crisis Trump is deliberately creating. That solution is calling a constitutional convention, as the constitution provides for, to write a new constitution and discard the old one, with it's manifest defects.
Of course in today's political climate every interest group would tend to want to through something in for itself. But if this process could out of realization of the present danger somehow circumscribe this tendency and
concentrate on the present danger which Trump and MAGA have made evident, the danger of the present constitution's allowance for a strong executive and it's elimination, the process would immediately resolve our present situation and it's dangers.
And of course a big advantage of this course of action is that it completely short circuits the overriding problem with most other courses of action, that is the present control of the GOP over the 3 branches of the federal government; executive, legislative, and judicial.
The lack of discussion regarding this obvious solution to our present difficulties creates a big question in my mind over the sincerity of the present Democratic Party /Opposition in complaining about the present Trump/MAGA regime. It's more like that old Mark Twain saw about the weather; everybody's always talking and complaining about it, but nobody ever does anything about it.
“Half the electorate voted for Trump after everything it saw from 2016 through 2024. If that astonishing fact isn’t seared in your brain—if it doesn’t shape all of your thinking about what comes next—then I think you will be led astray into wishful thinking.”
Couldn’t agree more. All ruminations on our politics rest on this fact.
“Matthew Yglesias often emphasizes: the party should moderate on culture (and admit errors and overreach, as myrna loy's lazy twin advocates) so that the party can win more Senate races.”
Centrists Demand Tack to Center. Did not see that coming.
This is the moderate/centrist prescription in every case, and it palled long ago for me. I don’t think this is correct — or enough — to meet the moment. Right or wrong, the lesson of MAGA is that extreme positions can not only influence a mainstream party, it can capture it. And since progressive grievances generally have a moral weight to them that can’t be easily dismissed, calls for pragmatism and dreams deferred in the name of electoral concerns are less compelling than ever.
I would point to a different and more difficult path. Reckon, for once, with progressive concerns and figure out how to make them comprehensible to the distracted and ‘basic’ masses. I perceive myself to be atypical by Independent standards in my openness to leftist orthodoxy, so I’m probably not a demographic either party is much concerned with, but the spinelessness of the Dems who try to distance themselves from marginalized groups disgusts me. If their mission isn’t to protect those who need it most, then their value as a party is effectively nil for me.
The only way forward is a leftist coalition that can coexist, which is not the “who else are they going to vote for?” status quo moderate Dems have gotten away with for decades. If the left doesn’t reach that consensus soon they deserve to lose in 2028, dire as that will be for us.
“But one of Trump’s advantages may well be his combination of directing no-holds-barred rage against his enemies with an ironic and often very funny belittling of his opponents”
It’s probably a me thing but I’m confounded by the idea that Trump is funny at all. Posing something in the shape of a joke doesn’t make it funny. I’m all for a lighter touch, and I do think ridicule is the most potent weapon when combating Trump. Still doesn’t make him funny, except perhaps unintentionally.
“This was bound to provoke resentment, especially among those who don’t belong to one of those protected classes (whites, men, etc.). And now that they’ve formed a reactionary political movement behind Donald Trump, they’ve begun trying to add themselves to the list of protected classes.”
I wasn’t familiar with this position on Damon’s part. I’ll definitely explore Caldwell, but I’ve seen enough arguments of this type that I think I know what to expect. I also don’t really buy a carve out for Black Americans — despite being married to a black woman — whether in the argument that they’re uniquely aggrieved or the turning of a blind eye to areas of intersectionality (black women vs black men alone…) that clearly illustrate the nature of those additional grievances.
As for “affirmative action for white men,” this is blatant reductio ad absurdum. If we’re going to falter at providing protections to marginalized groups because the dominant group absurdly claims they’re marginalized then we truly are doomed. Sorry, we had to cancel progress because the bad faith members of the in group aren’t embracing it. Miss me with that defeatist shit.
Mr. Linker,
I deeply appreciate the time and thought you put into replying to my question about Lincoln at Gettysburg.
I have read the Wills book, but decades ago. In any case, you were correct in assuming that I was referring to the Address, not to any examination of it.
I take your point about the danger inherent in projecting grand conflicts between good and evil upon our current political maelstrom, yet In reply to Michelle Togut, you noted:
"Let me put the point in a slightly different way: Our institutions have all kinds of problems. But the bigger problem is … us. Half the electorate voted for Trump after everything it saw from 2016 through 2024. If that astonishing fact isn’t seared in your brain—if it doesn’t shape all of your thinking about what comes next—then I think you will be led astray into wishful thinking.”
For me, the critical phrase in the Address is “Now we are engaged in a great Civil War, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure”. War, of course, for all its horrors, is simply a very loud and violent argument with armies. Clearly we have not reached that stage (and obviously I hope we never do again), and so Lincoln’s references to what happened at Gettysburg are not relevant.. Yet with you, I find it impossible to ignore that which you noted, that half of us voted for Trump. Even if many of them did so without recognizing the full nature of his intent (along with that of the figures behind Project 2025), given his proven disdain for our electoral process, our Constitution, and the rule of law, I’m not sure how that does not constitute a civil war.
As to grand conflicts between good and evil, yes, it can be hard to project that upon the sheer, venal, self serving grubbiness that constitutes so much of what Trump is and does. But as an atheist, I tend not to see Evil as something capitalized, but rather inherent in just the kind of utter selfishness Trump has demonstrated all his life.
In any case, again, thank you for your reply.
Great answers, as always Damon, but I would note that two of your responses seem to be in tension with each other, or at least suggest the intractability of America's present dilemmas. Specifically, I am profoundly dubious about the possibility of doing this...
"My one piece of advice for Democrats would be one Matthew Yglesias often emphasizes: the party should moderate on culture (and admit errors and overreach, as myrna loy's lazy twin advocates) so that the party can win more Senate races."
...when we have a world characterized by this:
"We appear to be living at a time when technology (especially the network effects made possible by smart phones and social media) encourages populist reaction to … whatever development is pissing people off at a given moment."
When every comment by every TikToker can potentially be used to indict Democrats and "the Left" everywhere on Fox News, how exactly can some statement of moderation (like the ones which actually exist, like Pete Buttigieg and Gavin Newsom explicitly okaying the idea that trans individuals could legitimately and probably should be sometimes prevented from competing in sports, for example) move elections when the GOP's primary electorate is deeply shaped by Fox News? I'm not denying there are marginal cases in certain races; I'm just saying that I don't really see the evidence that the first should be recommended as a general matter when the latter obtains pretty much universally.
Oh, I'm certainly aware of that tension, Russell, but it runs in two directions. The Dems might not be able to win the Senate without moderating on culture, and the left in blue areas might not be willing to go along it any such effort, with technology helping the latter to make a big stink, demanding purity tests, anytime a Dem breaks from the party orthodoxy. And then, yes, Fox, et al., will always find the more extreme statement from someone on the left and weaponize it to paint the whole party as embracing that position. You've hit on one dimension of why I tense up whenever a reader asks me to propose solutions to our present problems!
I think the larger reality is that this “progressive lunacy” will simply migrate to something else if recanted/apologized for/disowned. The number of persuadable voters not integrated in to one of the two major tribes is vanishingly small, and kicking trans kids out of sports will simply result in some new outrage taking its place, persuading almost no one in the process.
The right has one thing correct that the left could learn from: stop apologizing.
The answer to the Goldfrank question is right on target. The proliferation of protected classes and the often petty moral surveillance seemed to often be at odds with free speech and free association rights. The resentment it generated was exponentially greater than any benefit that accrued. The trans- issue is an extreme example.
Your prescription for the Democratic Party going forward is I think pretty widely acknowledged with the exception of some Progressive and Left dead-enders. Short of strangling them in their sleep I don't know how to rob them of oxygen so they don't scotch Democratic chances in the next election.
I had problems with your answer to that cluster of questions that begin with Dallesandro.
The trust question it seems to me is of the chicken-egg variety. Did that collapse in trust follow displays of Progressive irrationality or did they precede them? No doubt those subsequent displays were just weaponized to add more fuel to the fire. But going back 45 years and excavating the conversations I had and events since then I would say that collapse - but let's call it what it is, "demolition" - of trust began in the 80's, maybe earlier. And while it came sometimes from the Left and sometimes from the Right it was the Right that eventually put it on steroids, gave it a bayonet and aimed it directly at the heart of the body politic.
The hesitation to "not punish one party or another" would normally be sensible is I think in this case misplaced; "reforms enacted by one party alone (inevitably for its own benefit)... will give the other side further evidence that the system is rigged to favor their enemies". I think we're so far past this being a consideration. The rigging is being done by the Trump regime; the acquiescence of the Republican Congress and Supreme Court; with scant regard for the Constitution or such questions.
New York, Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul:
"... I cannot ignore that the playing field has changed dramatically, and shame on us if we ignore that fact and cling tight to the vestiges of the past. That era is over — Donald Trump eliminated it forever.
This is a war. We are at war. And that’s why the gloves are off.”
August 5, 2025
I really have problems imagining a Democrat who is “moderate” enough to win in your typical red state. What do you think that looks like? Democrats running for Senate in red states who oppose abortion rights and are comfortable with guns? I mean, that already happens relatively frequently.
Unfortunately, I think the label “Democrat” itself is toxic in red states due to 30 plus years of Fox News, hate radio, etc. As you write elsewhere in this column, one of the fundamental facts of American politics is that approximately 50 percent of the electorate voted for Donald Trump after he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was unfit for office. I’d suggest that one of the root causes of that is irrational antipathy for the mainstream opposition.
Oh, and I don’t have a good solution. I just don’t think this is an area where Democrats themselves bear a lot of the blame.
Any Democrat would have to be as flexible as of one those acrobatic art thieves winding their way through a museum's web of laser scanners to get past all the cultural alarms and triggers it would take to win a red state. Especially since just being a Democrat is already a disqualification.
Jay Dalesanndro wrote "Now that he has done us the service of demonstrating that our constitutional structure is rotted through and full of little passageways for the rodents to eat away at the foundation, how does the rebuilding process begin? We obviously cannot merely brush ourselves off and say, “well that was unpleasant” and pretend we are getting back to what used to be called normalcy; we need massive reforms. How can this be made to happen?"
What I don't understand is all the commentary on how bad things are under Trump and how worse they are going to be all seem to omit the one obvious constitutional solution to the constitutional crisis Trump is deliberately creating. That solution is calling a constitutional convention, as the constitution provides for, to write a new constitution and discard the old one, with it's manifest defects.
Of course in today's political climate every interest group would tend to want to through something in for itself. But if this process could out of realization of the present danger somehow circumscribe this tendency and
concentrate on the present danger which Trump and MAGA have made evident, the danger of the present constitution's allowance for a strong executive and it's elimination, the process would immediately resolve our present situation and it's dangers.
And of course a big advantage of this course of action is that it completely short circuits the overriding problem with most other courses of action, that is the present control of the GOP over the 3 branches of the federal government; executive, legislative, and judicial.
The lack of discussion regarding this obvious solution to our present difficulties creates a big question in my mind over the sincerity of the present Democratic Party /Opposition in complaining about the present Trump/MAGA regime. It's more like that old Mark Twain saw about the weather; everybody's always talking and complaining about it, but nobody ever does anything about it.
“Half the electorate voted for Trump after everything it saw from 2016 through 2024. If that astonishing fact isn’t seared in your brain—if it doesn’t shape all of your thinking about what comes next—then I think you will be led astray into wishful thinking.”
Couldn’t agree more. All ruminations on our politics rest on this fact.
“Matthew Yglesias often emphasizes: the party should moderate on culture (and admit errors and overreach, as myrna loy's lazy twin advocates) so that the party can win more Senate races.”
Centrists Demand Tack to Center. Did not see that coming.
This is the moderate/centrist prescription in every case, and it palled long ago for me. I don’t think this is correct — or enough — to meet the moment. Right or wrong, the lesson of MAGA is that extreme positions can not only influence a mainstream party, it can capture it. And since progressive grievances generally have a moral weight to them that can’t be easily dismissed, calls for pragmatism and dreams deferred in the name of electoral concerns are less compelling than ever.
I would point to a different and more difficult path. Reckon, for once, with progressive concerns and figure out how to make them comprehensible to the distracted and ‘basic’ masses. I perceive myself to be atypical by Independent standards in my openness to leftist orthodoxy, so I’m probably not a demographic either party is much concerned with, but the spinelessness of the Dems who try to distance themselves from marginalized groups disgusts me. If their mission isn’t to protect those who need it most, then their value as a party is effectively nil for me.
The only way forward is a leftist coalition that can coexist, which is not the “who else are they going to vote for?” status quo moderate Dems have gotten away with for decades. If the left doesn’t reach that consensus soon they deserve to lose in 2028, dire as that will be for us.
“But one of Trump’s advantages may well be his combination of directing no-holds-barred rage against his enemies with an ironic and often very funny belittling of his opponents”
It’s probably a me thing but I’m confounded by the idea that Trump is funny at all. Posing something in the shape of a joke doesn’t make it funny. I’m all for a lighter touch, and I do think ridicule is the most potent weapon when combating Trump. Still doesn’t make him funny, except perhaps unintentionally.
“This was bound to provoke resentment, especially among those who don’t belong to one of those protected classes (whites, men, etc.). And now that they’ve formed a reactionary political movement behind Donald Trump, they’ve begun trying to add themselves to the list of protected classes.”
I wasn’t familiar with this position on Damon’s part. I’ll definitely explore Caldwell, but I’ve seen enough arguments of this type that I think I know what to expect. I also don’t really buy a carve out for Black Americans — despite being married to a black woman — whether in the argument that they’re uniquely aggrieved or the turning of a blind eye to areas of intersectionality (black women vs black men alone…) that clearly illustrate the nature of those additional grievances.
As for “affirmative action for white men,” this is blatant reductio ad absurdum. If we’re going to falter at providing protections to marginalized groups because the dominant group absurdly claims they’re marginalized then we truly are doomed. Sorry, we had to cancel progress because the bad faith members of the in group aren’t embracing it. Miss me with that defeatist shit.