I answer questions about Biden’s bad polling, the mess in the Middle East, and how to teach a classroom full of undergrads who don’t want to think or talk about politics
Damon, your response to Alison Dagnes is superb. It shows a great and practical wisdom in terms of how to engage contentious subjects in a necessarily pedagogical (and thus at least moderately parental) environment, the sort of wisdom that I recognize I too often fail to exercise, and I've been teaching for decades. Well done, sir.
Thank you for the thoughtful response to my question! That way of approaching FP strikes me as much more sensible to some unyielding grand strategy or set of ideological priors (see: John Bolton).
To Lukas Bird: if you haven't read it already, check out "Revolt of the Public" by Martin Gurri. It directly relates to your question; I suspect you'll enjoy it.
As I recall, Kennan was very skeptical about "grand strategy" too, for the simple reason that each situation is unique, and needs to be addressed on its own terms.
I might say, as a critic of the Left’s myriad hypocrisies, that I agree with you that our greatest risk in 2024 is a Trump victory + nightly protests in our cities that lead to escalating rounds of martial law and risk of violence.
But the irony of this legitimate concern is how little Progressives actually care about the sanctity of democracy. They care as long as THEIR candidates win. But as 2016 taught us - and your 2024 forecast predicts - Progressives will protest a legitimately elected President. In the streets. In an effort to activate every means to depose him. Including the fabrication of lies such as Russian collusion.
Yes, it’s different than Jan 6. But in important ways it is not.
Progressives appear to care about democracy as little as Conservatives as they’ll both create “big steal” narratives and work overtime to overturn results they simply don’t like.
Progressives lost me when this became their response. The Progressive I once was (Obama and Hilary voter) knew to go inward to interrogate why a majority of my countrymen elected Trump. What motivates this? What about the nature of Progressive ideology and policy is landing so poorly outside the universities where they are hatched? What do I not understand about the lives and beliefs of the working class who feel so attracted to someone I deem a madman?
This curiosity doesn’t animate Progressive in the least as their stance on their working class countrymen is that not of compassion - but of disdain. They want nothing to do with them and preferred these racists and religious nuts didn’t exist at all. Progressives prefer to sequester these WalMart hillbillies far from civilization and assassinate their leader rather than embrace them as fellow Americans living dignified lives focused on faith and family. Attributes that forged American character and prosperity.
So - yes, I agree that 2024 might see this culminate in peak anti-democracy. That activates street responses. But please dont continue the fiction that this response is one sided. Don’t comfort yourself that only conservatives forsake this sacred institution. The response is exactly the same differing only in the directness of the effort.
In our system, you are allowed to protest, assemble and express your grievances and concerns, etc.
But, central to our commitment to democracy under the Constitution, you concede an election when you've lost. Al Gore conceded under bizarre conditions. Hillary Clinton conceded to Trump when the results were clear, and before the nation the next day. "We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.”
That's the bottom line. Democrats toe it (thus far), Republicans do not.
Not absurd. Democrats spent four years finding every reason and mechanism to displace a democratically elected leader. As they are right now working to bankrupt, distract, and disqualify the leading contender for 2024 with coordinated election-year lawsuits whose purpose is solely to deprive his supporters of their candidate.
That is how Democrats subvert democracy. Using selective lawfare and withering public relations assassination to amputate a candidate they’ve despised for 8 years. Never once addressing the underlying reasons for his popularity - rather preferring to wholesale label them all as bigots and Neanderthals who don’t deserve a voice on our borders or sweeping diktats on race or gender. They use different means to exactly the same end. You cannot gaslight tens of millions of us that this isn’t what you’re doing - subverting the popular will of your fellow countrymen under the righteous intonations of saving democracy.
The bottom line is, Have you conceded your loss or not? After that, everything else is off to the margins. Democrats do that, Republicans don't (anymore).
Under our Constitution, seeking to remove a president from office for cause is a legitimate option. It's not a rejection of the Constitution, or even a denial that he is the president. (And let's not forget that in his second impeachment, a majority of senators voted to convict, including every Democrat, seven Republicans and two independents.)
Similarly, prosecuting an accused criminal is what we do in this country, where no man is above the law. Juries of his peers decided the evidence was strong enough to support an indictment in each of these cases. This is how America works. There's no "get out of jail free" card just because you happen to be popular with some Americans. And even if he's convicted on any of these charges, he's still the candidate if they want him. He can run for president from jail if he wishes. It's been done before.
And the idea that Democrats don't care about voter grievances--in light of electoral concerns as well as others--is just nonsense. The amount of reporting and surveys and studes done on Trump voters--and the interest it generates among liberals--is just immense. The reason J. D. Vance became a celebrity and then a senator was that so many liberals bought, read and discussed his book. This has been true from the beginning. As a certain someone said in 2016: these are "people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. ... he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroine, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."
Yep, that's what she said about one-half of Trump's supporters. The other half she said were "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it."
Also, an enormous number of non-progressives (moderates, traditional liberals, never Trump Republicans) were wildly alarmed at Trump's ascent, often more than the most extreme progressives, who relished the heightening of the contradicitions that Trump could bring.
Evets - you’re right. That is all true. I don’t support Trump the man. Fun fact - I have never voted for him. But, I hold a great amount of affection and respect for the working class, red state folks who do love him. They are decent. And fundamentally good. They don’t deserve to be called racists or bigots. Or to voice alarm over our out of control borders. Or strange ideas sweeping our land on gender (enforced as hate speech). Or compulsory DEI that openly flogs us all for mythic nonsense like systemic racism. None of us deserve this reverse hatred. Not Jews, whites, men, or Christians. These are facts, not caricatures (though “fact” is most certainly subjective word these days I admit). So, I find myself the “lawyer for the Right” as an ex-Progressive. The kind of Progressive who believes truth is more vital than power. That fairness and even handedness are better virtues than dogma and religious fealty. That persuasion is the only way to win hearts and minds. And that coercion is the fastest way to ruthless conflict.
Our moment is one of intransigent war. Neither side can accurately recall who started all this - only that the others side with evil and tyranny. This is a horrible place snd will lead to real horrors as history shows.
Removing Trump won’t short circuit this. It will only emblazon the fire 🔥 that fuels him. MAGA is bigger than Trump. As an ex-Progressive myself (who expects higher EQ from the self-branded people of tolerance and moral clarity), I remain awestruck at Progressive lack of insight. All of this could be short circuited / including Trump / should our public figures adopt humility and respect for those left behind by globalist economics and progressive ideology. I suppose we’ve gone too far to go back. Like a soured marriage with irreconcilable differences - it appears a divorce should be preferable to domestic conflict.
"But as 2016 taught us - and your 2024 forecast predicts - Progressives will protest a legitimately elected President. In the streets."
We peacefully protested in the streets in 2017 to speak out freely against someone even you call a "madman." That's exercising democracy, not disdaining it. I would never have demonstrated had Mitt Romney or John McCain been elected, and I'm sure no one else would have. Why? Because Romney and McCain had not campaigned by promising to violate the Constitution by passing a ban on Muslims. Nor did they demonstrate extreme contempt for women (in public and private) and Mexicans while they campaigned. Nor had they fostered the lie about Obama's citizenship. On and on.
The action was in no way an attempt to deny him the office or even to cast doubt on the election process. On the contrary, it was a decision to speak publicly to someone who we acknowledged *did* hold the office and its powers, and to tell him that a vast number of us would not stand by silently if (when) he did things like introduce a religious test for entering the country.
It's bizarre to me when an action like that is still described as irrational (Trump Derangement Syndrome) or biased or contemptuous. I doubt any of us anticipated even half of what he actually attempted; in actuality, we lacked enough imagination to anticipate how far he would go.
90% of Americans have heard Donald Trump's voice with their own ears as he tried to strong arm a Secretary of State to reverse a state election loss. GOP officials in my state tried very hard to have my vote thrown in the trash. I would think it would be easy to understand why people like me take it very personally when a party tries very hard to disenfranchise you.
Many assume that progressives and liberals are wealthy elites with disdain for Trump's supporters. But how often do Republicans stop and consider what it feels like to be a woman, for instance, and have someone found liable for rape by a jury be the leading candidate for president? while pregnant women are forced to risk sepsis before getting medical treatment in many states? Talk about feeling disdain from your fellow Americans.
I really felt for Alison Dagnes also, as I see the same dynamics. I grew up in the Northeast, got most of my degrees in urban institutions (Philly, where I also learned to love cheesesteaks), and was used to the lively, informed, witty exchange of ideas especially over politics that's part of that culture. Coming to the midwest and dealing with people from rural hamlets, is a culture shock.
Disagreement isn't something to enjoy for these folks, it's a tragedy or a crime. To make sure you don't get close to it, you don't discuss topics where passionate disagreement is likely. This is as true of faculty as of students. My guess is it's largely a factor of rural conditions: in a large city, if you and your pharmacist get into a row over politics, you can find another pharmacist. Here you might not--and you go to church with him, and you see him everywhere. Cohesion is prized above all, and that means being nice. Young people often don't have any experience watching adults debate passionately and intelligently, nor have they done so themselves.
Several recent trends have exacerbated that: for students, social media. The amount of time it takes keeping up with friends etc. crowds out other things, like the news. For everyone, faculty too, well, it's hard being a happy religious Republican now. They're stuck with Trump as their only option, but most of them are dismayed and bewildered by what's happened to their movement in the last 20 years. Most of their Bush II-era dreams have gone up in smoke, and they're living in the aftermath. Not talking about it seems the best way of coping.
I have one tactic to recommend when it comes to students. I make them memorize sayings (and repeat them on quizzes), that can serve to get discussion going (it's still hard, and uncomfortable for them). As an example, I have them memorize Madison's "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." That can get us into a discussion of what he meant, if we agree with him, if we do how much government is necessary?, and on into liberaliism vs. conservatism.
I keep my hopes modest. As they say, "culture eats strategy" (pedagogical strategies too), and for people who are all about making sure they aren't disturbing any of their social ties or relationships, it's risky for them. The "I have to live here" principle kicks in, and it's obviously irrational to risk permanently damaging an important social relationship over a classroom discussion in a class that's not close to your major interests anyway. So, baby steps.
"And yes, I’m assuming that essentially no heterosexual man would pretend to be a transwoman at work simply in order to get a free pass into the women’s shower to ogle female coworkers in the nude."
Wow, that's an amazing world you live in, one with no predatory straight men! You understand that the pretense only needs to last for as long as the man is watching, he can unpretend immediately after: there is no gatekeeping of any kind on gender self-ID; it can change arbitrarily often and arbitrarily fast, per the legal definition. Have you told the women in your life about this wonderful development, that suddenly all the predatory men they've known throughout their lives no longer exist? I'm sure they'll be thrilled to hear about it!
Here's what actual women think:
"I've never felt so victimized by my own government."
Also: Ukraine. Got an endgame? Or did we have to destroy Ukraine in order to save it? I see no possible ending other than (1) Russia takes overs a now totally devastated Ukraine after immense destrunction and loss of life, or (2) nuclear war between Russia and the West. I thought this from the very beginning, which was 1997 when Ukraine was not admitted to NATO along with those other SSRs, and confirmed in 2014, when Russia invaded and took control of part of Ukraine (remember that?) and the West did diddly-squat about it (which was the correct response). Way too late for backsies now!
Also: Biden strategy. You really don't know what he should do? Do you ever read Ruy Teixeira or Nate Silver? Or Mark Penn's recent NYT piece? (OK, Penn does not know how to manage an actual campaign, but he does understand polling.) You've not heard of the Median Voter Theorem? I'm genuinely kinda shocked here. But then you also believe predatory men don't exist ...
Re Ukraine: Last I checked "we" aren't the ones destroying Ukraine...its the Russians. And the ones fighting back are Ukrainians, not us. Do we need an endgame to provide a country that's been invaded against their wishes with arms. I don't see why. That said, if you want be really cynical about it, you could say that the US/West strategy has been to slowly deplete the Russian army without losing a man. But, you're not happy because you want Russia to win. TFB!
"Do we need an endgame to provide a country that's been invaded against their wishes with arms. I don't see why."
Of course we need to understand the range of possible outcomes of our actions. Not understanding that range is exactly what's gotten us into so much trouble in the past: Iraq, Vietnam. But we're doing it all over again in Ukraine, so far with just money, but the net effect is to make things much worse than they otherwise would have been. If the West is not going to pursue total victory in Ukraine, including boots on the ground, then Russia will eventually win, by sheer overpowering resources. Absent that commitment to total victory, we're going to end with Russia dominating a devastated Ukraine, when we could have had Russia dominating an intact Ukraine, a la Hungary 1968 (when the West correctly did nothing in response). Instead we've got the 2nd worst of all possible worlds (the worst being total war).
I dislike the conflating of being gay in a single sex space with the issue of whether spaces should be single sex or single gender. I don't think the issues are really comparable.
They're not comparable at all, which is one reason why Damon's patronizing response is so disappointing.
Here's another reason: if the number of people claiming a "gender identity" different from their biology is so small as to make the issue irrelevant (Damon's argument), why is it so important to require the very much larger number of women to accede to the wants of this small group of men? Why does the small group get preference over the large group?
Mark - “the personal is political” has poisoned us. It has taught us that our atomic-level identities are deserving of unique recognition and “rights”. Democrats relish their historical role in civil rights in the 1960s. As a party - this is their greatest moment and favorite brand. But in 2024, there are no real injustices for them to overturn. There are no Jim Crow laws to revoke. There are no Bull Connors running our cities. There are no Rosa Parks moments. So, they have to fabricate these things now in an ever more desperate attempt to convince Americans that we still live in oppression. That racism and sexism and Islamaphobia and transphobia are not only alive - but have never been worse. A perpetual state of emergency. And who can fix this social rot of conservative making? Only they. Of course.
But, you see, we have eyes. We know that this is absurd. We see it for the scam shakedown that it is. A way to make white people guilty and self loathing for the prosperity of the world’s most dynamic economy. So they must invent a cover story. A fiction. That fiction is called systemic racism. And an intellectual framework called anti-racism. Both are unfalsifiable traps claiming lived-experience harm you can’t see or notice - but (trust them), it exists, were to blame, were to stand aside, shut up, flog ourselves for these unseen sins and our unwitting culpability in them, vote for Democrats to reform our loathsome land and allow a sprawling, compulsory DEI infrastructure to jam this deceit down our throats. And if we object? Banishment. Shame be upon us. We live with the Scarlet R emblazoned on our reputations and Google search results. Effectively ending our careers and abilities to live and speak freely.
This is the Progressive Scam. Their regime is built on a false claim, a hopped up moral panic, a witting political party with a feckless “leader”, and scores of online Agent Smith enforcers who fly into seek and destroy mode at anyone who dare be free of their reach. Progressives, once a remarkable and vital force who affected real and important change, are no longer relevant. Seeking ever diminishing returns to desperately cling to their glory days long gone. Moving the con game to ever more diminishing returns for ever smaller identity groups of “the oppressed” they can liberate and take credit for as a pretext to remain relevant.
Their game is tiresome. And false. And their abuse of social, cultural, institutional, and judicial power to spread this cancer into the bones of America is loathsome.
So what you're saying, IOW, is progressives are all simply .... deplorable. Lukas, you call youself a 'lawyer for the right', but after reading this I almost want to reconsider my opposition to woke ideology. That opposition is real and strong. But this is not good lawyering.
So what you're saying, IOW, is that progressives are all simply .... deplorable. Lukes, you call yourself a 'lawyer for the right', but after reading this I almost want to reconsider my opposition to woke politics.
Ha. Well, I can see your point 😎. Don’t ditch your opposition to wokeness over me. And not all Progressives are bad (of course). But the ideology is wrong. And the enforcers/cancelers are wrong.
Damon, as a political scientist, do you think that, independent of Mr Trump, that American electoral democracy can recover the open attacks on the legitimacy of (to list them) the media, the judiciary, the security services, the public services, the accountability of the executive, and above, all the electoral process and peaceful transition of power? If so, what reparative measures could restore the republic to itself? At the base of this, so to speak, are radical changes in the infosphere which mean that it is all supported seemingly by around 40% of the US electorate, and within which radicalisation proceeds incrementally in the absence of critical controls; all of whom (and all of which, re: the infosphere) will not disappear if (as I don't believe) Trump does not win or take power later this year. From Australia, where thankfully none of this has taken hold as yet (but Sky news is increasingly openly pro-Trump, antiwoke, etc.). Assoc. Prof. Matt Sharpe, Aus. Cath. University
Damon, thanks for your response to my question. It is also the consensus response at the Bulwark live event tonight among the staff present, and is truly concerning. I'm not sure if I believe the NYT/Siena poll specifically, but polls in general have Biden down a little. I think the only real way this could change is if people remember what kind of person Trump is - right now, they are more focused on being dissatisfied with Biden while Trump is not as much in the picture.
Thanks for answering my question, Damon. I recently listened to Andrew Sullivan's podcast with John Mearsheimer and have been thinking about his claim that the US played a major role in facilitating the rise of a peer competitor nation in China that unlike the UK US relationship in the late 19th and early 20th centuries , has a hostile governing philosophy and that could be see as one of the great diplomatic blunders of our time.
Very interesting as always, but I am afraid I am not convinced by the answer to the "shower question."
Regarding gay men in male showers, and lesbian women in female showers, the obvious retort is that men pose a potential danger to women, in a way that men do not pose to men, nor women to women, nor women to men. Pretty simple, right?
Regarding the arithmetic and the scale of the problem, sure, this particular regulation may only affect a small number of people, and yet, Biden / the Dems / the elite / our regime (but I repeat myself) are quite clear that this logic must be applied to every single sexed / gendered institution as a matter of basic human rights. Every single female institution is going to be compelled to admit """""""trans women"""""" to its ranks, if they get their way. And it will be mostly done by the machinations of regulators, lawyers, bureaucrats, judges, etc., not by any sort of voting or democratic mechanism (in which this cause would be badly defeated*, just as gay marriage was defeated 31-0 in elections before being imposed by the same undemocratic regime**). Therefore, taking the 'big picture,' it is quite justified to consider this as both much more significant, and much less democratic, than the narrow case of 'shower regulations' allows for.
One further note: this above is why no one right of center could possibly accept the account of Schedule F given in a different answer. Liberals appear to sincerely believe that the civil service is composed of high-minded, impartial public servants who simply want to carry out the law as written, and wouldn't dream of being "political." Those on the right know better, and realize that the unsackability and so-called "professional status" of civil servants is precisely why state-inflicted liberalism appears to advance so relentlessly and implacably, regardless of what happens in elections. For those on the right of center, Schedule F is a bare minimum to advance the cause of "stop letting your enemies have unchecked, undemocratic power over you."
A gentleman by the name of Jim Simons founded a company named Renaissance almost 40 years ago He had been chair of the mathematics at Sonybrook University.. His cofounder was a mathematician as well They didn't have any experience in Investments Their theory was which specializes in systematic trading using quantitative models derived from mathematical and statistical analysis. which specializes in systematic trading using quantitative models derived from mathematical and statistical analysis. specializes in systematic trading using quantitative models derived from mathematical and statistical analysis. (The latter is from Wikipedia)
When I saw this modeI thought of the article on Renaissance Scientists, as you know, dont Just decide something is going to without testing it The earthquake scientist contribution was the modeling That was primarily waht he did
Chris Cillizza is a pretty good political analyst He wouldn't have published this interview if he ddidn/ think it was credible
Simons built his original models by backtesting hundreds of variables on decades of financial trading data using forerunners of modern machine-learning techniques. Lichtman made up his "13 keys" (which are all kinda obvious) and backtested them on 20 or so elections. Not at all the same thing.
I really like the response to the one about the faux hysteria over the ladies-being- forced-to-shower-in-front-of-everybody question. Just came back from a music fest, and while using the men's room, I saw a lot of women, and at least one attendee of indeterminate sex, using the men's room because the line to the ladies room was too long. One lady there purportedly -- I did not personally witness this, but i like the concept- used the urinal. That's my kind of woman. None of this breaks my leg or picks my pocket. You might want to explore the reasons why this 'diktat' is such a big thing in your life. I intend to shamelessly plagiarize Damon's response here, although i expect this contrived issue to pass quicker than one might expect. To be replaced by another bullshit issue, of course. Perhaps DeSantis protecting us from the ravages of fake meat.
An individual women can waive her own right to personal privacy if she so wishes, but that does not give her the authority to waive it for all other women.
You might want to explore why trampling all over women's right to privacy is such a big thing in your life.
As an avowed advocate of women's rights, your concern about this undoubtedly knows no bounds. But I'm sure the poor women in the south with ectopic pregnancies boarding buses to the north will be relieved to know that so much good work is being done to avoid their being embarrassed in the shower when they return.
Right to privacy used to include abortion, remember?
I fully support a woman's right to control her body, which includes abortion of her pregnancy at any time before birth. Yes, the Republicans are very bad on this. But political responses are available. "Seven states have directly voted on abortion since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022 — and abortion rights advocates are so far undefeated." https://19thnews.org/2023/12/abortion-states-election-2024-ballot-measures/ This includes red states like Ohio. The Virginia law that Youngkin vetoed had no actual effect unless and until federal law outlawed contraception, which IMO is extremely unlikely even with full Republican control of Congress. And even then Youngkin's stated objection was on religious liberty grounds that the law would remove conscientious objections to contraception provision by all pharmacists. In that WaPo article you cite, he said "Let me be crystal clear: I support access to contraception. However, we cannot trample on the religious freedoms of Virginians.” (Of course he may be lying.)
Politics is messy, there are no pure plays. But plenty of left-wing women are furious with Democrats, and will be withholding their votes from them because the Democrats in office support the destruction of women's sex-based rights.
Here is a book on this by left-wing radical feminist lawyer Kara Dansky:
>In The Reckoning, Kara Dansky, a radical feminist and lifelong Democrat, exposes the invasion by men into female-only spaces, the harming of children, and the silencing, punishment, cancellation and even violence against women who speak out. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party, which claims to represent the interests of women, ignores the problem, while its allies in the organized Left and mainstream media paint all opposition to the “trans” agenda as “right wing.” But radical feminists are not “right wing.” They are leftists who know that sex is real and are not afraid to demand women’s hard-won rights to safe spaces and privacy.
Damon, your response to Alison Dagnes is superb. It shows a great and practical wisdom in terms of how to engage contentious subjects in a necessarily pedagogical (and thus at least moderately parental) environment, the sort of wisdom that I recognize I too often fail to exercise, and I've been teaching for decades. Well done, sir.
Thanks, Russell.
Thank you for the thoughtful response to my question! That way of approaching FP strikes me as much more sensible to some unyielding grand strategy or set of ideological priors (see: John Bolton).
To Lukas Bird: if you haven't read it already, check out "Revolt of the Public" by Martin Gurri. It directly relates to your question; I suspect you'll enjoy it.
Thanks, Kevin. I know the Gurri book and incorporated some of its analysis in this post: https://damonlinker.substack.com/p/why-is-biden-likely-to-lose
Excellent. I recall that post. Also recall feeling quite bleak after reading it haha
As I recall, Kennan was very skeptical about "grand strategy" too, for the simple reason that each situation is unique, and needs to be addressed on its own terms.
Damon - great responses. Very thoughtful.
I might say, as a critic of the Left’s myriad hypocrisies, that I agree with you that our greatest risk in 2024 is a Trump victory + nightly protests in our cities that lead to escalating rounds of martial law and risk of violence.
But the irony of this legitimate concern is how little Progressives actually care about the sanctity of democracy. They care as long as THEIR candidates win. But as 2016 taught us - and your 2024 forecast predicts - Progressives will protest a legitimately elected President. In the streets. In an effort to activate every means to depose him. Including the fabrication of lies such as Russian collusion.
Yes, it’s different than Jan 6. But in important ways it is not.
Progressives appear to care about democracy as little as Conservatives as they’ll both create “big steal” narratives and work overtime to overturn results they simply don’t like.
Progressives lost me when this became their response. The Progressive I once was (Obama and Hilary voter) knew to go inward to interrogate why a majority of my countrymen elected Trump. What motivates this? What about the nature of Progressive ideology and policy is landing so poorly outside the universities where they are hatched? What do I not understand about the lives and beliefs of the working class who feel so attracted to someone I deem a madman?
This curiosity doesn’t animate Progressive in the least as their stance on their working class countrymen is that not of compassion - but of disdain. They want nothing to do with them and preferred these racists and religious nuts didn’t exist at all. Progressives prefer to sequester these WalMart hillbillies far from civilization and assassinate their leader rather than embrace them as fellow Americans living dignified lives focused on faith and family. Attributes that forged American character and prosperity.
So - yes, I agree that 2024 might see this culminate in peak anti-democracy. That activates street responses. But please dont continue the fiction that this response is one sided. Don’t comfort yourself that only conservatives forsake this sacred institution. The response is exactly the same differing only in the directness of the effort.
This is absurd.
In our system, you are allowed to protest, assemble and express your grievances and concerns, etc.
But, central to our commitment to democracy under the Constitution, you concede an election when you've lost. Al Gore conceded under bizarre conditions. Hillary Clinton conceded to Trump when the results were clear, and before the nation the next day. "We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.”
That's the bottom line. Democrats toe it (thus far), Republicans do not.
Not absurd. Democrats spent four years finding every reason and mechanism to displace a democratically elected leader. As they are right now working to bankrupt, distract, and disqualify the leading contender for 2024 with coordinated election-year lawsuits whose purpose is solely to deprive his supporters of their candidate.
That is how Democrats subvert democracy. Using selective lawfare and withering public relations assassination to amputate a candidate they’ve despised for 8 years. Never once addressing the underlying reasons for his popularity - rather preferring to wholesale label them all as bigots and Neanderthals who don’t deserve a voice on our borders or sweeping diktats on race or gender. They use different means to exactly the same end. You cannot gaslight tens of millions of us that this isn’t what you’re doing - subverting the popular will of your fellow countrymen under the righteous intonations of saving democracy.
The bottom line is, Have you conceded your loss or not? After that, everything else is off to the margins. Democrats do that, Republicans don't (anymore).
Under our Constitution, seeking to remove a president from office for cause is a legitimate option. It's not a rejection of the Constitution, or even a denial that he is the president. (And let's not forget that in his second impeachment, a majority of senators voted to convict, including every Democrat, seven Republicans and two independents.)
Similarly, prosecuting an accused criminal is what we do in this country, where no man is above the law. Juries of his peers decided the evidence was strong enough to support an indictment in each of these cases. This is how America works. There's no "get out of jail free" card just because you happen to be popular with some Americans. And even if he's convicted on any of these charges, he's still the candidate if they want him. He can run for president from jail if he wishes. It's been done before.
And the idea that Democrats don't care about voter grievances--in light of electoral concerns as well as others--is just nonsense. The amount of reporting and surveys and studes done on Trump voters--and the interest it generates among liberals--is just immense. The reason J. D. Vance became a celebrity and then a senator was that so many liberals bought, read and discussed his book. This has been true from the beginning. As a certain someone said in 2016: these are "people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. ... he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroine, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."
Fair enough. You see it your way. I see it mine. And we both have plenty of company. Nothing more to talk about.
Yup, very well said.
Yep, that's what she said about one-half of Trump's supporters. The other half she said were "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it."
She erred on the side of charity.
She "erred" all right. Ever read "Shattered"? https://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Inside-Hillary-Clintons-Campaign/dp/0553447084
I’m not at all a progressive but you seem to be caricaturing them just as you claim they caricature Trump voters.
Also, an enormous number of non-progressives (moderates, traditional liberals, never Trump Republicans) were wildly alarmed at Trump's ascent, often more than the most extreme progressives, who relished the heightening of the contradicitions that Trump could bring.
Evets - you’re right. That is all true. I don’t support Trump the man. Fun fact - I have never voted for him. But, I hold a great amount of affection and respect for the working class, red state folks who do love him. They are decent. And fundamentally good. They don’t deserve to be called racists or bigots. Or to voice alarm over our out of control borders. Or strange ideas sweeping our land on gender (enforced as hate speech). Or compulsory DEI that openly flogs us all for mythic nonsense like systemic racism. None of us deserve this reverse hatred. Not Jews, whites, men, or Christians. These are facts, not caricatures (though “fact” is most certainly subjective word these days I admit). So, I find myself the “lawyer for the Right” as an ex-Progressive. The kind of Progressive who believes truth is more vital than power. That fairness and even handedness are better virtues than dogma and religious fealty. That persuasion is the only way to win hearts and minds. And that coercion is the fastest way to ruthless conflict.
Our moment is one of intransigent war. Neither side can accurately recall who started all this - only that the others side with evil and tyranny. This is a horrible place snd will lead to real horrors as history shows.
Removing Trump won’t short circuit this. It will only emblazon the fire 🔥 that fuels him. MAGA is bigger than Trump. As an ex-Progressive myself (who expects higher EQ from the self-branded people of tolerance and moral clarity), I remain awestruck at Progressive lack of insight. All of this could be short circuited / including Trump / should our public figures adopt humility and respect for those left behind by globalist economics and progressive ideology. I suppose we’ve gone too far to go back. Like a soured marriage with irreconcilable differences - it appears a divorce should be preferable to domestic conflict.
"But as 2016 taught us - and your 2024 forecast predicts - Progressives will protest a legitimately elected President. In the streets."
We peacefully protested in the streets in 2017 to speak out freely against someone even you call a "madman." That's exercising democracy, not disdaining it. I would never have demonstrated had Mitt Romney or John McCain been elected, and I'm sure no one else would have. Why? Because Romney and McCain had not campaigned by promising to violate the Constitution by passing a ban on Muslims. Nor did they demonstrate extreme contempt for women (in public and private) and Mexicans while they campaigned. Nor had they fostered the lie about Obama's citizenship. On and on.
The action was in no way an attempt to deny him the office or even to cast doubt on the election process. On the contrary, it was a decision to speak publicly to someone who we acknowledged *did* hold the office and its powers, and to tell him that a vast number of us would not stand by silently if (when) he did things like introduce a religious test for entering the country.
It's bizarre to me when an action like that is still described as irrational (Trump Derangement Syndrome) or biased or contemptuous. I doubt any of us anticipated even half of what he actually attempted; in actuality, we lacked enough imagination to anticipate how far he would go.
90% of Americans have heard Donald Trump's voice with their own ears as he tried to strong arm a Secretary of State to reverse a state election loss. GOP officials in my state tried very hard to have my vote thrown in the trash. I would think it would be easy to understand why people like me take it very personally when a party tries very hard to disenfranchise you.
Many assume that progressives and liberals are wealthy elites with disdain for Trump's supporters. But how often do Republicans stop and consider what it feels like to be a woman, for instance, and have someone found liable for rape by a jury be the leading candidate for president? while pregnant women are forced to risk sepsis before getting medical treatment in many states? Talk about feeling disdain from your fellow Americans.
I really felt for Alison Dagnes also, as I see the same dynamics. I grew up in the Northeast, got most of my degrees in urban institutions (Philly, where I also learned to love cheesesteaks), and was used to the lively, informed, witty exchange of ideas especially over politics that's part of that culture. Coming to the midwest and dealing with people from rural hamlets, is a culture shock.
Disagreement isn't something to enjoy for these folks, it's a tragedy or a crime. To make sure you don't get close to it, you don't discuss topics where passionate disagreement is likely. This is as true of faculty as of students. My guess is it's largely a factor of rural conditions: in a large city, if you and your pharmacist get into a row over politics, you can find another pharmacist. Here you might not--and you go to church with him, and you see him everywhere. Cohesion is prized above all, and that means being nice. Young people often don't have any experience watching adults debate passionately and intelligently, nor have they done so themselves.
Several recent trends have exacerbated that: for students, social media. The amount of time it takes keeping up with friends etc. crowds out other things, like the news. For everyone, faculty too, well, it's hard being a happy religious Republican now. They're stuck with Trump as their only option, but most of them are dismayed and bewildered by what's happened to their movement in the last 20 years. Most of their Bush II-era dreams have gone up in smoke, and they're living in the aftermath. Not talking about it seems the best way of coping.
I have one tactic to recommend when it comes to students. I make them memorize sayings (and repeat them on quizzes), that can serve to get discussion going (it's still hard, and uncomfortable for them). As an example, I have them memorize Madison's "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." That can get us into a discussion of what he meant, if we agree with him, if we do how much government is necessary?, and on into liberaliism vs. conservatism.
I keep my hopes modest. As they say, "culture eats strategy" (pedagogical strategies too), and for people who are all about making sure they aren't disturbing any of their social ties or relationships, it's risky for them. The "I have to live here" principle kicks in, and it's obviously irrational to risk permanently damaging an important social relationship over a classroom discussion in a class that's not close to your major interests anyway. So, baby steps.
"And yes, I’m assuming that essentially no heterosexual man would pretend to be a transwoman at work simply in order to get a free pass into the women’s shower to ogle female coworkers in the nude."
Wow, that's an amazing world you live in, one with no predatory straight men! You understand that the pretense only needs to last for as long as the man is watching, he can unpretend immediately after: there is no gatekeeping of any kind on gender self-ID; it can change arbitrarily often and arbitrarily fast, per the legal definition. Have you told the women in your life about this wonderful development, that suddenly all the predatory men they've known throughout their lives no longer exist? I'm sure they'll be thrilled to hear about it!
Here's what actual women think:
"I've never felt so victimized by my own government."
https://womensliberationfront.org/news/women-outraged-over-regulations-replacing-sex-with-gender-identity-in-federal-civil-rights-laws
Also: Ukraine. Got an endgame? Or did we have to destroy Ukraine in order to save it? I see no possible ending other than (1) Russia takes overs a now totally devastated Ukraine after immense destrunction and loss of life, or (2) nuclear war between Russia and the West. I thought this from the very beginning, which was 1997 when Ukraine was not admitted to NATO along with those other SSRs, and confirmed in 2014, when Russia invaded and took control of part of Ukraine (remember that?) and the West did diddly-squat about it (which was the correct response). Way too late for backsies now!
Also: Biden strategy. You really don't know what he should do? Do you ever read Ruy Teixeira or Nate Silver? Or Mark Penn's recent NYT piece? (OK, Penn does not know how to manage an actual campaign, but he does understand polling.) You've not heard of the Median Voter Theorem? I'm genuinely kinda shocked here. But then you also believe predatory men don't exist ...
Re Ukraine: Last I checked "we" aren't the ones destroying Ukraine...its the Russians. And the ones fighting back are Ukrainians, not us. Do we need an endgame to provide a country that's been invaded against their wishes with arms. I don't see why. That said, if you want be really cynical about it, you could say that the US/West strategy has been to slowly deplete the Russian army without losing a man. But, you're not happy because you want Russia to win. TFB!
"Do we need an endgame to provide a country that's been invaded against their wishes with arms. I don't see why."
Of course we need to understand the range of possible outcomes of our actions. Not understanding that range is exactly what's gotten us into so much trouble in the past: Iraq, Vietnam. But we're doing it all over again in Ukraine, so far with just money, but the net effect is to make things much worse than they otherwise would have been. If the West is not going to pursue total victory in Ukraine, including boots on the ground, then Russia will eventually win, by sheer overpowering resources. Absent that commitment to total victory, we're going to end with Russia dominating a devastated Ukraine, when we could have had Russia dominating an intact Ukraine, a la Hungary 1968 (when the West correctly did nothing in response). Instead we've got the 2nd worst of all possible worlds (the worst being total war).
I dislike the conflating of being gay in a single sex space with the issue of whether spaces should be single sex or single gender. I don't think the issues are really comparable.
They're not comparable at all, which is one reason why Damon's patronizing response is so disappointing.
Here's another reason: if the number of people claiming a "gender identity" different from their biology is so small as to make the issue irrelevant (Damon's argument), why is it so important to require the very much larger number of women to accede to the wants of this small group of men? Why does the small group get preference over the large group?
Mark - “the personal is political” has poisoned us. It has taught us that our atomic-level identities are deserving of unique recognition and “rights”. Democrats relish their historical role in civil rights in the 1960s. As a party - this is their greatest moment and favorite brand. But in 2024, there are no real injustices for them to overturn. There are no Jim Crow laws to revoke. There are no Bull Connors running our cities. There are no Rosa Parks moments. So, they have to fabricate these things now in an ever more desperate attempt to convince Americans that we still live in oppression. That racism and sexism and Islamaphobia and transphobia are not only alive - but have never been worse. A perpetual state of emergency. And who can fix this social rot of conservative making? Only they. Of course.
But, you see, we have eyes. We know that this is absurd. We see it for the scam shakedown that it is. A way to make white people guilty and self loathing for the prosperity of the world’s most dynamic economy. So they must invent a cover story. A fiction. That fiction is called systemic racism. And an intellectual framework called anti-racism. Both are unfalsifiable traps claiming lived-experience harm you can’t see or notice - but (trust them), it exists, were to blame, were to stand aside, shut up, flog ourselves for these unseen sins and our unwitting culpability in them, vote for Democrats to reform our loathsome land and allow a sprawling, compulsory DEI infrastructure to jam this deceit down our throats. And if we object? Banishment. Shame be upon us. We live with the Scarlet R emblazoned on our reputations and Google search results. Effectively ending our careers and abilities to live and speak freely.
This is the Progressive Scam. Their regime is built on a false claim, a hopped up moral panic, a witting political party with a feckless “leader”, and scores of online Agent Smith enforcers who fly into seek and destroy mode at anyone who dare be free of their reach. Progressives, once a remarkable and vital force who affected real and important change, are no longer relevant. Seeking ever diminishing returns to desperately cling to their glory days long gone. Moving the con game to ever more diminishing returns for ever smaller identity groups of “the oppressed” they can liberate and take credit for as a pretext to remain relevant.
Their game is tiresome. And false. And their abuse of social, cultural, institutional, and judicial power to spread this cancer into the bones of America is loathsome.
This is why.
So what you're saying, IOW, is progressives are all simply .... deplorable. Lukas, you call youself a 'lawyer for the right', but after reading this I almost want to reconsider my opposition to woke ideology. That opposition is real and strong. But this is not good lawyering.
So what you're saying, IOW, is that progressives are all simply .... deplorable. Lukes, you call yourself a 'lawyer for the right', but after reading this I almost want to reconsider my opposition to woke politics.
Ha. Well, I can see your point 😎. Don’t ditch your opposition to wokeness over me. And not all Progressives are bad (of course). But the ideology is wrong. And the enforcers/cancelers are wrong.
Sorry for the double post — didn’t think either of them actually displayed
Everyone might want to read Chris Cillizza'article on Professor Allan Lichtman. It was in his Substack yesterday
He uses a very scientific method and has only been wrong on one election over the last number of years He even predicted Trumps 2016 victory
His method is to make stuff up with a Russian expert on earthquakes. "Science" has nothing to do with it.
Damon, as a political scientist, do you think that, independent of Mr Trump, that American electoral democracy can recover the open attacks on the legitimacy of (to list them) the media, the judiciary, the security services, the public services, the accountability of the executive, and above, all the electoral process and peaceful transition of power? If so, what reparative measures could restore the republic to itself? At the base of this, so to speak, are radical changes in the infosphere which mean that it is all supported seemingly by around 40% of the US electorate, and within which radicalisation proceeds incrementally in the absence of critical controls; all of whom (and all of which, re: the infosphere) will not disappear if (as I don't believe) Trump does not win or take power later this year. From Australia, where thankfully none of this has taken hold as yet (but Sky news is increasingly openly pro-Trump, antiwoke, etc.). Assoc. Prof. Matt Sharpe, Aus. Cath. University
Damon, thanks for including the link to M Yglesias's "How to make a difference in the 2024 election". That's something I'll find useful.
Damon, thanks for your response to my question. It is also the consensus response at the Bulwark live event tonight among the staff present, and is truly concerning. I'm not sure if I believe the NYT/Siena poll specifically, but polls in general have Biden down a little. I think the only real way this could change is if people remember what kind of person Trump is - right now, they are more focused on being dissatisfied with Biden while Trump is not as much in the picture.
Thanks for answering my question, Damon. I recently listened to Andrew Sullivan's podcast with John Mearsheimer and have been thinking about his claim that the US played a major role in facilitating the rise of a peer competitor nation in China that unlike the UK US relationship in the late 19th and early 20th centuries , has a hostile governing philosophy and that could be see as one of the great diplomatic blunders of our time.
Very interesting as always, but I am afraid I am not convinced by the answer to the "shower question."
Regarding gay men in male showers, and lesbian women in female showers, the obvious retort is that men pose a potential danger to women, in a way that men do not pose to men, nor women to women, nor women to men. Pretty simple, right?
Regarding the arithmetic and the scale of the problem, sure, this particular regulation may only affect a small number of people, and yet, Biden / the Dems / the elite / our regime (but I repeat myself) are quite clear that this logic must be applied to every single sexed / gendered institution as a matter of basic human rights. Every single female institution is going to be compelled to admit """""""trans women"""""" to its ranks, if they get their way. And it will be mostly done by the machinations of regulators, lawyers, bureaucrats, judges, etc., not by any sort of voting or democratic mechanism (in which this cause would be badly defeated*, just as gay marriage was defeated 31-0 in elections before being imposed by the same undemocratic regime**). Therefore, taking the 'big picture,' it is quite justified to consider this as both much more significant, and much less democratic, than the narrow case of 'shower regulations' allows for.
* https://news.gallup.com/poll/507023/say-birth-gender-dictate-sports-participation
** https://www.mercurynews.com/2009/11/03/gay-marriage-opponents-claim-victory-in-maine/
One further note: this above is why no one right of center could possibly accept the account of Schedule F given in a different answer. Liberals appear to sincerely believe that the civil service is composed of high-minded, impartial public servants who simply want to carry out the law as written, and wouldn't dream of being "political." Those on the right know better, and realize that the unsackability and so-called "professional status" of civil servants is precisely why state-inflicted liberalism appears to advance so relentlessly and implacably, regardless of what happens in elections. For those on the right of center, Schedule F is a bare minimum to advance the cause of "stop letting your enemies have unchecked, undemocratic power over you."
Very well said, thank you.
Mark, I am going To humbly disagree with you
A gentleman by the name of Jim Simons founded a company named Renaissance almost 40 years ago He had been chair of the mathematics at Sonybrook University.. His cofounder was a mathematician as well They didn't have any experience in Investments Their theory was which specializes in systematic trading using quantitative models derived from mathematical and statistical analysis. which specializes in systematic trading using quantitative models derived from mathematical and statistical analysis. specializes in systematic trading using quantitative models derived from mathematical and statistical analysis. (The latter is from Wikipedia)
When I saw this modeI thought of the article on Renaissance Scientists, as you know, dont Just decide something is going to without testing it The earthquake scientist contribution was the modeling That was primarily waht he did
Chris Cillizza is a pretty good political analyst He wouldn't have published this interview if he ddidn/ think it was credible
Simons built his original models by backtesting hundreds of variables on decades of financial trading data using forerunners of modern machine-learning techniques. Lichtman made up his "13 keys" (which are all kinda obvious) and backtested them on 20 or so elections. Not at all the same thing.
Remember Earthquake predictability is based on modeling
I really like the response to the one about the faux hysteria over the ladies-being- forced-to-shower-in-front-of-everybody question. Just came back from a music fest, and while using the men's room, I saw a lot of women, and at least one attendee of indeterminate sex, using the men's room because the line to the ladies room was too long. One lady there purportedly -- I did not personally witness this, but i like the concept- used the urinal. That's my kind of woman. None of this breaks my leg or picks my pocket. You might want to explore the reasons why this 'diktat' is such a big thing in your life. I intend to shamelessly plagiarize Damon's response here, although i expect this contrived issue to pass quicker than one might expect. To be replaced by another bullshit issue, of course. Perhaps DeSantis protecting us from the ravages of fake meat.
An individual women can waive her own right to personal privacy if she so wishes, but that does not give her the authority to waive it for all other women.
You might want to explore why trampling all over women's right to privacy is such a big thing in your life.
https://womensliberationfront.org/news/women-outraged-over-regulations-replacing-sex-with-gender-identity-in-federal-civil-rights-laws
Sorry, I misspoke. Its not a bullshit issue, its a horseshit issue. As opposed to esoteric matters like access to birth control:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/05/18/virginia-youngkin-vetoes-skill-games-confederate-contraception/
As an avowed advocate of women's rights, your concern about this undoubtedly knows no bounds. But I'm sure the poor women in the south with ectopic pregnancies boarding buses to the north will be relieved to know that so much good work is being done to avoid their being embarrassed in the shower when they return.
Right to privacy used to include abortion, remember?
I fully support a woman's right to control her body, which includes abortion of her pregnancy at any time before birth. Yes, the Republicans are very bad on this. But political responses are available. "Seven states have directly voted on abortion since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022 — and abortion rights advocates are so far undefeated." https://19thnews.org/2023/12/abortion-states-election-2024-ballot-measures/ This includes red states like Ohio. The Virginia law that Youngkin vetoed had no actual effect unless and until federal law outlawed contraception, which IMO is extremely unlikely even with full Republican control of Congress. And even then Youngkin's stated objection was on religious liberty grounds that the law would remove conscientious objections to contraception provision by all pharmacists. In that WaPo article you cite, he said "Let me be crystal clear: I support access to contraception. However, we cannot trample on the religious freedoms of Virginians.” (Of course he may be lying.)
Politics is messy, there are no pure plays. But plenty of left-wing women are furious with Democrats, and will be withholding their votes from them because the Democrats in office support the destruction of women's sex-based rights.
Here is a book on this by left-wing radical feminist lawyer Kara Dansky:
https://www.amazon.com/Reckoning-Democrats-Betrayed-Women-Girls/dp/B0CN32BXC2
>In The Reckoning, Kara Dansky, a radical feminist and lifelong Democrat, exposes the invasion by men into female-only spaces, the harming of children, and the silencing, punishment, cancellation and even violence against women who speak out. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party, which claims to represent the interests of women, ignores the problem, while its allies in the organized Left and mainstream media paint all opposition to the “trans” agenda as “right wing.” But radical feminists are not “right wing.” They are leftists who know that sex is real and are not afraid to demand women’s hard-won rights to safe spaces and privacy.