"It also makes the Democratic and Republican Parties pretty formally similar. Both are terrified by what it would mean for the other party to win. Yet both can also only manage a narrow victory."
This is true, but also all about the the horse race.
So I'll ask: What core conservative value has not been abandoned by the GOP in its fealty to Trump? Character no longer matters, limited government no longer matters, free trade no longer matters, only cutting taxes for donors remains...in the meantime the GOP mounts primary challenges to any member who does not profess fealty to Trump, and eliminates them from the party. Ask Liz Cheney, who doesn't count as a moderate in anyone's book.
On the other side, what core liberal value are Democrats being asked to abandon to support Biden? What Biden loyalist is vowing revenge against Democrats who don't back Biden? Will Sen. Warner's family face death threats as Sen. Romney's has?
So they're not *at all* the same.
Ex-Republicans are all mouthing the same thing, that the failure to immediately dump Biden after the debate is "just like what happened" with their former party. It could not be more different.
But by focusing on the horse race instead of actual policy differences, all y'all play by Trump's rules.
This is not a tragedy, it is a gift. We can have an open convention (difficulties of that are exaggerated) as delegates "in good conscience" drop their prior commitment. We can have these delegates or groups of them nominated candidates, who then participate in a series of forums just putting their own best foot forward. This process will rivet the country, energize voters, produce a fresh candidate who does not carry the baggage of the last four years and has an opportunity to tell their story and defines themselves a new. A fresh candidate can beat Trump! Don't miss the opportunity! (Don't you feel energized at the very thought of it?)
The flaw in this plan is the assumption that there ARE any candidates other than Harris who would take the job. Anyone who does is at serious risk of blowing up their future career once and for all. Loss to Trump is very likely for any white person who shoves aside Kamala (racial politics will loom large in this scenario), and then that candidate will be the Democrat who blew it. Whitmer has already said that she's not stupid enough to do this. Newsom is plenty stupid (see French Laundry), but I don't think even he is THAT stupid. Shapiro et al are also not dumb enough to take this bait. So it's KHive or bust if the Autarch doesn't hang in there (which I increasingly believe he will).
These are valid concerns but not dispositive. The respected senior Black congressman Clyburn, seconded by a female Black Member of Congress have said that, in spite of their own fondness for Kamala, the competition should be open. The congresswoman said, Sister to sister, my heart is with Kamala, but the question is, she added, who can beat Trump. No senior Black voice has seriously contradicted them. Kamala has other opportunities that might be better for her than going down with the ship -- for example, being the next Governor of California. So I think your premise, though plausible, is quite questionable.
I became ill right before the debate, so I have consumed way too much news and commentary since then. I gotta say, although I enjoyed this exchange, I just haven't seen the ostrich head-in-sand position from Democrats. Yes, the Biden people have been trying all of those intimidation tactics, accusing everyone who even raises the question of a different candidate as being hysterical bedwetters. But in the comments sections for online stories, I'd say it is a 10 to 1 ratio in favor of calling for Biden to leave the race. Huge numbers of people––including a majority of Biden fans and admirers––are *rationally* panicked and understandably angry.
Not sure what I'm missing––is it because I don't hear the chatter on sites like X? Am I projecting my own anger and disgust at the Biden campaign?
What stands out to me is the contrast: the Democratic electorate has very few qualms about voicing critical views of their candidate's fitness (just as they have been telling pollsters for 2 years). And of course not even a hint of criticism about Trump is permitted in the GOP––everyone knows they will lose their political future and face doxxing and death threats. Even the ordinary GOP voters risk losing friendships and loved ones if they spoke out against Trump.
Anyone who says that the typical Democratic voter and the typical GOP voter are the same type of person is selling you something. "Democrats want to fall in love; Republicans want to fall in line." Looks like the campaign's wheels are coming off to me, but I wasn't expecting instant gratification like some people.
This was remarked on in Cilizza’s comments. I think it’s important to parse the difference between Biden’s team and the larger universe of elected Dems and Dem voters, whose response has truly run the gamut from shock and horror to full-throated defense and everything in between.
I think anger at Biden’s team and circle is merited, as is concern over his ability to govern (I’d say debate over his ability to campaign is fairly settled, which is arguably all that matters at the moment). But like you I’m seeing that full spectrum of reactions, including from the punditry, with publications printing Biden Must Go! articles followed immediately by “Biden Must Stay!” think pieces. I stumble over fresh names of elected Dems openly voicing their concern and softening positions from Biden stalwarts like Clyburn every day. The idea that there’s some coordinated wagon-circling going on doesn’t comport with my observation of the last week and a half.
It’s difficult to parse how much of Biden’s support is allegiance to his administration vs anti-Trumpism, so charges of rank tribalism seem flawed. I’m interested in the next post here, but as someone outside the parties I’m not buying it as formulated in this exchange.
For me, the biggest fallout of The Debate is what it revealed about the MSM. I'm a classical liberal who subscribes to the NYT, Wapo, and LATimes, and I still placed some trust in them (in spite of their very one-sided coverage of my pet issue, which, to the relief of all, I'm not going to mention here).
Now I'm very late to this party, as pretty much everyone not in the employ of the DNC already had zero trust in the MSM. But all the scales had not yet completely fallen from my own eyes.
Then I read Olivia Nuzzi's piece, The Consipracy of Silence to Protect Joe Biden https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/conspiracy-of-silence-to-protect-joe-biden.html (try incognito mode if you hit a paywall). Nuzzi has covered the Bidens for a long time and relays many personal anecdotes of her interactions with them (especially Jill). Then, at the end, she drops this blockbuster revelation:
>This April … I joined a sea of people waiting for a photo with the president and First Lady … My heart stopped as I extended my hand to greet the president. I tried to make eye contact, but it was like his eyes, though open, were not ON. … I said “hello.” His sweet smile stayed frozen. He spoke very slowly and in a very soft voice. “And what’s your name?” he asked.
>Exiting the room after the photo, the group of reporters — not instigated by me, I should note — made guesses about how dead he appeared to be, percentage wise. “Forty percent?” one of them asked.
So: SHE KNEW, from her own direct personal interaction with the President, and stayed silent. As did every other reporter in that "group of reporters". THEY ALL KNEW.
OK, I'm an idiot, but I trusted them more than that. But they deliberately lied to us. They knew, from their own personal observations, and THEY LIED.
Biden, after decades of politics defined by policy difference, was overwhelmed and had no answer to the up-close-and-personal shockwave of lies and alternate reality that had become permissible for his media event with Trump. He had, no doubt, been briefed and registered it intellectually but the personal experience should have been a wake-up. His comment about how he would feel in defeat indicates that he has not yet processed the shift. He needs to show us that he has done so. The NATO meeting should be an opportunity for him to reveal his expanded consciousness and designate his/our champion to begin the long fight to retain a fact-driven, precedent-honoring epoch that was envisioned by the architects of our system and continued in good faith by generations of Americans.
Damon - I enjoyed reading your correspondence with Chris. Completely agree with your observations. To build on your final point: the role of technology has been to help each of us “find our people” online + all over the world. Uniting mankind online has severely weakened traditional bonds such as country, kin, and culture. Online affinity is a solvent for offline affinity. It atomizes humans into ever finer segmented groups who each begin to advocate for their “rights” and recognition. It supercharges feelings of unique identity.
How does “Democracy”, as a system, survive this transformational force? Democracy (especially American two-party Democracy) depends on disparate groups finding common cause and banding together. But the centrifugal forces of the Identitarian Left + Atomizing Technology rips comity apart. True on the Right as well.
I argue in your Substack community (where I too have “found my people!😎) that this 300 year old relic of constitutional Democracy is now just as obsoleted as the automobile made the covered wagon or steam train. We are witnessing the end of an era and that is the stress we feel. The future of mankind organizing itself will not be representative Democracy. Our technology power is too advanced for this to continue working. The future will have to emerge in some sort of online network where we join fellow travelers virtually while still living on an analog planet.
I think you underestimate the realism of Black voters. That is why they supported Biden in the South Carolina primary. Black candidates like Harris and Booker never arose above single digits in the SC polling, if I recall correctly. With Black leaders endorsing an open process, and probably a racially balanced ticket in the end, voters of whatever color will want to keep their most hated enemy out of the White House.
"It also makes the Democratic and Republican Parties pretty formally similar. Both are terrified by what it would mean for the other party to win. Yet both can also only manage a narrow victory."
This is true, but also all about the the horse race.
So I'll ask: What core conservative value has not been abandoned by the GOP in its fealty to Trump? Character no longer matters, limited government no longer matters, free trade no longer matters, only cutting taxes for donors remains...in the meantime the GOP mounts primary challenges to any member who does not profess fealty to Trump, and eliminates them from the party. Ask Liz Cheney, who doesn't count as a moderate in anyone's book.
On the other side, what core liberal value are Democrats being asked to abandon to support Biden? What Biden loyalist is vowing revenge against Democrats who don't back Biden? Will Sen. Warner's family face death threats as Sen. Romney's has?
So they're not *at all* the same.
Ex-Republicans are all mouthing the same thing, that the failure to immediately dump Biden after the debate is "just like what happened" with their former party. It could not be more different.
But by focusing on the horse race instead of actual policy differences, all y'all play by Trump's rules.
This is not a tragedy, it is a gift. We can have an open convention (difficulties of that are exaggerated) as delegates "in good conscience" drop their prior commitment. We can have these delegates or groups of them nominated candidates, who then participate in a series of forums just putting their own best foot forward. This process will rivet the country, energize voters, produce a fresh candidate who does not carry the baggage of the last four years and has an opportunity to tell their story and defines themselves a new. A fresh candidate can beat Trump! Don't miss the opportunity! (Don't you feel energized at the very thought of it?)
The flaw in this plan is the assumption that there ARE any candidates other than Harris who would take the job. Anyone who does is at serious risk of blowing up their future career once and for all. Loss to Trump is very likely for any white person who shoves aside Kamala (racial politics will loom large in this scenario), and then that candidate will be the Democrat who blew it. Whitmer has already said that she's not stupid enough to do this. Newsom is plenty stupid (see French Laundry), but I don't think even he is THAT stupid. Shapiro et al are also not dumb enough to take this bait. So it's KHive or bust if the Autarch doesn't hang in there (which I increasingly believe he will).
These are valid concerns but not dispositive. The respected senior Black congressman Clyburn, seconded by a female Black Member of Congress have said that, in spite of their own fondness for Kamala, the competition should be open. The congresswoman said, Sister to sister, my heart is with Kamala, but the question is, she added, who can beat Trump. No senior Black voice has seriously contradicted them. Kamala has other opportunities that might be better for her than going down with the ship -- for example, being the next Governor of California. So I think your premise, though plausible, is quite questionable.
None of that matters. A large fraction of POC are still going to be seriously pissed, and stay home. I'm a white dude, but I can feel that myself.
Anyway, the Autarch is not standing down, so it's all irrelevant.
I became ill right before the debate, so I have consumed way too much news and commentary since then. I gotta say, although I enjoyed this exchange, I just haven't seen the ostrich head-in-sand position from Democrats. Yes, the Biden people have been trying all of those intimidation tactics, accusing everyone who even raises the question of a different candidate as being hysterical bedwetters. But in the comments sections for online stories, I'd say it is a 10 to 1 ratio in favor of calling for Biden to leave the race. Huge numbers of people––including a majority of Biden fans and admirers––are *rationally* panicked and understandably angry.
Not sure what I'm missing––is it because I don't hear the chatter on sites like X? Am I projecting my own anger and disgust at the Biden campaign?
What stands out to me is the contrast: the Democratic electorate has very few qualms about voicing critical views of their candidate's fitness (just as they have been telling pollsters for 2 years). And of course not even a hint of criticism about Trump is permitted in the GOP––everyone knows they will lose their political future and face doxxing and death threats. Even the ordinary GOP voters risk losing friendships and loved ones if they spoke out against Trump.
Anyone who says that the typical Democratic voter and the typical GOP voter are the same type of person is selling you something. "Democrats want to fall in love; Republicans want to fall in line." Looks like the campaign's wheels are coming off to me, but I wasn't expecting instant gratification like some people.
This was remarked on in Cilizza’s comments. I think it’s important to parse the difference between Biden’s team and the larger universe of elected Dems and Dem voters, whose response has truly run the gamut from shock and horror to full-throated defense and everything in between.
I think anger at Biden’s team and circle is merited, as is concern over his ability to govern (I’d say debate over his ability to campaign is fairly settled, which is arguably all that matters at the moment). But like you I’m seeing that full spectrum of reactions, including from the punditry, with publications printing Biden Must Go! articles followed immediately by “Biden Must Stay!” think pieces. I stumble over fresh names of elected Dems openly voicing their concern and softening positions from Biden stalwarts like Clyburn every day. The idea that there’s some coordinated wagon-circling going on doesn’t comport with my observation of the last week and a half.
It’s difficult to parse how much of Biden’s support is allegiance to his administration vs anti-Trumpism, so charges of rank tribalism seem flawed. I’m interested in the next post here, but as someone outside the parties I’m not buying it as formulated in this exchange.
For me, the biggest fallout of The Debate is what it revealed about the MSM. I'm a classical liberal who subscribes to the NYT, Wapo, and LATimes, and I still placed some trust in them (in spite of their very one-sided coverage of my pet issue, which, to the relief of all, I'm not going to mention here).
Now I'm very late to this party, as pretty much everyone not in the employ of the DNC already had zero trust in the MSM. But all the scales had not yet completely fallen from my own eyes.
Then I read Olivia Nuzzi's piece, The Consipracy of Silence to Protect Joe Biden https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/conspiracy-of-silence-to-protect-joe-biden.html (try incognito mode if you hit a paywall). Nuzzi has covered the Bidens for a long time and relays many personal anecdotes of her interactions with them (especially Jill). Then, at the end, she drops this blockbuster revelation:
>This April … I joined a sea of people waiting for a photo with the president and First Lady … My heart stopped as I extended my hand to greet the president. I tried to make eye contact, but it was like his eyes, though open, were not ON. … I said “hello.” His sweet smile stayed frozen. He spoke very slowly and in a very soft voice. “And what’s your name?” he asked.
>Exiting the room after the photo, the group of reporters — not instigated by me, I should note — made guesses about how dead he appeared to be, percentage wise. “Forty percent?” one of them asked.
So: SHE KNEW, from her own direct personal interaction with the President, and stayed silent. As did every other reporter in that "group of reporters". THEY ALL KNEW.
OK, I'm an idiot, but I trusted them more than that. But they deliberately lied to us. They knew, from their own personal observations, and THEY LIED.
Biden, after decades of politics defined by policy difference, was overwhelmed and had no answer to the up-close-and-personal shockwave of lies and alternate reality that had become permissible for his media event with Trump. He had, no doubt, been briefed and registered it intellectually but the personal experience should have been a wake-up. His comment about how he would feel in defeat indicates that he has not yet processed the shift. He needs to show us that he has done so. The NATO meeting should be an opportunity for him to reveal his expanded consciousness and designate his/our champion to begin the long fight to retain a fact-driven, precedent-honoring epoch that was envisioned by the architects of our system and continued in good faith by generations of Americans.
Damon - I enjoyed reading your correspondence with Chris. Completely agree with your observations. To build on your final point: the role of technology has been to help each of us “find our people” online + all over the world. Uniting mankind online has severely weakened traditional bonds such as country, kin, and culture. Online affinity is a solvent for offline affinity. It atomizes humans into ever finer segmented groups who each begin to advocate for their “rights” and recognition. It supercharges feelings of unique identity.
How does “Democracy”, as a system, survive this transformational force? Democracy (especially American two-party Democracy) depends on disparate groups finding common cause and banding together. But the centrifugal forces of the Identitarian Left + Atomizing Technology rips comity apart. True on the Right as well.
I argue in your Substack community (where I too have “found my people!😎) that this 300 year old relic of constitutional Democracy is now just as obsoleted as the automobile made the covered wagon or steam train. We are witnessing the end of an era and that is the stress we feel. The future of mankind organizing itself will not be representative Democracy. Our technology power is too advanced for this to continue working. The future will have to emerge in some sort of online network where we join fellow travelers virtually while still living on an analog planet.
"then we’ll have a shot at advancing a new form of technological prohibition. (Just kidding. Mostly.)"
I hope you're not actually kidding, Damon. Us Luddites get it right sometimes, and this may well be one of them.
I think you underestimate the realism of Black voters. That is why they supported Biden in the South Carolina primary. Black candidates like Harris and Booker never arose above single digits in the SC polling, if I recall correctly. With Black leaders endorsing an open process, and probably a racially balanced ticket in the end, voters of whatever color will want to keep their most hated enemy out of the White House.