"And so an administration already practiced in expansive executive power grabs settled into a rut of enacting by “pen and phone” what it couldn’t push through Congress, becoming more arrogant by the day. It was ultimately that brand of smug bullying, and the palpable contempt for voters outside of the blue tribe, that gave Donald Trump’s populist insurgency just enough oomph to power his shock upset in 2016."
Not to mention "self-serving". The assumption being that, we, as More Intelligent, Better Educated, More Virtuous and More Enlightened People with better taste and also totebags, we are entitled not only to run things, but we also are entitled to the lion's share of the goodies.
After all, we represent a sort of natural aristocracy, and if the little people get left behind, that is because they deserve it.
That's what I think DEI/CRT is. A luxury belief, but so stupid no one could come up with it on their own without knowing the secret phrases that would let the most meritless private school kid jump the line. Under what rational merit based system does the NYT tech union demand trigger warnings?
It's important for each side to have its experts and intellectuals and shadow government in reserve ahead of the next election, but as the stakes have risen the discourse has gotten more and more distorted. Most of my experience is in left institutions, I'm not in much position to comment on the right, but a huge part of the problem is that pretty nakedly ideological progressive advocacy receives tons of public money as if it's serious scholarship. Given that structural advantage, these election results are even more impressive.
Democrat ideas are unpopular across the board with voters across the spectrum. Biden won largely because he represented a return to “normal,” a promise that he defaulted on, and a promise that Harris was incapable of delivering because of her personal history. Now democrats think they can rebrand with Maga ideas, and win voters? Why should a voter bother? What are the great ideas that democrats are determined to hold onto? I see none.
I think you’re going to see a second Trump administration that’s a lot more focused on delivering the promised goods.
Especially with both houses of congress on board.
Progressives had their chance to play nice - and spied on him, impeached him twice, and has spent 9 years dramatically ramping up the ‘mean tweets’ screeching. Fascist, Hitler, garbage, etc.
I think they will now get trampled with both policy and political/lawfare payback. And then some.
Yes. It’s kind of irrational to talk about all of the progressive arrogance, hypocrisy, and funding resulting in a narrative of “stupid, evil, or both” of their counterparts and then talk about “let’s play nice.” I really hope we can start talking to each other again instead of demonizing each other. But in my experience, the energy for contempt comes mostly from the left. And they have had most if not all of the cultural power.
True progressivism must prevail if we are to avoid a pendulum swing toward a tyranny of conservatism. For that to happen though, post-modern progressive institutions will have to be razed culturally and financially. Reform must come from the virtuous and enlightened, not some Jacobin reaction. This is where we are at now: a hard and dangerous moment. Now is the time for measured thought and civic virtue. A time to think about 20 years from now and 50 years from now. The path has been cleared but its all uphill and steep. It’s a hard path from here.
Pete Buttigieg/David Holt will be the next loser ticket by the Dems, just wait 'n see... It's what Bill Kristol has been working on the last 5 or so years and he will get it....
Methinks the days of Democrats running two white men are over, Buttigieg's sexual orientation doesn't give him quite enough intersectional sway. We'll see if anyone catches fire with the base, I would think one of the governors would be most likely.
Structurally the shift of discourse from regional newspapers and hegemonic mass media to a fragmented system of algorithms delivering tailored partisan content was probably bound to polarize politics -- it really incentivizes being at each other's throats, unfortunately. But the heady exuberance of the Obama years probably accelerated the process by a bunch of years. The election of boring middle of the road Romney might have preserved the boring old establishmentarian center for another several cycles, and perhaps kept people from hating each other so much for a little while longer.
Why describe a 4+ point Biden win with 300+ electoral votes as a “squeaker” while referring to (what will be) a 2 point Trump win with a similar number of electoral votes as a “landslide”? You condemn the Biden administration for their arrogance in treating their win as a mandate while cavalierly referring to Trump’s (in some ways) narrower win as a mandate yourself. If you want people to to have a good faith conversation about this, then you can’t just play fast and loose with the facts like this in service to your own narrative (and that is only one example).
Different people's interpretations will vary, Josh, but I'd argue I've been more even-handed than you suggest. I characterized Trump's narrow victory in 2016 (80K voters in 3 states) as "just enough oomph" for his upset, and then Biden's narrow victory in 2020 (40K voters in 3 states) as eking out the win. We don't have final data for this election yet, but most analysts across the political spectrum are treating it as a significantly more decisive victory than the past couple of presidential elections, it's not a controversial take.
Now, does that mean Trump has a mandate? Maybe to close the border, stop transferring student loan debt to taxpayers, and reverse some of the excesses of Biden-Harris, but if he's overly aggressive with executive action and not careful to keep in the vicinity of public opinion then Vance or the next GOP nominee may well find themselves in Kamala's position for 2028.
"And so an administration already practiced in expansive executive power grabs settled into a rut of enacting by “pen and phone” what it couldn’t push through Congress, becoming more arrogant by the day. It was ultimately that brand of smug bullying, and the palpable contempt for voters outside of the blue tribe, that gave Donald Trump’s populist insurgency just enough oomph to power his shock upset in 2016."
Not to mention "self-serving". The assumption being that, we, as More Intelligent, Better Educated, More Virtuous and More Enlightened People with better taste and also totebags, we are entitled not only to run things, but we also are entitled to the lion's share of the goodies.
After all, we represent a sort of natural aristocracy, and if the little people get left behind, that is because they deserve it.
That's what I think DEI/CRT is. A luxury belief, but so stupid no one could come up with it on their own without knowing the secret phrases that would let the most meritless private school kid jump the line. Under what rational merit based system does the NYT tech union demand trigger warnings?
Don’t forget Georgetown and other ‘schools’ having crayon time, Lego’s and petting zoos to allow their $80k/year to sulk and recover from reality.
DEI is a textbook luxury belief, as well as an exceptionally performative means of virtue signaling.
Nicely done.
The employment of a large claque of professional Progressives is itself a serious structural problem.
It's important for each side to have its experts and intellectuals and shadow government in reserve ahead of the next election, but as the stakes have risen the discourse has gotten more and more distorted. Most of my experience is in left institutions, I'm not in much position to comment on the right, but a huge part of the problem is that pretty nakedly ideological progressive advocacy receives tons of public money as if it's serious scholarship. Given that structural advantage, these election results are even more impressive.
Democrat ideas are unpopular across the board with voters across the spectrum. Biden won largely because he represented a return to “normal,” a promise that he defaulted on, and a promise that Harris was incapable of delivering because of her personal history. Now democrats think they can rebrand with Maga ideas, and win voters? Why should a voter bother? What are the great ideas that democrats are determined to hold onto? I see none.
I think you’re going to see a second Trump administration that’s a lot more focused on delivering the promised goods.
Especially with both houses of congress on board.
Progressives had their chance to play nice - and spied on him, impeached him twice, and has spent 9 years dramatically ramping up the ‘mean tweets’ screeching. Fascist, Hitler, garbage, etc.
I think they will now get trampled with both policy and political/lawfare payback. And then some.
Yes. It’s kind of irrational to talk about all of the progressive arrogance, hypocrisy, and funding resulting in a narrative of “stupid, evil, or both” of their counterparts and then talk about “let’s play nice.” I really hope we can start talking to each other again instead of demonizing each other. But in my experience, the energy for contempt comes mostly from the left. And they have had most if not all of the cultural power.
True progressivism must prevail if we are to avoid a pendulum swing toward a tyranny of conservatism. For that to happen though, post-modern progressive institutions will have to be razed culturally and financially. Reform must come from the virtuous and enlightened, not some Jacobin reaction. This is where we are at now: a hard and dangerous moment. Now is the time for measured thought and civic virtue. A time to think about 20 years from now and 50 years from now. The path has been cleared but its all uphill and steep. It’s a hard path from here.
Pete Buttigieg/David Holt will be the next loser ticket by the Dems, just wait 'n see... It's what Bill Kristol has been working on the last 5 or so years and he will get it....
Methinks the days of Democrats running two white men are over, Buttigieg's sexual orientation doesn't give him quite enough intersectional sway. We'll see if anyone catches fire with the base, I would think one of the governors would be most likely.
Yah I didn't think about that….
Glad I’m not alone in occasionally wondering if the timeline went off the rails in 2012 with Romney.
Structurally the shift of discourse from regional newspapers and hegemonic mass media to a fragmented system of algorithms delivering tailored partisan content was probably bound to polarize politics -- it really incentivizes being at each other's throats, unfortunately. But the heady exuberance of the Obama years probably accelerated the process by a bunch of years. The election of boring middle of the road Romney might have preserved the boring old establishmentarian center for another several cycles, and perhaps kept people from hating each other so much for a little while longer.
Cheating is not winning. Biden didn't "eke out" a win in 2020, he was installed through election fraud by traitors and seditionists.
Why describe a 4+ point Biden win with 300+ electoral votes as a “squeaker” while referring to (what will be) a 2 point Trump win with a similar number of electoral votes as a “landslide”? You condemn the Biden administration for their arrogance in treating their win as a mandate while cavalierly referring to Trump’s (in some ways) narrower win as a mandate yourself. If you want people to to have a good faith conversation about this, then you can’t just play fast and loose with the facts like this in service to your own narrative (and that is only one example).
Different people's interpretations will vary, Josh, but I'd argue I've been more even-handed than you suggest. I characterized Trump's narrow victory in 2016 (80K voters in 3 states) as "just enough oomph" for his upset, and then Biden's narrow victory in 2020 (40K voters in 3 states) as eking out the win. We don't have final data for this election yet, but most analysts across the political spectrum are treating it as a significantly more decisive victory than the past couple of presidential elections, it's not a controversial take.
Now, does that mean Trump has a mandate? Maybe to close the border, stop transferring student loan debt to taxpayers, and reverse some of the excesses of Biden-Harris, but if he's overly aggressive with executive action and not careful to keep in the vicinity of public opinion then Vance or the next GOP nominee may well find themselves in Kamala's position for 2028.