It's a nice sentiment and I agree with the author that we have a civic duty to treat discussion fairly, but it strikes me as drastically naive of the powers at play if they are calling on...
Exemplary
It's a nice sentiment and I agree with the author that we have a civic duty to treat discussion fairly, but it strikes me as drastically naive of the powers at play if they are calling on newsrooms, owned by the very billionaires profiting and benefiting from the current system; these very folks designed the semblance of a debate, or at least bought into it (quite literally if all they care about is the money it makes) and are not going to change their behavior - they simply have no incentive to.
The right has platforms for misinformation and hate and the erosion of critical thinking and democracy because the right owns these platforms. When they didn't have these platforms, they'd fall back on American ideas like "free speech" to demand platforms in places they should not have been granted platforms. The very idea of civility requires civic behavior, yet I have scarcely seen individuals measure someone's behavior and use it as a means to remove actors which aim to destroy or dismantle civic institutions. Just as we must learn to be intolerant of those who are intolerant, if we wish to have a civil society we need to learn to be intolerant of malicious actors both on the stage and on a more personal level.
This brings up the question of how does one manage to affect or dismantle such a hateful institution and reach these malicious actors? I believe we've tried, unsuccessfully, to give them a space and a voice. We tried being civil with them and they took every chance to erode that they could. We have a civic duty to deprive them of a voice, to impose harsher penalties in response to their hate, to remove them from the very society they wish to erode. Personally for me, that means simple exclusion - I refuse to give them my presence, my time, my voice or my thoughts. I will openly and unapologetically acknowledge the harm that has been caused and chastise those who align themselves with such hate and violence. When the people I love are being threatened with violence on the national stage (to say nothing of their day to day) the time is long past that we can talk about "ideological differences in policy". Everyone on the right gets to bear the responsibility of the actions of their leaders and anything short of open condemnation and actively doing what they can to remove this leadership is simply not enough.
If you are to ask for my opinion on the matter, I don't personally think that even that is enough. Nothing, short of luck, is poised to stop the current direction of the administration. The fascists have shown that they do not care for speech itself, listening to no one but themselves and bullying their way into power. They dismantle the institutions we created, because they do not care for and simply ignore the rules. We do not have strong mechanisms to remove those who ignore the rules, because we assumed that people would center the health of a society, of civility, over personal goals. But this is incorrect, their cares are centered on what directly affects them and their loved ones. They do not care of society at large because they wish to dismantle it and replace it. They seek to dismantle it with violence, but they are desperately scared of violence in return, only engaging in fights where the magnitude of their power is much greater. Thus, we know precisely what levers are available to us and what actions could stop their progress, yet we hold ourselves to standards the enemy refuses to acknowledge. We must extend the paradox of intolerance to be compatible with actions which we are currently uncomfortable with or we cannot effectively oppose their advance.
The public, myself included, has taken to treating political parties as rooting for a particular sports team. There's no shades of gray anymore; support is a binary choice. We don't see the whole...
when politics is routed through entertainment, audiences are trained to react, not reflect. In that register, even an assassination is received as content; the horror presents itself as just another installment of the show.
The public, myself included, has taken to treating political parties as rooting for a particular sports team. There's no shades of gray anymore; support is a binary choice. We don't see the whole debate, we just see the highlight reel on tv or socials.
This is magnified in a two party system... It's as if the Lakers are always playing the Knicks, there are no other teams in the league, the refs are always calling fouls in favor of the Knicks, and everyone is constantly watching the personal lives of every player.
I've found the anti-Klein backlash starting with "Abundance", to the Kirk op-ed, to the excellent new discussion with Ta-Nehesi Coates (which everyone should listen to in full rather than through...
I've found the anti-Klein backlash starting with "Abundance", to the Kirk op-ed, to the excellent new discussion with Ta-Nehesi Coates (which everyone should listen to in full rather than through clips) to be exhausting. It's so much the product of these times where information/content, reaction, and reaction to the reaction, occur simultaneously. We no longer have the ability to evaluate the original source, sit with it, and come to our own conclusions when the algorithm is pumping us with hot takes before we have a chance to find the actual source.
This piece is certainly not the worst but it feels in the same vein and will be used as bludgeon by people who fail to read past the headline and actually process what was written. Like I'm a Klein fan and even though I disagree with some of his takes or wish he pushed harder on certain guests, but when the author says:
The best moments in liberal modernity, by contrast, have tried to reset the moral grammar: The Reconstruction Amendments, Brown v. Board, and the Civil Rights Act recast public life around equal protection, dignity before hierarchy. To say “we argue here, we do not shoot” is a minimum. The question is what is being argued for, and what a platform helps along.
It seems to miss the point that these things are only accomplished when you have the political and/or cultural power to do so and right now the left is getting curb stomped. During the discussion with Coates, it becomes very clear that Klein is interested in discussing strategy while Coates is more focused on context and morality, neither of which are wrong. Tbh, I found myself agreeing with Coates on nearly everything he said but fundamentally, the problem is power and the inability for the left to form an effective coalition to combat the current shithole we're living in.
On a personal note, I've heard the point from friends that one of the frustrating parts of Klein these days is the fact that he's basically saying certain strongly held beliefs aren't worthy policy goals (see his comment about fielding anti-abortion "Dems" in red states or his discussion with Sarah McBride on trans women in sports) or the fact that his coalition building strategies inevitably will lead to people getting left behind or at worst sacrificed. But what I'm failing to hear are actual actionable strategies we can implement now to reduce the suffering from this shitshow of an authoritarian administration. Like sure, Klein should have gone harder on Kirk, he should have pushed back harder on Shapiro (to be fair, this author doesn't mention that the Shapiro interview was recorded before Kirk was killed), Klein should push back harder in general and I want universal healthcare, taxes on billionaires, a stronger social safety net, and stronger protections for minority groups. But when one party is filled with boot licking "whatever daddy trump says" supporters who cosign everything he does, seeing the infighting and purity tests on the left is absolutely infuriating, particularly when the largest part of the coalition is led by two out of touch idiots with no spine and no strategy.
edit: Update as I wrote this very late. When I was referring to purity tests, I was referring to the diversity of opinion on what I would consider "the left". In a saner country, we'd live in multi party system but instead we have this idiotic two party system that groups ideologies that arguably shouldn't be grouped together in an unnatural binary, leading to infighting between factions and views being used as a cudgel. Things like foreign policy (Gaza, Ukraine, foreign aid), women's health and reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights, policing, race relations, domestic infrastructure, housing affordability, living wage, climate change, gun control, etc : there's always something to fight about.
I'm trying harder and still likely failing to ease up on those more closely aligned with the center left because we're living in hellish times and it's not clear to me that we've reached the bottom. I won't deny that for many, this has always been the case in America. I get that the status quo potentially maintained under a Harris administration isn't good enough and who demand progress should not have to wait. But at this point, not even a year into Trump 2 and it's clear that the idea that things couldn't get worse is wrong. There's always a new floor, there's always a new bottom. Maybe it's my preferred way to cope but I'm finding more comfort these days in discussion over strategy.
Fundamentally as someone who is part of multiple groups and a loud advocate for multiple groups that would be left behind if Klein's POV is adopted, it's not a purity test. But there is zero point...
Fundamentally as someone who is part of multiple groups and a loud advocate for multiple groups that would be left behind if Klein's POV is adopted, it's not a purity test.
But there is zero point in my advocating for more people to get elected who do not reliably support my rights from multiple angles. Pro life candidates will not protect my right to bodily autonomy federally. Anti-trans candidates will not ensure trans healthcare is covered, that trans people aren't targeted as mentally ill or dangerous. So then we have a majority in Congress but an inability to pass any of these protections?
If those candidates run, fine, bully for them. I wouldn't be canvassing for them, or volunteering for them, and if they were elected I'd be on them about changing their vote. I just think asking people to get behind actively having their rights considered as a distraction, and dismissing their criticisms as purity testing is insulting. Especially because right now is absolutely when we should be challenging people and building up local support for progressive candidates and primary challenges. In the same way that right now we need to support Dems standing firm on healthcare, including trans healthcare, to not cave on the budget. Reward and support them for doing the good thing, push them to do it when they don't. Boot those out of touch New Yorkers, support alternative progressive candidates, not regressive ones who can't be criticized without it being called "infighting."
It is convenient for Ezra Klein that he's not the one giving up rights in his thought experiments.
To be clear, when I was referring to purity tests I was thinking more about the broader perspective of some uncompromising leftists and their ire at the center left. It was more of a...
To be clear, when I was referring to purity tests I was thinking more about the broader perspective of some uncompromising leftists and their ire at the center left. It was more of a generalization though obviously any broad generalization would include your specific circumstances.
I also agree with your criticism as well, that it's easier to present these hypothetical when Klein isn't affected by these circumstances. At the same time I do agree in pushing for more progressive candidates and policies and do so in my voting habits. However I vote in a place where this isn't a winning strategy and won't be until a cultural shift occurs which ,while once believed to be years away, now feels decades off. I think part of the problem is the self segregation we're doing these days means we simply can't move the needle like we used to. I may be wrong but progressive candidates didn't do well in 2024 which certainly is disheartening.
While I vote in a very red state, I live in the bluest city in America. Candidates here can easily be outflanked and pushed from the left , but a moderate Dem where I vote doesn't have a chance in hell in the general election ,even with the shittiest senator in the union. At this point my vote is purely aspirational. So I get your frustration and empathize with you and do not think the trade off is acceptable. But right now the margins are so thin and the voting districts so gerrymandered that I really don't know what an effective strategy looks like before the mid terms. Maybe an effective Mamdani mayoralship will help change people's minds but NYC is such a unique thing that can't be replicated.
Personally I think the strategy is to bring the progressive candidates who can speak "across the aisle" whether that's to farmers or small business owners or suburban moms or whomever - you can...
Personally I think the strategy is to bring the progressive candidates who can speak "across the aisle" whether that's to farmers or small business owners or suburban moms or whomever - you can focus on labor and childcare and never mention trans kids while also never conceding on trans rights. You can get more people on board, and you can tell them how bad it is to take away their healthcare and how high their food prices are. You can reply to every attack with "I'm talking about reducing your grocery bill, the only person obsessed with trans people is my opponent who wants to take your daughter, who just happens to be tall, or an early bloomer and good at sports, and harass her, post about her on the internet until she's crying before the next game because adults are bullying her. That's not how we treat our neighbors. If my opponent hadn't voted to cancel Sesame Street they might have learned that. "
No speech will sound good written out, I'm not working in politics, but I have seen and heard the success of progressive candidates who speak up. I cant fix Texas (I assume), the solution there is not focusing on the Senate but the local and state races and the US Representatives that can be elected. But there's no world where I think the solution is recreating Manchin's outsized power dynamic or creating a conservative voting bloc in the Dem party intentionally rather than a progressive one.
Yea this reminds me of Marie Perez of WA who won in a Trump district. Like honestly her views on things like gun control are easy to criticize for those looking for a purity test but she's a good...
Yea this reminds me of Marie Perez of WA who won in a Trump district. Like honestly her views on things like gun control are easy to criticize for those looking for a purity test but she's a good partner on a lot of other issues and is an effective communicator.
I understand what you're saying on local elections as well but in red state like Texas with blue cities and counties , the amount of bullshit the State throws at local governance is wild. I guess the point of developing a stronger local ground game is important but it's pretty disheartening.
It is disheartening. Hell I'm in a red district of a blue state after all and my rep is doing jack + shit to help me or even the majority of the constituency. I will be supporting a challenger as...
It is disheartening. Hell I'm in a red district of a blue state after all and my rep is doing jack + shit to help me or even the majority of the constituency. I will be supporting a challenger as well watching for someone to primary him because I'm not above a Pritzker move of watching a far right candidate crash and burn in the general. But people have been announcing candidacy mostly in response to Medicaid cuts.
My best suggestion is to get involved with political groups in Texas doing this work as much as possible. They know the challenges and what can be done and where to focus effort. School boards matter too. Maybe it's supporting the courts and the lawsuits right now. Maybe it's a protest. Maybe its running against one of the unopposed good ol boys even if you know you will probably lose.
Fundamentally there's no reason to throw trans people or bodily autonomy or any of it under the bus though. We got here by not defending either to the fullest on principle. And abortion rights are actually very popular.
I see this line thrown around all the time, especially from centrist/establishment Democrats who are trying to avoid giving a full endorsement to Mamdani. While there is definitely some truth to...
but NYC is such a unique thing that can't be replicated.
I see this line thrown around all the time, especially from centrist/establishment Democrats who are trying to avoid giving a full endorsement to Mamdani. While there is definitely some truth to that - particularly when it comes to the organizing infrastructure that propelled Mamdani to victory - I'm not completely sold on the idea that his politics wouldn't appeal to Democrat and independent voters in the middle of the country. I guess we'll see. Whenever I hear the "such and such is not NYC" line, there's an implication that people in those states have different views about affordability, access to healthcare, wealth inequality, and America's unwavering support for war crimes. Idk, man. I think they just happen to live next to more Republicans.
I'm of the belief that people will ultimately vote for their own interests over anything else. Unfortunately, building candidates with a message loud enough to speak to those interests is difficult, especially when the institutional powers of the Democratic machine work against them. That's why I agree with DefinitelyNotAFae's suggestion below to join groups that can help propel Mamdani-like figures in other states. If you build it, they will come.
It's always fun to see things like "criticizing someone for explicitly advocating that removing my right to live my life and make my own decisions about my body be considered acceptable collateral...
It's always fun to see things like "criticizing someone for explicitly advocating that removing my right to live my life and make my own decisions about my body be considered acceptable collateral damage to appeal to people who want people like me dead" dismissed as a "purity test." Of course the people not wanting to be thrown under the bus are framed as the divisive ones, not the spineless liberals chomping at the bit to sacrifice us for a hypothetical chance at winning over more votes from transphobes and bigots of other varieties.
Man I did not express myself clearly on this. We all have lines that cannot be crossed and I too would include LGBT and reproductive rights in the values I would not compromise on. However I was...
Man I did not express myself clearly on this. We all have lines that cannot be crossed and I too would include LGBT and reproductive rights in the values I would not compromise on. However I was thinking about the purity test of the economic left who are critical of more center left capitalists or when Bernie bros attacked Warren in the 2020 primaries. I think of people like Marie Perez who won in a Trump district as an example of someone who is scrutinized for her views despite being pretty on board with a lot of more progressive ideas. Though any general statement is sufficient broad so I hear your pushback.
At the same time, the margins for public opinion on trans issues is razor thin. I bring this up not because I want to sacrifice a group I'm not a part of but because it's part of the nightmare reality we live in and I'm still looking for an "and/both" strategy that can work for places like where I'm from.
Ultimately I think that even if public opinion were wildly against trans issues to a much greater extent, it would still be wrong to abandon them. But it's much easier to believe that when "them"...
Ultimately I think that even if public opinion were wildly against trans issues to a much greater extent, it would still be wrong to abandon them. But it's much easier to believe that when "them" is actually "us".
Establishment democrats have proven themselves very willing to throw even very popular issues under the bus out of some delusion that it will appeal to right-wing voters, though. Abortion rights are actually very popular these days even in redder states, for instance.
Oh I agree but take the abortion issue, despite the effectiveness of reproductive rights in 2022 in stemming off an even greater beat down for the Dems, you did have quite a few states make...
Oh I agree but take the abortion issue, despite the effectiveness of reproductive rights in 2022 in stemming off an even greater beat down for the Dems, you did have quite a few states make meaningful progress on protecting those rights while still going for Trump in 2024. Missouri, Nevada, and Montana for example. I think splitting the vote is a distinct possibility in the upcoming midterms.
As @DefinitelyNotAFae mentioned in their comments, it's likely going to be a messaging strategy rather than beliefs. I brought up Rep. Gluesenkamp Perez because I think she reveals a path forward for the Dems in places that they are currently not competitive. I think the uphill challenge is that the right has a far more effective messaging strategy with dumbass manosphere podcasters/comedians, assholes like Kirk and Shapiro, social media, minsinformation campaigns, etc. The Dems are feckless right now and while I do think they can be pushed from the left in certain situations, they really need to consider what needs to be done to be more effective.
I agree with your points here, I just don't agree that in the process we give up on and intentionally plan to compromise on civil rights. That strategy hasn't worked so far. Kamala actively...
I agree with your points here, I just don't agree that in the process we give up on and intentionally plan to compromise on civil rights.
That strategy hasn't worked so far. Kamala actively courted the right.
But yes they need to get their act together on messaging, they're capable of it.
To the extent that even though Missourians explicitly protected abortion rights by referendum the state legislature and governor have done literally everything to try to counteract them.
Abortion rights are actually very popular these days even in redder states, for instance.
To the extent that even though Missourians explicitly protected abortion rights by referendum the state legislature and governor have done literally everything to try to counteract them.
It's a nice sentiment and I agree with the author that we have a civic duty to treat discussion fairly, but it strikes me as drastically naive of the powers at play if they are calling on newsrooms, owned by the very billionaires profiting and benefiting from the current system; these very folks designed the semblance of a debate, or at least bought into it (quite literally if all they care about is the money it makes) and are not going to change their behavior - they simply have no incentive to.
The right has platforms for misinformation and hate and the erosion of critical thinking and democracy because the right owns these platforms. When they didn't have these platforms, they'd fall back on American ideas like "free speech" to demand platforms in places they should not have been granted platforms. The very idea of civility requires civic behavior, yet I have scarcely seen individuals measure someone's behavior and use it as a means to remove actors which aim to destroy or dismantle civic institutions. Just as we must learn to be intolerant of those who are intolerant, if we wish to have a civil society we need to learn to be intolerant of malicious actors both on the stage and on a more personal level.
This brings up the question of how does one manage to affect or dismantle such a hateful institution and reach these malicious actors? I believe we've tried, unsuccessfully, to give them a space and a voice. We tried being civil with them and they took every chance to erode that they could. We have a civic duty to deprive them of a voice, to impose harsher penalties in response to their hate, to remove them from the very society they wish to erode. Personally for me, that means simple exclusion - I refuse to give them my presence, my time, my voice or my thoughts. I will openly and unapologetically acknowledge the harm that has been caused and chastise those who align themselves with such hate and violence. When the people I love are being threatened with violence on the national stage (to say nothing of their day to day) the time is long past that we can talk about "ideological differences in policy". Everyone on the right gets to bear the responsibility of the actions of their leaders and anything short of open condemnation and actively doing what they can to remove this leadership is simply not enough.
If you are to ask for my opinion on the matter, I don't personally think that even that is enough. Nothing, short of luck, is poised to stop the current direction of the administration. The fascists have shown that they do not care for speech itself, listening to no one but themselves and bullying their way into power. They dismantle the institutions we created, because they do not care for and simply ignore the rules. We do not have strong mechanisms to remove those who ignore the rules, because we assumed that people would center the health of a society, of civility, over personal goals. But this is incorrect, their cares are centered on what directly affects them and their loved ones. They do not care of society at large because they wish to dismantle it and replace it. They seek to dismantle it with violence, but they are desperately scared of violence in return, only engaging in fights where the magnitude of their power is much greater. Thus, we know precisely what levers are available to us and what actions could stop their progress, yet we hold ourselves to standards the enemy refuses to acknowledge. We must extend the paradox of intolerance to be compatible with actions which we are currently uncomfortable with or we cannot effectively oppose their advance.
The public, myself included, has taken to treating political parties as rooting for a particular sports team. There's no shades of gray anymore; support is a binary choice. We don't see the whole debate, we just see the highlight reel on tv or socials.
This is magnified in a two party system... It's as if the Lakers are always playing the Knicks, there are no other teams in the league, the refs are always calling fouls in favor of the Knicks, and everyone is constantly watching the personal lives of every player.
I've found the anti-Klein backlash starting with "Abundance", to the Kirk op-ed, to the excellent new discussion with Ta-Nehesi Coates (which everyone should listen to in full rather than through clips) to be exhausting. It's so much the product of these times where information/content, reaction, and reaction to the reaction, occur simultaneously. We no longer have the ability to evaluate the original source, sit with it, and come to our own conclusions when the algorithm is pumping us with hot takes before we have a chance to find the actual source.
This piece is certainly not the worst but it feels in the same vein and will be used as bludgeon by people who fail to read past the headline and actually process what was written. Like I'm a Klein fan and even though I disagree with some of his takes or wish he pushed harder on certain guests, but when the author says:
It seems to miss the point that these things are only accomplished when you have the political and/or cultural power to do so and right now the left is getting curb stomped. During the discussion with Coates, it becomes very clear that Klein is interested in discussing strategy while Coates is more focused on context and morality, neither of which are wrong. Tbh, I found myself agreeing with Coates on nearly everything he said but fundamentally, the problem is power and the inability for the left to form an effective coalition to combat the current shithole we're living in.
On a personal note, I've heard the point from friends that one of the frustrating parts of Klein these days is the fact that he's basically saying certain strongly held beliefs aren't worthy policy goals (see his comment about fielding anti-abortion "Dems" in red states or his discussion with Sarah McBride on trans women in sports) or the fact that his coalition building strategies inevitably will lead to people getting left behind or at worst sacrificed. But what I'm failing to hear are actual actionable strategies we can implement now to reduce the suffering from this shitshow of an authoritarian administration. Like sure, Klein should have gone harder on Kirk, he should have pushed back harder on Shapiro (to be fair, this author doesn't mention that the Shapiro interview was recorded before Kirk was killed), Klein should push back harder in general and I want universal healthcare, taxes on billionaires, a stronger social safety net, and stronger protections for minority groups. But when one party is filled with boot licking "whatever daddy trump says" supporters who cosign everything he does, seeing the infighting and purity tests on the left is absolutely infuriating, particularly when the largest part of the coalition is led by two out of touch idiots with no spine and no strategy.
edit: Update as I wrote this very late. When I was referring to purity tests, I was referring to the diversity of opinion on what I would consider "the left". In a saner country, we'd live in multi party system but instead we have this idiotic two party system that groups ideologies that arguably shouldn't be grouped together in an unnatural binary, leading to infighting between factions and views being used as a cudgel. Things like foreign policy (Gaza, Ukraine, foreign aid), women's health and reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights, policing, race relations, domestic infrastructure, housing affordability, living wage, climate change, gun control, etc : there's always something to fight about.
I'm trying harder and still likely failing to ease up on those more closely aligned with the center left because we're living in hellish times and it's not clear to me that we've reached the bottom. I won't deny that for many, this has always been the case in America. I get that the status quo potentially maintained under a Harris administration isn't good enough and who demand progress should not have to wait. But at this point, not even a year into Trump 2 and it's clear that the idea that things couldn't get worse is wrong. There's always a new floor, there's always a new bottom. Maybe it's my preferred way to cope but I'm finding more comfort these days in discussion over strategy.
Fundamentally as someone who is part of multiple groups and a loud advocate for multiple groups that would be left behind if Klein's POV is adopted, it's not a purity test.
But there is zero point in my advocating for more people to get elected who do not reliably support my rights from multiple angles. Pro life candidates will not protect my right to bodily autonomy federally. Anti-trans candidates will not ensure trans healthcare is covered, that trans people aren't targeted as mentally ill or dangerous. So then we have a majority in Congress but an inability to pass any of these protections?
If those candidates run, fine, bully for them. I wouldn't be canvassing for them, or volunteering for them, and if they were elected I'd be on them about changing their vote. I just think asking people to get behind actively having their rights considered as a distraction, and dismissing their criticisms as purity testing is insulting. Especially because right now is absolutely when we should be challenging people and building up local support for progressive candidates and primary challenges. In the same way that right now we need to support Dems standing firm on healthcare, including trans healthcare, to not cave on the budget. Reward and support them for doing the good thing, push them to do it when they don't. Boot those out of touch New Yorkers, support alternative progressive candidates, not regressive ones who can't be criticized without it being called "infighting."
It is convenient for Ezra Klein that he's not the one giving up rights in his thought experiments.
To be clear, when I was referring to purity tests I was thinking more about the broader perspective of some uncompromising leftists and their ire at the center left. It was more of a generalization though obviously any broad generalization would include your specific circumstances.
I also agree with your criticism as well, that it's easier to present these hypothetical when Klein isn't affected by these circumstances. At the same time I do agree in pushing for more progressive candidates and policies and do so in my voting habits. However I vote in a place where this isn't a winning strategy and won't be until a cultural shift occurs which ,while once believed to be years away, now feels decades off. I think part of the problem is the self segregation we're doing these days means we simply can't move the needle like we used to. I may be wrong but progressive candidates didn't do well in 2024 which certainly is disheartening.
While I vote in a very red state, I live in the bluest city in America. Candidates here can easily be outflanked and pushed from the left , but a moderate Dem where I vote doesn't have a chance in hell in the general election ,even with the shittiest senator in the union. At this point my vote is purely aspirational. So I get your frustration and empathize with you and do not think the trade off is acceptable. But right now the margins are so thin and the voting districts so gerrymandered that I really don't know what an effective strategy looks like before the mid terms. Maybe an effective Mamdani mayoralship will help change people's minds but NYC is such a unique thing that can't be replicated.
Personally I think the strategy is to bring the progressive candidates who can speak "across the aisle" whether that's to farmers or small business owners or suburban moms or whomever - you can focus on labor and childcare and never mention trans kids while also never conceding on trans rights. You can get more people on board, and you can tell them how bad it is to take away their healthcare and how high their food prices are. You can reply to every attack with "I'm talking about reducing your grocery bill, the only person obsessed with trans people is my opponent who wants to take your daughter, who just happens to be tall, or an early bloomer and good at sports, and harass her, post about her on the internet until she's crying before the next game because adults are bullying her. That's not how we treat our neighbors. If my opponent hadn't voted to cancel Sesame Street they might have learned that. "
No speech will sound good written out, I'm not working in politics, but I have seen and heard the success of progressive candidates who speak up. I cant fix Texas (I assume), the solution there is not focusing on the Senate but the local and state races and the US Representatives that can be elected. But there's no world where I think the solution is recreating Manchin's outsized power dynamic or creating a conservative voting bloc in the Dem party intentionally rather than a progressive one.
Yea this reminds me of Marie Perez of WA who won in a Trump district. Like honestly her views on things like gun control are easy to criticize for those looking for a purity test but she's a good partner on a lot of other issues and is an effective communicator.
I understand what you're saying on local elections as well but in red state like Texas with blue cities and counties , the amount of bullshit the State throws at local governance is wild. I guess the point of developing a stronger local ground game is important but it's pretty disheartening.
It is disheartening. Hell I'm in a red district of a blue state after all and my rep is doing jack + shit to help me or even the majority of the constituency. I will be supporting a challenger as well watching for someone to primary him because I'm not above a Pritzker move of watching a far right candidate crash and burn in the general. But people have been announcing candidacy mostly in response to Medicaid cuts.
My best suggestion is to get involved with political groups in Texas doing this work as much as possible. They know the challenges and what can be done and where to focus effort. School boards matter too. Maybe it's supporting the courts and the lawsuits right now. Maybe it's a protest. Maybe its running against one of the unopposed good ol boys even if you know you will probably lose.
Fundamentally there's no reason to throw trans people or bodily autonomy or any of it under the bus though. We got here by not defending either to the fullest on principle. And abortion rights are actually very popular.
I see this line thrown around all the time, especially from centrist/establishment Democrats who are trying to avoid giving a full endorsement to Mamdani. While there is definitely some truth to that - particularly when it comes to the organizing infrastructure that propelled Mamdani to victory - I'm not completely sold on the idea that his politics wouldn't appeal to Democrat and independent voters in the middle of the country. I guess we'll see. Whenever I hear the "such and such is not NYC" line, there's an implication that people in those states have different views about affordability, access to healthcare, wealth inequality, and America's unwavering support for war crimes. Idk, man. I think they just happen to live next to more Republicans.
I'm of the belief that people will ultimately vote for their own interests over anything else. Unfortunately, building candidates with a message loud enough to speak to those interests is difficult, especially when the institutional powers of the Democratic machine work against them. That's why I agree with DefinitelyNotAFae's suggestion below to join groups that can help propel Mamdani-like figures in other states. If you build it, they will come.
It's always fun to see things like "criticizing someone for explicitly advocating that removing my right to live my life and make my own decisions about my body be considered acceptable collateral damage to appeal to people who want people like me dead" dismissed as a "purity test." Of course the people not wanting to be thrown under the bus are framed as the divisive ones, not the spineless liberals chomping at the bit to sacrifice us for a hypothetical chance at winning over more votes from transphobes and bigots of other varieties.
Man I did not express myself clearly on this. We all have lines that cannot be crossed and I too would include LGBT and reproductive rights in the values I would not compromise on. However I was thinking about the purity test of the economic left who are critical of more center left capitalists or when Bernie bros attacked Warren in the 2020 primaries. I think of people like Marie Perez who won in a Trump district as an example of someone who is scrutinized for her views despite being pretty on board with a lot of more progressive ideas. Though any general statement is sufficient broad so I hear your pushback.
At the same time, the margins for public opinion on trans issues is razor thin. I bring this up not because I want to sacrifice a group I'm not a part of but because it's part of the nightmare reality we live in and I'm still looking for an "and/both" strategy that can work for places like where I'm from.
Ultimately I think that even if public opinion were wildly against trans issues to a much greater extent, it would still be wrong to abandon them. But it's much easier to believe that when "them" is actually "us".
Establishment democrats have proven themselves very willing to throw even very popular issues under the bus out of some delusion that it will appeal to right-wing voters, though. Abortion rights are actually very popular these days even in redder states, for instance.
Oh I agree but take the abortion issue, despite the effectiveness of reproductive rights in 2022 in stemming off an even greater beat down for the Dems, you did have quite a few states make meaningful progress on protecting those rights while still going for Trump in 2024. Missouri, Nevada, and Montana for example. I think splitting the vote is a distinct possibility in the upcoming midterms.
As @DefinitelyNotAFae mentioned in their comments, it's likely going to be a messaging strategy rather than beliefs. I brought up Rep. Gluesenkamp Perez because I think she reveals a path forward for the Dems in places that they are currently not competitive. I think the uphill challenge is that the right has a far more effective messaging strategy with dumbass manosphere podcasters/comedians, assholes like Kirk and Shapiro, social media, minsinformation campaigns, etc. The Dems are feckless right now and while I do think they can be pushed from the left in certain situations, they really need to consider what needs to be done to be more effective.
I agree with your points here, I just don't agree that in the process we give up on and intentionally plan to compromise on civil rights.
That strategy hasn't worked so far. Kamala actively courted the right.
But yes they need to get their act together on messaging, they're capable of it.
To the extent that even though Missourians explicitly protected abortion rights by referendum the state legislature and governor have done literally everything to try to counteract them.
same in Ohio
And Kansas!