I'm so glad you (Ruy Teixeira and Michael Bahareen) are back! When The Liberal Patriot closed, I was positively heartbroken. Where else could I -- as a normie type, always an independent, but generally leaning Dem -- find sanity? So thank you for heading back into the fray. And I look forward to reading more on Welcome Stack. It's so nice to feel normal in a crazy political world!
To find what you and I would regard as "sanity" among the vast majority of members of a particular party, you should look into the Forward Party, and/or the centrist quasi-party, No Labels. America needs more than two parties that have become increasingly extreme, and which are likely to continue in that direction despite the efforts of some "traditionalists" such as Mr. Teixeira, Rahm Emmanuel, and John Fetterman to prevent the extremists from dominating the Democratic party.
The DSA WILL take over the Democratic party. The reason is that outside of a small handful such as Senator John Fetterman, there are no elected Democrats WILLING to fight them. They will adopt the radical positions out of expediency. It has already happened and will continue to happen until a time (if it ever comes) in which the party suffers a massive 80's style debacle.
Agreed. It turns out that normie Ds have no more stomach for standing up to the Progs than normie Rs did to MAGA. We seemed to be on a track to have both major parties dominated by extremists.
MAGA seems far less extremist than the Woke. MAGA folk seem to me largely to want a return to sanity-- to an end to America-hating in national institutions, to an enforcement of borders and the expulsion of most or all illegal immigrants, to an economic policy that puts more value on jobs for the less-educated, to a government that lives within its means, to a society that actually lives up to the old ideals of opposing discrimination, including against majorities like white people and men. None of those sound crazy to me.
If MAGA were indeed the equivalent of the Woke, they'd be pushing to pack the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell and the doctrine of Separation of Church and State, to repeal all antidiscrimination laws and actively use institutional power in sneaky, deniable ways to cooperate with discrimination against minorities, to expel all non-citizens, to repeal the 19th Amendment, and to push historical revisionism to de-emphasize bad things in America's past. Sure, there are some few, as there will be some few of any extreme in any group, but after six years of Trumpist presidency and GOP control of much of Federal and state government, what have they actually done toward all those things? What of those things have they actually even said?
I don’t see MAGA as “extreme” at all. Most of their positions are common sense and supported by large majorities: deport illegals, lock up dangerous criminals, two sexes, women’s sports are for women only, keep kinky sex stuff away from kids, follow the Constitution. For a long time those were also Democratic Party positions.
Democrats are now in a major dilemma. They can’t expel the woke/DSA/DEI/trans types without fracturing the party, but if they don’t they’ll lose all national and most state elections.
If those who left the Dems agreeing finally seeing how bad the Dems are and then voted for Trump are any indication, Dems have no hope to bring them back.
What many seem to ignore is, the socialists have yet to be tried under the title of governing body. Especially for an extended period. The more they get into office, the bolder, not smarter, they become attacking our constitution and failing to change anything will be their knell. As for defund the cops etc. when the cops leave, as we see in so many Blue areas, civilians with guns will take over. Some bad, most will become vigilantes. And what will the DSA do then? Send in the federal army they decimated? The guns make all the difference between past socialist rising and this one. It is obvious because of guns, they will fail. Just how messy will it get is the question.
No but I think you likely are. Your game of gotcha isn't going to work. It saddens me that you represent the mainstream of the Democratic party. I will not respond to you again.
He thinks that criticism of trump is anti American. He looks at what trump he doing and say “this guy is not a wannabe authoritarian”. P.S. i have a question for you. You think that the dem party progressives are radical extremist lunatics. If so, do you think franklin Delano Roosevelt was a radical extremist lunatic?
Not going down this rabbit hole. If you reject the idea that the modern party is increasingly radical and resembles FDR then you are thr problem this Substack was created to address.
Okay, maybe Roosevelt wasn’t a radical even though he said of crypto, AI and big tech, “they are unanimous in their hatred of me and i welcome their hatred. He was a institutionalist. But FDR was kinda a institutionalist in the way mamdani is a institutionalist. And if you think mamdani is a crazy radical, i don’t know what word you would use for Lyndon Baines Johnson and Earl Warren
Democrats aren’t taking the side of Iran. Dems are just opposing this war bcuz there was no imminent threat, it was not authorized by congress, and Iran is in a better position now after nearly 6 months of war than they were before it. Before the war, the Iranian regime was on its last legs. A people led colour revolution was imminent. But then trump launched the war and after 6 months, the iranian regime is riding high. Before the war, the strait of Hormuz was an international waterway. Now, after 6 months of war, Iran controls the strait. The war has depleted American millitary and made us less prepared to handle real threats. That’s why dems oppose the war.
I am totally 100 percent opposed to how Trump has handled this. He took a winning hand and threw it away. However what you wrote above is total hooey. Democrats oppose EVERYTHING Trump does automatically no matter what it is. And its been that way since January 20 2017. Fetterman doesn't oppose everything automatically. If there is something he agrees with he supports it. This makes him a patriot. To the Democrats who have no cause higher than opposing Trump above anything else, it makes him a traitor.
Not a fan of the Iran mess, but the notion Iran controls the Strait and is riding high is more than a bit of a stretch.
Iran imports more than 40% of their food. That has largely failed to arrive for 6 months. Most Iranians did not begin the war sitting in 5K sq ft suburban home, with a large stocked walk in pantry, a 6' Subzero fridge/freezer combo in the kitchen, another fridge in the game room and a stocked extra freezer in the small garage.
Iran lacks food, medicine, stable electricity and hard currency, among other things. Iranian inflation hovers at 90% or worse. Their military has been decimated and long time leaders evaporated. The notion the US would not prevail, if we chose to do so, defies all logic.
The Nov election and Iran's utter disregard for the well being of Iranians are the controlling issues, not US capability.
There was very much an imminent threat by Iran's nuclear program. That part of the war I supported. Those opposing the war should also acknowledge that Iran doesn't own the Strait of Hormuz and that their closure of the part of it in the territorial waters of the countries on the west side was criminal.
I keep on thinking that there was an easy solution to the hateful, dangerous Iranian regime having too much power and income: build enough pipelines that the Strait of Hormuz is irrelevant. AI thought that would cost between $50 and $100 billion, but honestly, I think it would be a bargain at twice the price. Pipelines are in fact now being built, but not enough to carry that capacity.
Well that isn't what you said at all. And naturally although we surely agree that Trump is fucking it up royally, I reject your word quagmire and also that Fetterman is "unabashedly supporting it." What he is doing is not actually taking the side of Iran like most of the Democrats are doing. There is no doubt that he, like many Republicans (not just Cassidy) , is seriously questioning the way it is being handled.
A DSA takeover of the Democratic party. I doubt it. More likely DSA will split. Already they are divided over whether to support AOC in a bid for the nomination in '28. Quite a few see her as a sellout. If the Dems nominate someone like Beshear or Cooper instead of AOC, there will be a push for a socialist ticket. Pragmatists will opt to stay in the party--how many is impossible to say.
Would a socialist ticket draw young voters away from the Democrats? Perhaps, but probably not many. Much depends on whether El-Sayed wins in November. If he loses, DSA will lose steam. Above all, moderates should avoid any effort to sabotage his campaign, or worse, to purge the party, which would inevitably backfire. Unfortunately some "centrists" seem to think their factional opponents are worse than Trump, echoing the ridiculous charge on the left that moderates are pro-corporate Republicans in disguise. Let's keep our eye on the ball. Unfit to be the ruler of a free people!
How wrong you are. John Fetterman is a strong liberal on virtually every issue. But he rejects Marxism and he rejects the blood libel against Israel that has taken over the party. He is very much a role model. But he is a prophet without honor in the now radical DSA controlled Democratic party.
I am a Republican who enjoys reading your sensible essays. In fact, you are so sensible (like Fetterman) I don' know why you remain a democrat. Tom Edsall sounds like a good Republican!
these are things that Bill Clinton could have freely advocated for back in the 90s. I think it would have been the Republicans screeching that it was a blanket amnesty plan etc. This is not ideal but provided there are ongoing policies that keep the border controlled I am all in. Reagan tried to do some of this but the border was never strengthened if I remember correcltly
Ths article focuses on the issues that separate the traditional Democrats from the radical wing, which is going more leftward by the day. The same is happening with candidate preferences. AOC is now becoming the prefered candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028.
Despite her claim that wokism is a thing of the past, AOC will always believe that trans women are not in fact biological men; that climate change will destroy the planet; that white culture is the root of all of our ills; etc. etc. In other words, she is more left than Kamala.
She will lose to either JD Vance or Marco Rubio. It is not just her politics. She speaks like a 14 year old, which voters will see as infantile.
The Democrats' direction, including their pointless "resistance" and inability to, in their own words, believe the science (biology), and the rise of the DSA, makes it hard for me to believe a Democrat will be elected in '28. AOC, this overgrown teenager, as president? It's like a bad joke. All I foresee happening in 2028 is the election of JD Vance.
A contingent of DSA occupy seats on the city council in Portland, Oregon. Apart from infecting council politics with the DSA animus against Israel, they have given Portland a ban on foie gras and an ordinance protecting polycules from discrimination. They're professionals only in the sense of being a royal pain in the ass.
Chicago passed then rescinded their foie gras ban. The time spent debating and voting the passage and rescision at least reduced the time available for voting new spending.
Welcome back. We missed the sanity. Spot on as always, but am not sure how much daylight really remains between the DSA and regular Dems. Spanberger seems a prime example, among others.
Kamala Harris, leading in most 2028 Dem Presidential polls, recently announced Dems must discuss packing the SCOTUS, adding DC and Puerto Rico as states and ending the Electoral College. Ms. Harris was the CA AG for years. She has to know the Electoral College will only end if the US Constitution is, literally, torched. It would require 2/3rds of the House and Senate and 3/4ths of the states to agree to end the EC. 2/3rds of Congress can't agree they love their Mothers. The notion Congress will join with 2/3rds of states, and decide to burn the main protection of small states, which vastly out number large ones, seems not just remote, but impossible.
This weekend Harris and the House Minority Leader, Jeffries, who has expressed the same thoughts, were joined by the Dem Great White Hope, Ky's supposedly moderate Andy Beshear. He too wishes to toss the Electoral College into the dustbin of history. For 2 years Dems have hawked nepo Andy as the Dem 2028 Savior. His bright Red legislature has tempered his most Progressive tendencies for years. Now Dems no longer seem concerned Andy even appear moderate.
That may mean, the ship has already sailed on Immigration, Crime and Trans gender issues . . . and is unlikely to return, anytime soon, because Dems are hunting the proverbial White Whale. Forgive the over use of metaphors, but Dems appear to be pushing all their chips into the middle of the table, in anticipation of a honest to God 2028 Revolution. Sometimes that works, the US 1776. Most of the time it does not.
Harris simply repeated accepted positions with DP. Harris highly unlikely to be the '28 nominee -- such an eventuality would be too absurd and unjust. As far as the so-called label attached to Beshear? We and the country and the world desperately need to rid the white h ouse of MAGA Republicans. If Beshear can help do it, the sane approach is to support him. Or some other viable sane Democrat -- Shapiro; Klobuchar (yes, I know she said she was not interested); Buttigieg; Whitmere. Etc. As far as pushing their chips to the middle. The country and the planet face existential issues of war, climate catastrophe, famine, pandemic (RFK pushing us closer), we better be pushing to the center. It is, as article points out, the only viable path to defeating MAGA Republicans.
Dems would seem to be fighting the last war. There have been few larger historical political myths, than a supposed mass of MAGA voters, in love with Trump. Would bet pretty large, Obama had far more voters 100% devoted to his policies.
The vast majority of Trump 2.0 voters wanted inflation, the open border, ever increasing crime, and Green insanity to end, and sane child trans policies to begin. They achieved some of them. Covid Blue Rule sent many to Redder pastures. It remains to be seen if they will vote to reimplement, the polices they fled.
Trump, for all practical purposes with the exception of Iran, is already done. The election will be followed by the holidays. After Dems retake the House, they will impeach Trump 24/7 for 2 years, without removal. Legislative standoffs will continue.
That brings us to 2028. Iran will be over. Oil and gas prices are likely to be the lowest in decades, as production has soared. As they drop, so too will inflation.
Harris may not be the candidate, but someone similar, likely will be. The most electable centrist Dems, happen to be of Jewish descent. That seems a very hard sell to Dem primary voters. That leaves actual DSA candidates and those adjacent. Perhaps people will still loathe Trump enough to elect one. In politics, 2 years is a very long time.
The House, as I'm sure you know, can only indict (in impeachment terms). It cannot convict. It would require a 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict him, which ain't happenin', and trying for it in the face of such impossibility would only paint the Democrats starkly as so rife with TDS that they would try even to impeach a properly elected person who literally cannot run again. It would be argued that impeachment attempts in such a case would be purely an attempt to criminalize political opposition-- which it would be-- and it would legitimize attempts in the future by Republicans to do the same to Democratic presidents.
Regarding the trans issue: I'm convinced we will not change our stance simply because there are many parents of trans kids within the Democratic leadership base who will not allow any movement toward the center. They do not have the luxury of following the evolving science because it would mean admitting a grievous error. If people like me are correct the trans "fad" will fade (Jean Twenge suggested it peaked in 2023) but it may be a long wait to return to "two sexes." The alternative is a break away party that defines itself with actual working class concerns.
The science on "trans" has not evolved, it was always clear that sex-trait modification drugs and surgeries (particularly on children) were pure medical quackery. It's just that the transqueer cultists successfully hid that scientific truth by screaming loudly. WPATH has now admitted in court that their "standards of care" were just their personal opinion all along, justified by a right to free speech.
Glad you are back. It is indeed interesting (and more than a little scary) to witness the DSA platform, candidates and wins. I disagree that El Sayed is favored to win though. Recent polls have the Republican up about 4-5 points. We will see. In the meantime, people like Van Jones, Steven A. Smith and Bill Maher seem to be the voice of reason - calling out their crazy platform. Will we ever settle in the middle? From a “moderate” conservative.
Yes. NYT had article by Nate S. who said 4 points -- Mike Rogers over El Sayed. Nate S. also said that the Michigan senate seat should have been an automatic win for Dems. Not so with far left Democratic candidate. When will the Democratic Party voters ever learn?
To me the most operative dimension of the phenomenon is what I like to call, somewhat winkingly, the “gentrification of the working class” - basically, the DSA self-concept does not allow itself to acknowledge it’s a movement of affluent educated professionals or downwardly mobile failsons, so it just expands the definition of ‘working class’ ever upward until it includes “me personally and everyone less wealthy than me”.
Amen to all of this. It’s telling as well, when DSA candidates (or backed-by-DSA) are asked about their goals, they focus only on those parts of the platform that sound appealing and are less controversial among Democrats writ large — Medicare for all, higher minimum wages, clean water, etc.
Democrats, I’m afraid, will need, at a minimum, another huge drubbing or two, in the next general elections, before they course-correct away from this radical and unpopular agenda.
What this excellent analysis leaves out is the place of antisemitism in the DSA appeal. The place of all the anti-Zionist hysteria seems central now to how the DSA is presenting itself. The demonization of Israel and the paranoia about AIPAC serves a purpose for the radical left. It seems to me this obsessive hatred of Zionists and Israel enables DSAers to avoid the logical flaws in their program that this article does such a good job of explaining. I believe Teixeira needs to incorporate this factor into his analysis here.
I have been a small l libertarian most of my adult life. I would happily vote for any Democrat who meaningfully drives what Edsall suggests. I would vote for any Republican as well. I don't know why grown up people can't drive sane policy. Speaking of grown ups welcome back Ruy. Did not know how much I missed you.
This isn’t simply a matter of different political organizations having differing opinions on how to govern the country. The Brahmin left as you call them are essentially a cult- their positions are extreme and repugnant, they do not tolerate dissent and indeed see violence towards anyone who disagrees with their nutty ideas as perfectly justified and laudable. The positions Mr Edsall laid out will not be embraced by these people in a million years, no matter how much it sets them back. The cowards in the Dem establishment have no stomach for standing up to these lunatics, so they will continue to metastasize within that party. If they are continually thwarted in their attempts to transform the country into their deluded utopian dream I fully expect them to fall back on more and more extreme and violent tactics. There will be a reckoning one way or another eventually
These DSA primary victories are invariably in blue districts and are the product of intense ground game GOTV efforts in generally low turnout primaries. Voters don't expect anything to genuinely change so vote at something like a 20% level.
If you are a mainstream Dem seeking election or re-election, so long as you do not openly defy them, the DSAers are valuable as foot soldiers. Their limited numbers means you can reach them personally pretty easily. They are probably unlikely to consume or even encounter news reporting that would include hard questions put to mainstream Democrat candidates.
"Of course, DSAers running for elected office frequently soft-pedal their support for these radical ideas, preferring instead to talk about “affordability” and how they’ll stand up to Trump and the billionaire class. ... But the fact remains that these aspiring and current electeds do, in fact, generally support these ideas and are on record as doing so."
Which is in a nutshell (so to speak) why I cannot vote (D). I can't trust them. If I were to vote to punish and reign in Trump, as I would love to do, I would end up with a packed Supreme Court distorting the First Amendment to enshrine so-called "hate speech" as a concept and its ban as not violating the Constitution. And about a zillion other things. The GOP can be trusted-- maybe to do things nationally that I don't like, but not to try to run my life. Republicans want to roll back Democratic overreach, but not to institute school prayer, which would be the (R) analogue to any given item on the Woke agenda. Basically, the Democrats are like Islam and the Republicans are like Israel.
Now let's test the abilities of this place to be a place of reasoned discourse. The previous paragraph touches on what I see as the driving force behind all of this: that ambition in Democrats is so relentless and neverending that it's like water is to a fish. I'm not against change per se, but only if its advocates come to me with respect and try to persuade me. Democrats do neither. (On average.) Even the rank and file are far more likely to unfriend people over political differences than anyone else is. The activists are, of course, far worse. What can be done about that?
I'm so glad you (Ruy Teixeira and Michael Bahareen) are back! When The Liberal Patriot closed, I was positively heartbroken. Where else could I -- as a normie type, always an independent, but generally leaning Dem -- find sanity? So thank you for heading back into the fray. And I look forward to reading more on Welcome Stack. It's so nice to feel normal in a crazy political world!
To find what you and I would regard as "sanity" among the vast majority of members of a particular party, you should look into the Forward Party, and/or the centrist quasi-party, No Labels. America needs more than two parties that have become increasingly extreme, and which are likely to continue in that direction despite the efforts of some "traditionalists" such as Mr. Teixeira, Rahm Emmanuel, and John Fetterman to prevent the extremists from dominating the Democratic party.
Get candidates onto my local ballot and I'll seriously consider it.
The DSA WILL take over the Democratic party. The reason is that outside of a small handful such as Senator John Fetterman, there are no elected Democrats WILLING to fight them. They will adopt the radical positions out of expediency. It has already happened and will continue to happen until a time (if it ever comes) in which the party suffers a massive 80's style debacle.
Agreed. It turns out that normie Ds have no more stomach for standing up to the Progs than normie Rs did to MAGA. We seemed to be on a track to have both major parties dominated by extremists.
Hear me out:
MAGA seems far less extremist than the Woke. MAGA folk seem to me largely to want a return to sanity-- to an end to America-hating in national institutions, to an enforcement of borders and the expulsion of most or all illegal immigrants, to an economic policy that puts more value on jobs for the less-educated, to a government that lives within its means, to a society that actually lives up to the old ideals of opposing discrimination, including against majorities like white people and men. None of those sound crazy to me.
If MAGA were indeed the equivalent of the Woke, they'd be pushing to pack the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell and the doctrine of Separation of Church and State, to repeal all antidiscrimination laws and actively use institutional power in sneaky, deniable ways to cooperate with discrimination against minorities, to expel all non-citizens, to repeal the 19th Amendment, and to push historical revisionism to de-emphasize bad things in America's past. Sure, there are some few, as there will be some few of any extreme in any group, but after six years of Trumpist presidency and GOP control of much of Federal and state government, what have they actually done toward all those things? What of those things have they actually even said?
I don’t see MAGA as “extreme” at all. Most of their positions are common sense and supported by large majorities: deport illegals, lock up dangerous criminals, two sexes, women’s sports are for women only, keep kinky sex stuff away from kids, follow the Constitution. For a long time those were also Democratic Party positions.
Democrats are now in a major dilemma. They can’t expel the woke/DSA/DEI/trans types without fracturing the party, but if they don’t they’ll lose all national and most state elections.
You should read Ruy Teixeira's latest.
If those who left the Dems agreeing finally seeing how bad the Dems are and then voted for Trump are any indication, Dems have no hope to bring them back.
What many seem to ignore is, the socialists have yet to be tried under the title of governing body. Especially for an extended period. The more they get into office, the bolder, not smarter, they become attacking our constitution and failing to change anything will be their knell. As for defund the cops etc. when the cops leave, as we see in so many Blue areas, civilians with guns will take over. Some bad, most will become vigilantes. And what will the DSA do then? Send in the federal army they decimated? The guns make all the difference between past socialist rising and this one. It is obvious because of guns, they will fail. Just how messy will it get is the question.
What do you believe in? What are your values?
Do you think MLK was a radical extremist lunatic?
No but I think you likely are. Your game of gotcha isn't going to work. It saddens me that you represent the mainstream of the Democratic party. I will not respond to you again.
He thinks that criticism of trump is anti American. He looks at what trump he doing and say “this guy is not a wannabe authoritarian”. P.S. i have a question for you. You think that the dem party progressives are radical extremist lunatics. If so, do you think franklin Delano Roosevelt was a radical extremist lunatic?
Not going down this rabbit hole. If you reject the idea that the modern party is increasingly radical and resembles FDR then you are thr problem this Substack was created to address.
Number 1, yes. Number 2, no. Roosevelt was an institutionalist. You really need to read your history, my friend.
Okay, maybe Roosevelt wasn’t a radical even though he said of crypto, AI and big tech, “they are unanimous in their hatred of me and i welcome their hatred. He was a institutionalist. But FDR was kinda a institutionalist in the way mamdani is a institutionalist. And if you think mamdani is a crazy radical, i don’t know what word you would use for Lyndon Baines Johnson and Earl Warren
Democrats aren’t taking the side of Iran. Dems are just opposing this war bcuz there was no imminent threat, it was not authorized by congress, and Iran is in a better position now after nearly 6 months of war than they were before it. Before the war, the Iranian regime was on its last legs. A people led colour revolution was imminent. But then trump launched the war and after 6 months, the iranian regime is riding high. Before the war, the strait of Hormuz was an international waterway. Now, after 6 months of war, Iran controls the strait. The war has depleted American millitary and made us less prepared to handle real threats. That’s why dems oppose the war.
I am totally 100 percent opposed to how Trump has handled this. He took a winning hand and threw it away. However what you wrote above is total hooey. Democrats oppose EVERYTHING Trump does automatically no matter what it is. And its been that way since January 20 2017. Fetterman doesn't oppose everything automatically. If there is something he agrees with he supports it. This makes him a patriot. To the Democrats who have no cause higher than opposing Trump above anything else, it makes him a traitor.
Not a fan of the Iran mess, but the notion Iran controls the Strait and is riding high is more than a bit of a stretch.
Iran imports more than 40% of their food. That has largely failed to arrive for 6 months. Most Iranians did not begin the war sitting in 5K sq ft suburban home, with a large stocked walk in pantry, a 6' Subzero fridge/freezer combo in the kitchen, another fridge in the game room and a stocked extra freezer in the small garage.
Iran lacks food, medicine, stable electricity and hard currency, among other things. Iranian inflation hovers at 90% or worse. Their military has been decimated and long time leaders evaporated. The notion the US would not prevail, if we chose to do so, defies all logic.
The Nov election and Iran's utter disregard for the well being of Iranians are the controlling issues, not US capability.
There was very much an imminent threat by Iran's nuclear program. That part of the war I supported. Those opposing the war should also acknowledge that Iran doesn't own the Strait of Hormuz and that their closure of the part of it in the territorial waters of the countries on the west side was criminal.
I keep on thinking that there was an easy solution to the hateful, dangerous Iranian regime having too much power and income: build enough pipelines that the Strait of Hormuz is irrelevant. AI thought that would cost between $50 and $100 billion, but honestly, I think it would be a bargain at twice the price. Pipelines are in fact now being built, but not enough to carry that capacity.
I was saying that he remains unabashedly supportive of the quagmire in Iran even as bill Cassidy has begun to question it
Well that isn't what you said at all. And naturally although we surely agree that Trump is fucking it up royally, I reject your word quagmire and also that Fetterman is "unabashedly supporting it." What he is doing is not actually taking the side of Iran like most of the Democrats are doing. There is no doubt that he, like many Republicans (not just Cassidy) , is seriously questioning the way it is being handled.
A DSA takeover of the Democratic party. I doubt it. More likely DSA will split. Already they are divided over whether to support AOC in a bid for the nomination in '28. Quite a few see her as a sellout. If the Dems nominate someone like Beshear or Cooper instead of AOC, there will be a push for a socialist ticket. Pragmatists will opt to stay in the party--how many is impossible to say.
Would a socialist ticket draw young voters away from the Democrats? Perhaps, but probably not many. Much depends on whether El-Sayed wins in November. If he loses, DSA will lose steam. Above all, moderates should avoid any effort to sabotage his campaign, or worse, to purge the party, which would inevitably backfire. Unfortunately some "centrists" seem to think their factional opponents are worse than Trump, echoing the ridiculous charge on the left that moderates are pro-corporate Republicans in disguise. Let's keep our eye on the ball. Unfit to be the ruler of a free people!
Needless to say I disagree with every word including "and" and "the". (To Aparaphrase Mary McCarthy)
Amen
John Fetterman is to the right of bill freaking Cassidy. John Fetterman is not a role model for dems
How wrong you are. John Fetterman is a strong liberal on virtually every issue. But he rejects Marxism and he rejects the blood libel against Israel that has taken over the party. He is very much a role model. But he is a prophet without honor in the now radical DSA controlled Democratic party.
Dead wrong.
I am a Republican who enjoys reading your sensible essays. In fact, you are so sensible (like Fetterman) I don' know why you remain a democrat. Tom Edsall sounds like a good Republican!
these are things that Bill Clinton could have freely advocated for back in the 90s. I think it would have been the Republicans screeching that it was a blanket amnesty plan etc. This is not ideal but provided there are ongoing policies that keep the border controlled I am all in. Reagan tried to do some of this but the border was never strengthened if I remember correcltly
Ths article focuses on the issues that separate the traditional Democrats from the radical wing, which is going more leftward by the day. The same is happening with candidate preferences. AOC is now becoming the prefered candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028.
Despite her claim that wokism is a thing of the past, AOC will always believe that trans women are not in fact biological men; that climate change will destroy the planet; that white culture is the root of all of our ills; etc. etc. In other words, she is more left than Kamala.
She will lose to either JD Vance or Marco Rubio. It is not just her politics. She speaks like a 14 year old, which voters will see as infantile.
The Democrats' direction, including their pointless "resistance" and inability to, in their own words, believe the science (biology), and the rise of the DSA, makes it hard for me to believe a Democrat will be elected in '28. AOC, this overgrown teenager, as president? It's like a bad joke. All I foresee happening in 2028 is the election of JD Vance.
A contingent of DSA occupy seats on the city council in Portland, Oregon. Apart from infecting council politics with the DSA animus against Israel, they have given Portland a ban on foie gras and an ordinance protecting polycules from discrimination. They're professionals only in the sense of being a royal pain in the ass.
They are not the first to enact a foie gras ban. Sounds like big liver got to someone
Chicago passed then rescinded their foie gras ban. The time spent debating and voting the passage and rescision at least reduced the time available for voting new spending.
Portland too busy being blackmailed by subprime car lenders
Welcome back. We missed the sanity. Spot on as always, but am not sure how much daylight really remains between the DSA and regular Dems. Spanberger seems a prime example, among others.
Kamala Harris, leading in most 2028 Dem Presidential polls, recently announced Dems must discuss packing the SCOTUS, adding DC and Puerto Rico as states and ending the Electoral College. Ms. Harris was the CA AG for years. She has to know the Electoral College will only end if the US Constitution is, literally, torched. It would require 2/3rds of the House and Senate and 3/4ths of the states to agree to end the EC. 2/3rds of Congress can't agree they love their Mothers. The notion Congress will join with 2/3rds of states, and decide to burn the main protection of small states, which vastly out number large ones, seems not just remote, but impossible.
This weekend Harris and the House Minority Leader, Jeffries, who has expressed the same thoughts, were joined by the Dem Great White Hope, Ky's supposedly moderate Andy Beshear. He too wishes to toss the Electoral College into the dustbin of history. For 2 years Dems have hawked nepo Andy as the Dem 2028 Savior. His bright Red legislature has tempered his most Progressive tendencies for years. Now Dems no longer seem concerned Andy even appear moderate.
That may mean, the ship has already sailed on Immigration, Crime and Trans gender issues . . . and is unlikely to return, anytime soon, because Dems are hunting the proverbial White Whale. Forgive the over use of metaphors, but Dems appear to be pushing all their chips into the middle of the table, in anticipation of a honest to God 2028 Revolution. Sometimes that works, the US 1776. Most of the time it does not.
Harris simply repeated accepted positions with DP. Harris highly unlikely to be the '28 nominee -- such an eventuality would be too absurd and unjust. As far as the so-called label attached to Beshear? We and the country and the world desperately need to rid the white h ouse of MAGA Republicans. If Beshear can help do it, the sane approach is to support him. Or some other viable sane Democrat -- Shapiro; Klobuchar (yes, I know she said she was not interested); Buttigieg; Whitmere. Etc. As far as pushing their chips to the middle. The country and the planet face existential issues of war, climate catastrophe, famine, pandemic (RFK pushing us closer), we better be pushing to the center. It is, as article points out, the only viable path to defeating MAGA Republicans.
Dems would seem to be fighting the last war. There have been few larger historical political myths, than a supposed mass of MAGA voters, in love with Trump. Would bet pretty large, Obama had far more voters 100% devoted to his policies.
The vast majority of Trump 2.0 voters wanted inflation, the open border, ever increasing crime, and Green insanity to end, and sane child trans policies to begin. They achieved some of them. Covid Blue Rule sent many to Redder pastures. It remains to be seen if they will vote to reimplement, the polices they fled.
Trump, for all practical purposes with the exception of Iran, is already done. The election will be followed by the holidays. After Dems retake the House, they will impeach Trump 24/7 for 2 years, without removal. Legislative standoffs will continue.
That brings us to 2028. Iran will be over. Oil and gas prices are likely to be the lowest in decades, as production has soared. As they drop, so too will inflation.
Harris may not be the candidate, but someone similar, likely will be. The most electable centrist Dems, happen to be of Jewish descent. That seems a very hard sell to Dem primary voters. That leaves actual DSA candidates and those adjacent. Perhaps people will still loathe Trump enough to elect one. In politics, 2 years is a very long time.
The House, as I'm sure you know, can only indict (in impeachment terms). It cannot convict. It would require a 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict him, which ain't happenin', and trying for it in the face of such impossibility would only paint the Democrats starkly as so rife with TDS that they would try even to impeach a properly elected person who literally cannot run again. It would be argued that impeachment attempts in such a case would be purely an attempt to criminalize political opposition-- which it would be-- and it would legitimize attempts in the future by Republicans to do the same to Democratic presidents.
Regarding the trans issue: I'm convinced we will not change our stance simply because there are many parents of trans kids within the Democratic leadership base who will not allow any movement toward the center. They do not have the luxury of following the evolving science because it would mean admitting a grievous error. If people like me are correct the trans "fad" will fade (Jean Twenge suggested it peaked in 2023) but it may be a long wait to return to "two sexes." The alternative is a break away party that defines itself with actual working class concerns.
The science on "trans" has not evolved, it was always clear that sex-trait modification drugs and surgeries (particularly on children) were pure medical quackery. It's just that the transqueer cultists successfully hid that scientific truth by screaming loudly. WPATH has now admitted in court that their "standards of care" were just their personal opinion all along, justified by a right to free speech.
Glad you are back. It is indeed interesting (and more than a little scary) to witness the DSA platform, candidates and wins. I disagree that El Sayed is favored to win though. Recent polls have the Republican up about 4-5 points. We will see. In the meantime, people like Van Jones, Steven A. Smith and Bill Maher seem to be the voice of reason - calling out their crazy platform. Will we ever settle in the middle? From a “moderate” conservative.
Yes. NYT had article by Nate S. who said 4 points -- Mike Rogers over El Sayed. Nate S. also said that the Michigan senate seat should have been an automatic win for Dems. Not so with far left Democratic candidate. When will the Democratic Party voters ever learn?
Nate C. (Cohn), not Nate S.
To me the most operative dimension of the phenomenon is what I like to call, somewhat winkingly, the “gentrification of the working class” - basically, the DSA self-concept does not allow itself to acknowledge it’s a movement of affluent educated professionals or downwardly mobile failsons, so it just expands the definition of ‘working class’ ever upward until it includes “me personally and everyone less wealthy than me”.
Amen to all of this. It’s telling as well, when DSA candidates (or backed-by-DSA) are asked about their goals, they focus only on those parts of the platform that sound appealing and are less controversial among Democrats writ large — Medicare for all, higher minimum wages, clean water, etc.
Democrats, I’m afraid, will need, at a minimum, another huge drubbing or two, in the next general elections, before they course-correct away from this radical and unpopular agenda.
I wish this Substack had a tip jar. Would like to contribute but I am wary of subscriptions.
Yes, I've been burned by automatic renewals. I've had one person reimburse me, and one that did not.
Wary why?
What this excellent analysis leaves out is the place of antisemitism in the DSA appeal. The place of all the anti-Zionist hysteria seems central now to how the DSA is presenting itself. The demonization of Israel and the paranoia about AIPAC serves a purpose for the radical left. It seems to me this obsessive hatred of Zionists and Israel enables DSAers to avoid the logical flaws in their program that this article does such a good job of explaining. I believe Teixeira needs to incorporate this factor into his analysis here.
I have been a small l libertarian most of my adult life. I would happily vote for any Democrat who meaningfully drives what Edsall suggests. I would vote for any Republican as well. I don't know why grown up people can't drive sane policy. Speaking of grown ups welcome back Ruy. Did not know how much I missed you.
This isn’t simply a matter of different political organizations having differing opinions on how to govern the country. The Brahmin left as you call them are essentially a cult- their positions are extreme and repugnant, they do not tolerate dissent and indeed see violence towards anyone who disagrees with their nutty ideas as perfectly justified and laudable. The positions Mr Edsall laid out will not be embraced by these people in a million years, no matter how much it sets them back. The cowards in the Dem establishment have no stomach for standing up to these lunatics, so they will continue to metastasize within that party. If they are continually thwarted in their attempts to transform the country into their deluded utopian dream I fully expect them to fall back on more and more extreme and violent tactics. There will be a reckoning one way or another eventually
These DSA primary victories are invariably in blue districts and are the product of intense ground game GOTV efforts in generally low turnout primaries. Voters don't expect anything to genuinely change so vote at something like a 20% level.
If you are a mainstream Dem seeking election or re-election, so long as you do not openly defy them, the DSAers are valuable as foot soldiers. Their limited numbers means you can reach them personally pretty easily. They are probably unlikely to consume or even encounter news reporting that would include hard questions put to mainstream Democrat candidates.
"Of course, DSAers running for elected office frequently soft-pedal their support for these radical ideas, preferring instead to talk about “affordability” and how they’ll stand up to Trump and the billionaire class. ... But the fact remains that these aspiring and current electeds do, in fact, generally support these ideas and are on record as doing so."
Which is in a nutshell (so to speak) why I cannot vote (D). I can't trust them. If I were to vote to punish and reign in Trump, as I would love to do, I would end up with a packed Supreme Court distorting the First Amendment to enshrine so-called "hate speech" as a concept and its ban as not violating the Constitution. And about a zillion other things. The GOP can be trusted-- maybe to do things nationally that I don't like, but not to try to run my life. Republicans want to roll back Democratic overreach, but not to institute school prayer, which would be the (R) analogue to any given item on the Woke agenda. Basically, the Democrats are like Islam and the Republicans are like Israel.
Now let's test the abilities of this place to be a place of reasoned discourse. The previous paragraph touches on what I see as the driving force behind all of this: that ambition in Democrats is so relentless and neverending that it's like water is to a fish. I'm not against change per se, but only if its advocates come to me with respect and try to persuade me. Democrats do neither. (On average.) Even the rank and file are far more likely to unfriend people over political differences than anyone else is. The activists are, of course, far worse. What can be done about that?