"The people at the top want this to be a contest of names because they know they’ll lose a contest of ideas."
God, I love Talarico. Sounds a lot like Obama. Taking the fight straight to the smug propagandists who for so long have been telling the American people that being a serf is all they deserve.
I'm going to have make another donation, even though I don't live in Texas.
Go get 'em. The people are ready for these truths.
Yes! We ARE ready! Let’s get Talarico elected, and all the other strong Dem candidates looking to flip red Senate seats, plus sweep the House, and then we can get started on implementing the New American Dream. I’m in!
Talarico has the right message for the midterm campaign trail. All Dem candidates should use this same message. It’s what the people want to hear. As Jen wrote, Dems have a generational opportunity to reset politics. Let’s go!!! 💙
I agree, Jen, with every word of your post. The problem lies in the ways in which the people in power in the Democratic Party are more interested in maintaining their power than in actually challenging the status quo and stepping out of the river of money. There are an awful lot of old farts who find even people like Pete and Talarico to be a bridge too far--Pete because he is a married, gay father and James because he is unrelenting in his demand that Christians behave like Christians ought to behave. I have a suggestion: Abandon the term Democratic Socialist, which even in the UK was enough of a conundrum that the Democratic Socialist Party and the Liberals decided to combine AND CHANGED THEIR NAMES to something that was more user friendly. Instead, adopt the name New Democrats. This can be an umbrella term that both progressives and centrists could embrace. It doesn't over-define the movement but it DOES challenge the Old Guard.
I agree completely! While much of what the Democratic Socialists propose polls quite well, their rhetoric, and even their name, tends to make them into their own worst enemy! For one thing, by and large they're more descendants of the New Deal, the Fair Deal and the Great Society than they are socialists (who advocate state ownership of the means of production.
The right is a master at putting a wolf in sheep's clothing. They package some pretty horrible proposals in a soft, benign wrapper. Reagan could advocate some pretty radical proposals while delivering it in such a laid-back, soothing approach, and the public fell for it.
In contrast, the left has a real talent for putting a sheep in wolf's clothing by taking some reasonable ideas and wrapping them in language that revs up their base and alienates pretty much everyone else. "Defund the police" is a classic example. Very few of us would seriously support zeroing out the police budget. However, a slogan like "reform the police" or "re-imagine policing" would convey the necessary message but would be a lot more palatable,
I'd like to ban use of the term "populist" entirely when it's used to describe everyone from Talarico to Mamdani to Trump. I have no idea what it means anymore.
As a party or "movement" or label, they have issues that some of their members don't help their cause. Darializa Avila Chevalier is going to hurt their brand big time when she is elected to Congress; she significantly crazier that the several other DSA candidates. Megan Romer, one of their co-chairs, is actively pushing ideas that are largely impossible so a waste of time to focus on, and don't address ordinary people's top concerns. Most working people aren't sitting around ruminating about abolishing the Senate and Supreme Court (reform yes, abolish no). She is making the entire DSA a target for the right.
I am not so sure the term 'democratic socialist' is so toxic really. There is a big difference between young voters and older voter's attitudes about this (like so many other issues, especially lately)...and why should it be? Some of the most popular government programs in the past century are essentially socialist.
Younger voters didn't grow up with the Cold War, and don't have that same preconception of 'socialism' generally than older voters, and Dem-leading young voters are increasingly deeply skeptical of capitalism. They can see they benefits people living in social democracies have that we don't, while the oligarchy driven wealth inequality here reaches heights we couldn't imagine even a few decades ago.
I hear what you are saying, but we might just need to live with it. I doubt very much plenty in the Democratic establishment would want a name change! And I really believe a big reason the DSA has had such incredible success with on-the-ground grassroots, volunteer based campaigning is because they have a brand that is distinct from the Democratic Party, which has a terrible approval rating. The primaries are where ideas within the party are fought out, the general is where its all focused on the big picture. The most important thing in my view is to not give in to GOP fearmongering and culture war deflections.
You can look at virtually any general approval rating list for US leaders in the past year, and democratic socialists Bernie Sanders, Zohran Mamdani and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will be in the top 5 nearly every time. That's not for nothing.
More moderate Dems that are skeptical of the DSA or more progressive Dems in general I hope can focus on the many (I'd say most) platform points of the DSA that are very much in line with the wishes of base Democratic voters, and that both are united against stopping Trump and MAGA. Dismantling ICE, taxing billionaires, bold initiatives to address affordability, opposition to data centers, opposition to super PAC domination....these are all popular ideas.
"I am not so sure the term 'democratic socialist' is so toxic really."
It wasn't until the magapublicans and their leader started tossing it about as a pejorative to rile their base. Looking carefully at the advocated policies, there is nothing toxic about them, and on the whole, of possible benefit to the majority.
Agreed- that's one point I tried to say above too - we all shouldn't be feeding into bad faith GOP narrative,s about this or anything else. There is almost nothing I could care less about than how anyone felt about Thanksgiving five years ago (for instance).
Trump and Co called Biden a communist, called Harris a communist... called Obama everything under the sun of course, and still does...why add to this?
At this point I see the DSA evolving somewhat like the Working Families Party, but with different tactics. Both are distinct entities but that are working within the larger Democratic Party to push for progressive policies, albient in pretty different ways (and sometimes with diverging ideas, although I think they are more alike than different policywise)
Trump calls Communism. As usual, he's already doing what others are accused of. More of our corporations today are seeing the current government and its administration as major stockholders/controllers now than ever before. Trump, of course, says nothing about this.
Steve, I think it is a problematic label because it requires explanation, and people have such short attention spans they won't bother to listen. In addition, we need to absolutely BURY the Rethuglicans and we can't without the full support not only of the entire Democratic electorate but also a lot of Independents too. I am a very lefty Dem and I agree with a lot of what the rational members of the DSA are saying--and they should be policies that everyone is on board for. But they are stymied by the label and also by some crazier and more irrational members of their party who are hellbent on shooting themselves in the face. I am well aware that there are wings of the Dem Party who would rather LOSE than get on board with sensible and humane policies because it would mean their personal food bowls would not be quite as full. And they are on both sides of the Dem system: the morons of the Third Way as well as some of the more radical (and delusional) members of the DSA.
I have read that. There has been quite a bit pf pushback against Third Way's absurd stand on this, thankfully.
I am hoping there will be a lot more reporting on the even more hysterical responses going back many weeks from Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress, which is very closely aligned with Democratic Party leadership. She has spent far more time criticizing the DSA than the GOP lately.
we need to recall that the PROGRAM of the Harris campaign, when tested on the public without a party label, was much more popular than the program (such as it was) of the Republicans. It's not the contents that are a problem, it's the label. So push the content, under whatever branding works, but ensure that the party name is somewhere visible and that all party candidates mention the content.
A big problem is "young voters" don't vote. And most people don't know what the real records of elected officials even are. And there are few "moderate " Dems, which proves my point; people don't know what they espouse, what they advocate for and what they vote for. The media has done a good job of making us all more ignorant.
I don't think you can blame the media. It's a question of an individual's choice to educate themselves. Sadly, a lot of young people just don't give a sh*t and don't know much about anything
I agree. We need to stop the labels and focus on what Democrats stand for. So much is the same, whether "socialist" or "moderate" - healthcare, childcare, personal rights, housing, democracy stop with the labels! It just opens the door to Republican name calling!
Who exactly are this "old guard" and "people in power" you're referring to? The average age of the most progressive members of the Senate is pretty old. #1 and #2 are 77 and 80, respectively. Age has nothing to do with who is progressive. The most conservative member of the Senate Democratic caucus is just 56 and in his first term — John Fetterman. There are better frames than "old farts" and a big favorite of many people: "establishment." By the way, it was an "old fart" who was behind the housing bill Congress actually just passed, virtually its only accomplishment this session — but yeah, it was Liz Warren, age 77, that drove that.
Bernie is not in fact a member of the Democratic Party. He just caucuses with them and tries to get elected through them. The Old Guard are the (mostly white male) longstanding members of Congress who are so entrenched in the system they have stopped representing their constituents and want to maintain their buddy system. Schumer is one of the worst.
I don't think you understand New Yorkers very well if you think Schumer does not represent his constituents. It's not as though he does not get reelected.
????? Joe Biden not only wasn't "unfit" he pulled this country from the brink of disaster. We GOT the unfit choice in the 2024 election. We should stop buying into media-fabricated narratives.
Honestly, he was in no worse condition than Trump, but the media created the storyline that he was. And if you've watched any of his speeches since, he isn't in bad condition mentally or cognitively — and Trump is. The coverage was absurdly one-sided.
Why make it so complicated. The middle-of-the-road older generation are just that, and they are dying out, figuratively if not literally. They slowly are being replaced with more outspoken, more liberal representatives.
Far more important, as has been mentioned already, is what slogan will carry the weight. I love "The New American Dream." It's strong and succinct. It implies change, without being an echo of make America great again.
It's good to see Rubin call out Third Way and their baffling decision to go on a rampage against the DSA and progressive candidates, rather than focus on Trump and the GOP, including a link to a good piece by her fellow ex-WaPo editorial writer, Paul Waldman.
I hope she continues pointing this out in more detail. She could also add Neera Tanden, the leader of Center for American Progress, who has been practically screaming about the wins by progressives candidates for months now. Supposed liberal pundits from Van Jones to Bill Maher have also been nearly hysterical lately.
The Michigan race is a good sign. Hopefully we will see the same unity between moderate and progressive Dem candidates and officials after Francesca Hong wins her race in Wisconsin tomorrow. As one of the tightest swing states, Wisconsin's state government continues to have national importance.
The Third Way is an empty shell. I've been doing a deep search for any Democrats who are members of this, and they are all in the past. In fact, as a Democratic organization they are essentially extinct, along with the so-called "Blue Dogs," who don't exist anymore in any meaningful way. It doesn't matter what the "Third Way" wants; no Democrats of any influence or power belong to them.
There are almost no "moderate" Democrats and the progressives aren't who you may think they are. Yes, Wisconsin is important and Francesca Hong could easily take it back to the Scottie Walker era. There is no guaranteed victory in Michigan. Don't count your chickens before they're hatched.
Great article and great speeches. They just better win because if we lose the Michigan senate seat, progressives will be set back years. It will be the end of both Bernie but AOC as well. Talarico and Texas is a “would be great if we win”state. Michigan is a “must win” state.
Why would it be 'the end of "progressives"? Neither Bernie not AOC ranks as the ultimate top progressive in Congress; they are figureheads and media celebrities, and Bernie is over already — he'll be 89 at the end of his current term. We have a deep bench of great progressives who actually get things done and are much more accomplished than these two.
Actually, if we win the "looking good" states of Maine, North Carolina and Ohio, and two of the "would be great" states (Texas, Iowa and Alaska) we don't need Michigan, and a lot of activists I know are already focusing on this. Talarico in particular is a focus for a lot of people I know. Beto O'Rourke's plan for winning Texas, which they're executing now at every Talarico rally, as well as other places, give me a lot of hope.
Get on your State's Democratic Party website and volunteer. They need foot soldiers now in addition to donors. We all have to work together to pull this off - to make The Blue Tsunami a reality.
You quoted two of my favorite people out there -- Talarico and Mayor Pete. And the best comment El-Sayed made: "Mike, Trump needs you to lick his boots!" -- "Roger!"
When they go low, we remind voters who they really are.
Well written, as always. Since I've been voting, and that's been a minute, I don't think I've seen the Democrats do a better job of messaging, and the Republicans doing a better job of self-destructing by following the clownish grifter off a cliff. Jen is right. This is a GENERATIONAL opportunity to reset politics, and, like Christ Himself, toss the moneylenders out of the temple, so to speak. It can be done if we all focus on flippable seats and support those candidates, whether they're in your state or not. I was focusing on that for the last year, but now I am switching to my home state of Tennessee, where my goal is to help ruin the 9-0 dummymander the state house set up and also help see that Jerri Green defeats Marsha Blackburn in the governor's race. While helping candidates in other states, it occurred to me that I'm needed in Tennessee now. The climate has never been more ready to make a change. Lindsey Graham predicted this in 2015 or '16 when he said Trump would ruin their party, and they would have deserved it. Well, that time has come. Let's get to work, Contrarians.
Ever since Al Gore, democratic leaders, other than Barack Obama and Sheldon Whitehouse, have been terrible at messaging and campaigning. (I fault Obama for not repeating his messages.) Now some of them have figured it out. It takes leadership, courage and repetition to connect with voters.
Hysteria, such as we're now seeing from the right and corrupt players toward the center, can be recognized as a defense against facing reality. A noisy, shrill and disorganized defense, primarily. The root origin of the word originally meant 'uterus' and hysteria was thought to be girly, what with all the higher pitched vocalizations and hand-wringing. Interesting than the manly man party has now embraced it so throughly.
I am no expert, so keep that in mind, but I can think of any number of long-term elected party officials who seem to be aligned with corporate agendas. Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand come to mind. If I were an investigative reporter I'm sure i could provide more names and specifics. IMO many politicians of both parties are so used to running campaigns supported by corporate PAC money that their ability to legislate on our behalf is compromised. Glad you asked; it made me think.
I am an investigative reporter. Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand are both ultra-progressive in their voting records and advocacy. Schumer is currently ranked more progressive than Bernie Sanders. Virtually the only Democrats in the Senate "toward the center" are Shaheen, Hassan, King and, at the very bottom, Fetterman, who has issues that are beyond our comprehension at this point.
And it's not that politicians are "used to" being supported by corporate PAC money; it's that in many cases they have to (or they have no control because technically candidates aren't supposed to be coordinating with outside PACs). The entire system needs to change before we ding candidates for this. Candidates who celebritize themselves can often get away with the "no PAC money' thing, but candidates we have falsely branded "moderate" often cannot.
I guess this is why I and practically everyone else needs to know more specifics, and again I thank you. I had some specifics about Fetterman, who is one of our two senators here in PA--who does indeed have probable neurological and other deficits and has seemed to have become quite cozy with Dave McCormick of late. But to be honest, I've become one of those almost reflexively oppositional voters--not crazy enough to join the 'throw the bums out' brigade, but skeptical to some significant degree. Maybe if I'd thought this matter through more thoroughly, I'd have included something about my frustration with the failure of my party to wholeheartedly support programs I believe to be a baseline for modern society, such as some version of Medicare for All, enhanced social support programs, especially in education and housing, etc. I am also suspicious of those reps who appear to be endorsing what I fear is a headlong rush to enable AI without taking heed of the dangers and environmental deficits involved. And on and on I go. Call me concerned.
Well, we should all be concerned. But let's look at health care. It took 14 months to negotiate and pass the Affordable Care Act which was already a compromise. Republicans screamed about "death panels" and "killing granny." (Ironic in light of their actual effectively "death panels" now) At one point, they had the public option, which is a form of Medicare for All —the free program some promised is probably not viable, but being able to buy into Medicare at a reasonable cost probably is. ONE Democrat — not "Democrats" — killed the idea, friggin' Joe Lie-berman, who are a result was my second most despised politician for the 200s (#1 was Dick Cheney.) Every single Democrat supported the ACA and continued to do so through countless GOP votes to repeal it.
The split between the Democratic and Republican Parties has never been greater. For all his sins, Fetterman still ranks 50 points out of 100 more progressive than the most "liberal" Republican, Susie Concern.
Kudos on your depth of information. Just FYI in terms of my baseline of anger, I lived for years in the Eastern Panhandle of WV, which despite its proximity to DC had to put up with Democrats in Name Only like Joe Manchin, who passed through town on a regular basis to hobnob with us dems, nodding gravely all the while and then caucusing with Republicans. I used to live in Charleston where Arch Moore, our governor, was an arch crook, just like his daughter Shelly Moore Capito, who is now a Republican tool of big Pharma. No surprise, there. Sigh.
Jen's post today embracing progressive policies echoes another one I read this morning by Robert Reich titled "The Moronic Bullshit of The 'Third Way.'" One of the goals of The Third Way with its $15 million war chest, led by president Jonathan Cowan, is to "discredit democratic socialism" and is identified by the NYT as a "leading centrist Democratic group." We better get used to corporate media repeating ad nauseum the "centrist" moniker, whatever that means.
Mr. Reich reports that since The Third Way is structured as a 501(c)(4) social welfare group, it is not legally required to publicly fully disclose all of its donors but a list of identified supporters include billionaires, Fortune 500 CEOs, corporate dark money actors and giant corporations.
It seems to me that this organization is a classic example of wolves in sheep's clothing to me.
The last thing those of us who love democracy, decency and the rule of law need to do is to waste valuable energy and time on a dangerous and divisive war between the various parts of the Dem coalition. That only serves to provide cannon fodder to the head MAGAt and his minions who are running scared as jackrabbits because they cannot ignore the horrible poll numbers and voter sentiment. A MAGAt rout in the midterms may be looming unless they illegally rig the election in their favor.
I believe that the Dem tent is large enough and mature enough to welcome people who hold a wide range of policies and ideas.
Interesting, Steven. I wonder if this “Third Way” is yet another example of the GOP’s masquerading in favor of a form of democracy, only to prepare as Brutus did for Caesar’s arrival in the square. Judd Legum has chronicled exactly that: big money GOP donors funding a push towards the weakest Dem primary candidates in hopes of then tying big cement boots on their feet come election time.
The Third Way is not a "Democratic group" in any meaningful way. No Democrats of any note belong to this. If you read its touted connections to prominent Democrats, they are all in the distant past. Its leaders are nobodies politically and not active in the Democratic Party. They are trying to claim Kamala Harris lost because she was pushed to "adopt fringe positions under pressure from progressive activists." Harris WAS (and is) the "progressive activist." In the Senate, Harris was ALWAYS ranked much more progressive than Bernie Sanders, always in the top ten.
So The Washington Post (of course) ran a column by the group's two leaders the other day predicting doom for Democrats if they don't get rid of DSA types. Whatever. Jon Cowan and Matt Bennett have no influence in the Democratic Party. They keep highlighting their connection to Bill Clinton. Boy, that's sure relevant to today's politics. Remind me again —when did Clinton leave office? The group is a shell. Ignore them.
A true and accurate synopsis of our current method of political discourse. These new senate candidates are not really proposing anything new just something more truly democratic that most ordinary American voters want. It seems new and revolutionary but it’s a refreshing idea to remove corporate money and billionaire influence from our political system.
I would love to see SC's Democratic Senate nominee focused on more in national media. Dr.Anne Andrews is a very strong candidate. Yes, SC is a red state, but so many here now have had enough of the grift and ultra conservative white nationalism, this may be an opportunity to break through, especially with the short window for Republicans. Anne has been campaigning across the state since last summer and has been very well received. Go Anne!
She's Annie, not Anne. (She campaigns as Annie.) She's great. But unfortunately, the way things are today is that a dollar sent to James Talarico or Mary Peltola can make a difference and a dollar sent to a blood red state is probably wasted.
Sorry, you are right, should have known the correct spelling... I have her bumper sticker for heavens sake! I hope you are wrong about our red state, but understand where you are coming from.
"The people at the top want this to be a contest of names because they know they’ll lose a contest of ideas."
God, I love Talarico. Sounds a lot like Obama. Taking the fight straight to the smug propagandists who for so long have been telling the American people that being a serf is all they deserve.
I'm going to have make another donation, even though I don't live in Texas.
Go get 'em. The people are ready for these truths.
Yes! We ARE ready! Let’s get Talarico elected, and all the other strong Dem candidates looking to flip red Senate seats, plus sweep the House, and then we can get started on implementing the New American Dream. I’m in!
Talarico has the right message for the midterm campaign trail. All Dem candidates should use this same message. It’s what the people want to hear. As Jen wrote, Dems have a generational opportunity to reset politics. Let’s go!!! 💙
I agree, Jen, with every word of your post. The problem lies in the ways in which the people in power in the Democratic Party are more interested in maintaining their power than in actually challenging the status quo and stepping out of the river of money. There are an awful lot of old farts who find even people like Pete and Talarico to be a bridge too far--Pete because he is a married, gay father and James because he is unrelenting in his demand that Christians behave like Christians ought to behave. I have a suggestion: Abandon the term Democratic Socialist, which even in the UK was enough of a conundrum that the Democratic Socialist Party and the Liberals decided to combine AND CHANGED THEIR NAMES to something that was more user friendly. Instead, adopt the name New Democrats. This can be an umbrella term that both progressives and centrists could embrace. It doesn't over-define the movement but it DOES challenge the Old Guard.
I agree completely! While much of what the Democratic Socialists propose polls quite well, their rhetoric, and even their name, tends to make them into their own worst enemy! For one thing, by and large they're more descendants of the New Deal, the Fair Deal and the Great Society than they are socialists (who advocate state ownership of the means of production.
The right is a master at putting a wolf in sheep's clothing. They package some pretty horrible proposals in a soft, benign wrapper. Reagan could advocate some pretty radical proposals while delivering it in such a laid-back, soothing approach, and the public fell for it.
In contrast, the left has a real talent for putting a sheep in wolf's clothing by taking some reasonable ideas and wrapping them in language that revs up their base and alienates pretty much everyone else. "Defund the police" is a classic example. Very few of us would seriously support zeroing out the police budget. However, a slogan like "reform the police" or "re-imagine policing" would convey the necessary message but would be a lot more palatable,
As Jen did in her column, I wish people would start calling the “ progressives” “populists”.
I'd like to ban use of the term "populist" entirely when it's used to describe everyone from Talarico to Mamdani to Trump. I have no idea what it means anymore.
Titles that people pick up and throw around are like that, somewhat meaningless when applied to large groups
Agree. But "populist" is especially meaningless when it's applied to both Trump and Mamdani. WTF.
As a party or "movement" or label, they have issues that some of their members don't help their cause. Darializa Avila Chevalier is going to hurt their brand big time when she is elected to Congress; she significantly crazier that the several other DSA candidates. Megan Romer, one of their co-chairs, is actively pushing ideas that are largely impossible so a waste of time to focus on, and don't address ordinary people's top concerns. Most working people aren't sitting around ruminating about abolishing the Senate and Supreme Court (reform yes, abolish no). She is making the entire DSA a target for the right.
I am not so sure the term 'democratic socialist' is so toxic really. There is a big difference between young voters and older voter's attitudes about this (like so many other issues, especially lately)...and why should it be? Some of the most popular government programs in the past century are essentially socialist.
Younger voters didn't grow up with the Cold War, and don't have that same preconception of 'socialism' generally than older voters, and Dem-leading young voters are increasingly deeply skeptical of capitalism. They can see they benefits people living in social democracies have that we don't, while the oligarchy driven wealth inequality here reaches heights we couldn't imagine even a few decades ago.
There's a number of surveys that bear this out: this recent Harvard study shows young Dem voters both supporting and identifying as democratic socialist in high numbers: https://iop.harvard.edu/press-releases/harvard-youth-poll-reveals-mounting-strain-young-americans-financial-institutional
This poll by Gallup a year ago shows all Dem votes have a much higher approval rating of socialism than capitalism (66% to 42%, respectively) https://news.gallup.com/poll/694835/image-capitalism-slips.aspx
I hear what you are saying, but we might just need to live with it. I doubt very much plenty in the Democratic establishment would want a name change! And I really believe a big reason the DSA has had such incredible success with on-the-ground grassroots, volunteer based campaigning is because they have a brand that is distinct from the Democratic Party, which has a terrible approval rating. The primaries are where ideas within the party are fought out, the general is where its all focused on the big picture. The most important thing in my view is to not give in to GOP fearmongering and culture war deflections.
You can look at virtually any general approval rating list for US leaders in the past year, and democratic socialists Bernie Sanders, Zohran Mamdani and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will be in the top 5 nearly every time. That's not for nothing.
More moderate Dems that are skeptical of the DSA or more progressive Dems in general I hope can focus on the many (I'd say most) platform points of the DSA that are very much in line with the wishes of base Democratic voters, and that both are united against stopping Trump and MAGA. Dismantling ICE, taxing billionaires, bold initiatives to address affordability, opposition to data centers, opposition to super PAC domination....these are all popular ideas.
"I am not so sure the term 'democratic socialist' is so toxic really."
It wasn't until the magapublicans and their leader started tossing it about as a pejorative to rile their base. Looking carefully at the advocated policies, there is nothing toxic about them, and on the whole, of possible benefit to the majority.
Agreed- that's one point I tried to say above too - we all shouldn't be feeding into bad faith GOP narrative,s about this or anything else. There is almost nothing I could care less about than how anyone felt about Thanksgiving five years ago (for instance).
Trump and Co called Biden a communist, called Harris a communist... called Obama everything under the sun of course, and still does...why add to this?
At this point I see the DSA evolving somewhat like the Working Families Party, but with different tactics. Both are distinct entities but that are working within the larger Democratic Party to push for progressive policies, albient in pretty different ways (and sometimes with diverging ideas, although I think they are more alike than different policywise)
Trump calls Communism. As usual, he's already doing what others are accused of. More of our corporations today are seeing the current government and its administration as major stockholders/controllers now than ever before. Trump, of course, says nothing about this.
Steve, I think it is a problematic label because it requires explanation, and people have such short attention spans they won't bother to listen. In addition, we need to absolutely BURY the Rethuglicans and we can't without the full support not only of the entire Democratic electorate but also a lot of Independents too. I am a very lefty Dem and I agree with a lot of what the rational members of the DSA are saying--and they should be policies that everyone is on board for. But they are stymied by the label and also by some crazier and more irrational members of their party who are hellbent on shooting themselves in the face. I am well aware that there are wings of the Dem Party who would rather LOSE than get on board with sensible and humane policies because it would mean their personal food bowls would not be quite as full. And they are on both sides of the Dem system: the morons of the Third Way as well as some of the more radical (and delusional) members of the DSA.
Don't know if you saw this, but today's column by Robert Reich exposes the Third Way as "...a Trojan Horse for corporate America".
https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-moronic-bullshit-of-the-third
I have read that. There has been quite a bit pf pushback against Third Way's absurd stand on this, thankfully.
I am hoping there will be a lot more reporting on the even more hysterical responses going back many weeks from Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress, which is very closely aligned with Democratic Party leadership. She has spent far more time criticizing the DSA than the GOP lately.
we need to recall that the PROGRAM of the Harris campaign, when tested on the public without a party label, was much more popular than the program (such as it was) of the Republicans. It's not the contents that are a problem, it's the label. So push the content, under whatever branding works, but ensure that the party name is somewhere visible and that all party candidates mention the content.
A big problem is "young voters" don't vote. And most people don't know what the real records of elected officials even are. And there are few "moderate " Dems, which proves my point; people don't know what they espouse, what they advocate for and what they vote for. The media has done a good job of making us all more ignorant.
I don't think you can blame the media. It's a question of an individual's choice to educate themselves. Sadly, a lot of young people just don't give a sh*t and don't know much about anything
I agree. We need to stop the labels and focus on what Democrats stand for. So much is the same, whether "socialist" or "moderate" - healthcare, childcare, personal rights, housing, democracy stop with the labels! It just opens the door to Republican name calling!
Agree, starting with banning "moderate," "centrist" and "establishment" Democrats.
Who exactly are this "old guard" and "people in power" you're referring to? The average age of the most progressive members of the Senate is pretty old. #1 and #2 are 77 and 80, respectively. Age has nothing to do with who is progressive. The most conservative member of the Senate Democratic caucus is just 56 and in his first term — John Fetterman. There are better frames than "old farts" and a big favorite of many people: "establishment." By the way, it was an "old fart" who was behind the housing bill Congress actually just passed, virtually its only accomplishment this session — but yeah, it was Liz Warren, age 77, that drove that.
Bernie is not in fact a member of the Democratic Party. He just caucuses with them and tries to get elected through them. The Old Guard are the (mostly white male) longstanding members of Congress who are so entrenched in the system they have stopped representing their constituents and want to maintain their buddy system. Schumer is one of the worst.
I don't think you understand New Yorkers very well if you think Schumer does not represent his constituents. It's not as though he does not get reelected.
their plan to maintain power is very clear now that we know the poor condition Joe Biden was in, and so unfit at the time !
????? Joe Biden not only wasn't "unfit" he pulled this country from the brink of disaster. We GOT the unfit choice in the 2024 election. We should stop buying into media-fabricated narratives.
sorry, he was in very bad condition at the debate, and who knows how long before that.
Honestly, he was in no worse condition than Trump, but the media created the storyline that he was. And if you've watched any of his speeches since, he isn't in bad condition mentally or cognitively — and Trump is. The coverage was absurdly one-sided.
Why make it so complicated. The middle-of-the-road older generation are just that, and they are dying out, figuratively if not literally. They slowly are being replaced with more outspoken, more liberal representatives.
Far more important, as has been mentioned already, is what slogan will carry the weight. I love "The New American Dream." It's strong and succinct. It implies change, without being an echo of make America great again.
Excellent! Thank you.
It's good to see Rubin call out Third Way and their baffling decision to go on a rampage against the DSA and progressive candidates, rather than focus on Trump and the GOP, including a link to a good piece by her fellow ex-WaPo editorial writer, Paul Waldman.
I hope she continues pointing this out in more detail. She could also add Neera Tanden, the leader of Center for American Progress, who has been practically screaming about the wins by progressives candidates for months now. Supposed liberal pundits from Van Jones to Bill Maher have also been nearly hysterical lately.
The Michigan race is a good sign. Hopefully we will see the same unity between moderate and progressive Dem candidates and officials after Francesca Hong wins her race in Wisconsin tomorrow. As one of the tightest swing states, Wisconsin's state government continues to have national importance.
The Third Way is an empty shell. I've been doing a deep search for any Democrats who are members of this, and they are all in the past. In fact, as a Democratic organization they are essentially extinct, along with the so-called "Blue Dogs," who don't exist anymore in any meaningful way. It doesn't matter what the "Third Way" wants; no Democrats of any influence or power belong to them.
There are almost no "moderate" Democrats and the progressives aren't who you may think they are. Yes, Wisconsin is important and Francesca Hong could easily take it back to the Scottie Walker era. There is no guaranteed victory in Michigan. Don't count your chickens before they're hatched.
Great article and great speeches. They just better win because if we lose the Michigan senate seat, progressives will be set back years. It will be the end of both Bernie but AOC as well. Talarico and Texas is a “would be great if we win”state. Michigan is a “must win” state.
Why would it be 'the end of "progressives"? Neither Bernie not AOC ranks as the ultimate top progressive in Congress; they are figureheads and media celebrities, and Bernie is over already — he'll be 89 at the end of his current term. We have a deep bench of great progressives who actually get things done and are much more accomplished than these two.
Actually, if we win the "looking good" states of Maine, North Carolina and Ohio, and two of the "would be great" states (Texas, Iowa and Alaska) we don't need Michigan, and a lot of activists I know are already focusing on this. Talarico in particular is a focus for a lot of people I know. Beto O'Rourke's plan for winning Texas, which they're executing now at every Talarico rally, as well as other places, give me a lot of hope.
Well said. Let's get busy!
Get on your State's Democratic Party website and volunteer. They need foot soldiers now in addition to donors. We all have to work together to pull this off - to make The Blue Tsunami a reality.
You quoted two of my favorite people out there -- Talarico and Mayor Pete. And the best comment El-Sayed made: "Mike, Trump needs you to lick his boots!" -- "Roger!"
When they go low, we remind voters who they really are.
Well written, as always. Since I've been voting, and that's been a minute, I don't think I've seen the Democrats do a better job of messaging, and the Republicans doing a better job of self-destructing by following the clownish grifter off a cliff. Jen is right. This is a GENERATIONAL opportunity to reset politics, and, like Christ Himself, toss the moneylenders out of the temple, so to speak. It can be done if we all focus on flippable seats and support those candidates, whether they're in your state or not. I was focusing on that for the last year, but now I am switching to my home state of Tennessee, where my goal is to help ruin the 9-0 dummymander the state house set up and also help see that Jerri Green defeats Marsha Blackburn in the governor's race. While helping candidates in other states, it occurred to me that I'm needed in Tennessee now. The climate has never been more ready to make a change. Lindsey Graham predicted this in 2015 or '16 when he said Trump would ruin their party, and they would have deserved it. Well, that time has come. Let's get to work, Contrarians.
Ever since Al Gore, democratic leaders, other than Barack Obama and Sheldon Whitehouse, have been terrible at messaging and campaigning. (I fault Obama for not repeating his messages.) Now some of them have figured it out. It takes leadership, courage and repetition to connect with voters.
That's false. Since Al Gore, the media has done an increasingly good job of entirely concealing Democrats' messaging.
"Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without." Confucius
"Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Voltaire
Yes indeed. Copy to all Democratic candidates and advisors.
Explicit and brilliant, as always. Thanks Jen.
Hysteria, such as we're now seeing from the right and corrupt players toward the center, can be recognized as a defense against facing reality. A noisy, shrill and disorganized defense, primarily. The root origin of the word originally meant 'uterus' and hysteria was thought to be girly, what with all the higher pitched vocalizations and hand-wringing. Interesting than the manly man party has now embraced it so throughly.
Who would you call a "corrupt leader toward the center"? I'm curious.
I am no expert, so keep that in mind, but I can think of any number of long-term elected party officials who seem to be aligned with corporate agendas. Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand come to mind. If I were an investigative reporter I'm sure i could provide more names and specifics. IMO many politicians of both parties are so used to running campaigns supported by corporate PAC money that their ability to legislate on our behalf is compromised. Glad you asked; it made me think.
I am an investigative reporter. Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand are both ultra-progressive in their voting records and advocacy. Schumer is currently ranked more progressive than Bernie Sanders. Virtually the only Democrats in the Senate "toward the center" are Shaheen, Hassan, King and, at the very bottom, Fetterman, who has issues that are beyond our comprehension at this point.
And it's not that politicians are "used to" being supported by corporate PAC money; it's that in many cases they have to (or they have no control because technically candidates aren't supposed to be coordinating with outside PACs). The entire system needs to change before we ding candidates for this. Candidates who celebritize themselves can often get away with the "no PAC money' thing, but candidates we have falsely branded "moderate" often cannot.
I guess this is why I and practically everyone else needs to know more specifics, and again I thank you. I had some specifics about Fetterman, who is one of our two senators here in PA--who does indeed have probable neurological and other deficits and has seemed to have become quite cozy with Dave McCormick of late. But to be honest, I've become one of those almost reflexively oppositional voters--not crazy enough to join the 'throw the bums out' brigade, but skeptical to some significant degree. Maybe if I'd thought this matter through more thoroughly, I'd have included something about my frustration with the failure of my party to wholeheartedly support programs I believe to be a baseline for modern society, such as some version of Medicare for All, enhanced social support programs, especially in education and housing, etc. I am also suspicious of those reps who appear to be endorsing what I fear is a headlong rush to enable AI without taking heed of the dangers and environmental deficits involved. And on and on I go. Call me concerned.
Well, we should all be concerned. But let's look at health care. It took 14 months to negotiate and pass the Affordable Care Act which was already a compromise. Republicans screamed about "death panels" and "killing granny." (Ironic in light of their actual effectively "death panels" now) At one point, they had the public option, which is a form of Medicare for All —the free program some promised is probably not viable, but being able to buy into Medicare at a reasonable cost probably is. ONE Democrat — not "Democrats" — killed the idea, friggin' Joe Lie-berman, who are a result was my second most despised politician for the 200s (#1 was Dick Cheney.) Every single Democrat supported the ACA and continued to do so through countless GOP votes to repeal it.
The split between the Democratic and Republican Parties has never been greater. For all his sins, Fetterman still ranks 50 points out of 100 more progressive than the most "liberal" Republican, Susie Concern.
Kudos on your depth of information. Just FYI in terms of my baseline of anger, I lived for years in the Eastern Panhandle of WV, which despite its proximity to DC had to put up with Democrats in Name Only like Joe Manchin, who passed through town on a regular basis to hobnob with us dems, nodding gravely all the while and then caucusing with Republicans. I used to live in Charleston where Arch Moore, our governor, was an arch crook, just like his daughter Shelly Moore Capito, who is now a Republican tool of big Pharma. No surprise, there. Sigh.
Jen's post today embracing progressive policies echoes another one I read this morning by Robert Reich titled "The Moronic Bullshit of The 'Third Way.'" One of the goals of The Third Way with its $15 million war chest, led by president Jonathan Cowan, is to "discredit democratic socialism" and is identified by the NYT as a "leading centrist Democratic group." We better get used to corporate media repeating ad nauseum the "centrist" moniker, whatever that means.
Mr. Reich reports that since The Third Way is structured as a 501(c)(4) social welfare group, it is not legally required to publicly fully disclose all of its donors but a list of identified supporters include billionaires, Fortune 500 CEOs, corporate dark money actors and giant corporations.
It seems to me that this organization is a classic example of wolves in sheep's clothing to me.
The last thing those of us who love democracy, decency and the rule of law need to do is to waste valuable energy and time on a dangerous and divisive war between the various parts of the Dem coalition. That only serves to provide cannon fodder to the head MAGAt and his minions who are running scared as jackrabbits because they cannot ignore the horrible poll numbers and voter sentiment. A MAGAt rout in the midterms may be looming unless they illegally rig the election in their favor.
I believe that the Dem tent is large enough and mature enough to welcome people who hold a wide range of policies and ideas.
Diversity is our greatest strength.
Reich's column is here: https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-moronic-bullshit-of-the-third
Interesting, Steven. I wonder if this “Third Way” is yet another example of the GOP’s masquerading in favor of a form of democracy, only to prepare as Brutus did for Caesar’s arrival in the square. Judd Legum has chronicled exactly that: big money GOP donors funding a push towards the weakest Dem primary candidates in hopes of then tying big cement boots on their feet come election time.
The Third Way is not a "Democratic group" in any meaningful way. No Democrats of any note belong to this. If you read its touted connections to prominent Democrats, they are all in the distant past. Its leaders are nobodies politically and not active in the Democratic Party. They are trying to claim Kamala Harris lost because she was pushed to "adopt fringe positions under pressure from progressive activists." Harris WAS (and is) the "progressive activist." In the Senate, Harris was ALWAYS ranked much more progressive than Bernie Sanders, always in the top ten.
So The Washington Post (of course) ran a column by the group's two leaders the other day predicting doom for Democrats if they don't get rid of DSA types. Whatever. Jon Cowan and Matt Bennett have no influence in the Democratic Party. They keep highlighting their connection to Bill Clinton. Boy, that's sure relevant to today's politics. Remind me again —when did Clinton leave office? The group is a shell. Ignore them.
A true and accurate synopsis of our current method of political discourse. These new senate candidates are not really proposing anything new just something more truly democratic that most ordinary American voters want. It seems new and revolutionary but it’s a refreshing idea to remove corporate money and billionaire influence from our political system.
Well said! Let’s go!
I would love to see SC's Democratic Senate nominee focused on more in national media. Dr.Anne Andrews is a very strong candidate. Yes, SC is a red state, but so many here now have had enough of the grift and ultra conservative white nationalism, this may be an opportunity to break through, especially with the short window for Republicans. Anne has been campaigning across the state since last summer and has been very well received. Go Anne!
She's Annie, not Anne. (She campaigns as Annie.) She's great. But unfortunately, the way things are today is that a dollar sent to James Talarico or Mary Peltola can make a difference and a dollar sent to a blood red state is probably wasted.
Sorry, you are right, should have known the correct spelling... I have her bumper sticker for heavens sake! I hope you are wrong about our red state, but understand where you are coming from.