Thread by @JuliusGoat

Apropos of absolutely nothing, I think it's important to note:

Incrementalist bipartisan solutions might once have been adequate. Now they are dangerous and counterproductive and inappropriate to our present situation.

People who realize this are going to keep saying this.

We are an airplane in freefall.

We have a group in power who would like us to crash into the ground and are in fact working to accelerate the crash.

We need everyone to recognize the emergency of this.

A partnership deal with the pro-crash group doesn't do that.

Any plan that the pro-crash group will agree to involves a crash.

We need to get the controls back. We do this by announcing our intentions to not crash.

An agreement to crash at a 65 degree angle and only 500 mph is not helpful.

What an agreement with the pro-crash party does is make it seem like maybe there's a way to keep pointing our nose at the ground and not crash.

It makes people not pay attention.

We need them to pay attention. We need them looking out the window.

To locate us: we are not yet talking about HOW to not crash.

We are, incredibly enough, arguing about whether or not to crash.

We're doing this because several—not most, and increasingly fewer, but several—passengers benefit from speed.

And look how fast we're going!

What we need to do is fight the fight before us.

The fight before us mustn't be about finding better ways to crash. That's won't move the growing majority concerned about the crash.

The fight before us is to determine to not crash.

We do that by announcing the intention.

By announcing the intention, we draw a sharp contrast between ourselves and those presently at the controls, who are deliberately pointing our nose right at the ground.

The contrast reveals a difference.

Revealing the difference is leadership.

People react to leadership.

I'm saying all this because I was once a bipartisan incrementalist, and I hope to someday be one again.

Bipartisanship and incrementalism are very healthy when your plane is flying on course and to plan.

We don't have that right now. Pretending otherwise is dangerous.

So let's pretend there was an argument yesterday about a video, a disagreement about what it showed.

Let's pretend some were outraged by what they saw.

Let's pretend others became rather annoyed by the outrage.

I think there may have been a general sense that those outraged haed failed to see the real action being proposed, or even were refusing to see it.

And that would be annoying.

So there's my empathy. I can understand the annoyance.

Let me suggest that the protesting parties hadn't failed to see the real action being proposed.

Let me suggest it was exactly that proposed action being protested.

It's a recognition that incrementalist bipartisan action is, in this present moment, misleading and dangerous.

It's not that we don't understand that the pro-crash group won't vote for anything that might prevent the crash. Of course they won't. They want to crash.

We're not going to bother arguing with the pro-crash group.

Neither do we want to partner with them.

It's not that we don't see the strategy, or that we don't understand.

We do. We just disagree with it. That's all.

The very fact of petitioning someone to change their strategy is a declaration the petitioners still hope the person being petitioned might change their strategy.

A recognition of shared values despite differing opinions on strategy.

A compliment, if you like.

We should begin present difference of opinions with a statement of what we share:

• A recognition we are in imminent danger of crashing

• A recognition we all deserve life rather than death

This will also help us recognize those who won't recognize those two things.

Again, any agreement that the pro-crash party will agree to involves a crash.

But our goal is to not crash.

Those of us who see that are going to keep saying it to those we also believe don't want to crash.

Again:

The question right now is whether or not to crash into the ground.

We need to fight THAT fight.

A clear statement of intent to pass a plan that doesn't involve a crash isn't "doing nothing," even if it can't pass today.

It's a struggle for the controls.

Not a particularly helpful comment.

I disagree that legislation is the *present* answer. We do legislation once we get the controls. We get the controls by loudly declaring our intention to not crash.

"Not crashing at all" should poll well.

We should try it.

And, again, notice that the comment presupposes I don't understand that the pro-crash party won't pass a 'no crash' bill.

I DO understand that

But a 'no crash' bill is what we need

So the problem is the pro-crash party

We shouldn't partner with them

That's my entire point

And my observation would be the way you confront the pro-crash party is by offering a very clear alternative to crashing, and by refusing to negotiate a plan that includes a crash.

And petitioning a representative to change course isn't undermining them. It's how we move them.

It's ahistorical to say politicians aren't changed by being petitioned, confronted, even embarrassed.

They are.

We're *supposed* to argue with our leaders.

We're *supposed* to tell them we expect more.

That's the way this is supposed to work.

The other way is the Trump way.

I honestly do believe this:

To argue with somebody from an underlying assumption of good faith and shared values is a great compliment.

It's a challenge, yes. Annoying, yes. Uncomfortable or embarrassing even, maybe.

But it's a compliment.

We really really need to clearly announce our intention to not crash.

Democratic Senators are among the most powerful people in the world, the most able to bring this about—and the more senior, the more able.

I'm going to expect that from them.

I just am.

And I know I'm annoying (and losing) followers, but look—I think you don't want to crash, too. I believe that.

We're all on the plane.

And I think this is really important stuff.

I don't want to hurt Sen. Feinstein.

But I do want to change her course. I think it's wrong.

I wouldn't be the best to impartially judge the sipid-ness of my analogy. I certainly hope to not be condescending.

But this reply misses the point. We DO know these things about the majority, is the point. That's why our strategy must first focus on deciding not to crash.

If the steps that are needed to prevent the worst of our catastrophe are dubbed "far-left," then OK, we need to move the conversation to the far left.

Again: we start by declaring our intention.

The window can be moved. We weren't even talking "Green New Deal" until recently.