1. Thought-provoking article by @liamkerr of @theWelcomePAC on "January 7th Democrats." I'll add a thought: In the U.S. party change tends to happen, as it should, from the bottom up. People make up their own minds and make their own political choices. thebulwark.com/what-didnt-hap…
2. But a political party can choose to publicly recruit, even vocally evangelize for, new members to join. The Trump Republicans have done this with working-class and exurban whites, and it's surely had some effect to tell them, "Your concerns are ours, we want you aboard."
3. In this case, the appeals are both distasteful and disingenuous. But such appeals needn't be. And Democrats tend not to make them. The idea, I guess, has been that Democrats just need to say to the educated voters moving towards them, "Well, studies show you're moving to us."
4. But people like to feel wanted, not just analyzed.
5. In the 1970s, Republicans from Presidents Nixon and Ford, to Bill Brock as RNC head, to Rep. Jack Kemp and others, spent time trying to persuade and induce disillusioned Democrats to come on over, at the electoral level of course, but also--in different ways-- among elites.
6. There are today lots of Democrats--many, many younger House members, mayors like Eric Adams, governors like Jared Polis, and (come to think of it!) the president of the United States--who have a lot to say to those whom Pete Buttigieg called "future former Republicans."
7. Let me be clear: In my experience, today's Democrats have been friendly to future former Republicans, interested in their ideas, and actually welcoming. If you knock at the door, they greet you with hospitality. But good politics requires more than random acts of kindness.
8. Wouldn't it help politically if there were more of an organized, vocal, and coordinated effort to get out there and invite people in and recruit new allies, even new candidates? Democrats could look more to the model of the Salvation Army and less to that of Quaker meetings.
9. Well, enough. Actually, one last analogy: Democrats are the party of professors. Good teachers find it far more satisfying to convince students who are initially skeptical of a certain approach, than simply to lecture to students who are already little versions of themselves.
10. Democrats can surely do more to build a true majority party, for at least as long as the GOP is the way it is. They shouldn't do this mainly for partisan reasons, or in order to make future former Republicans feel better. They should do it for the sake of the country.
END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Straightforward from here: 1. In Jan., House passes:
--Electoral Count Act reform
--anti-election official intimidation & anti-election subversion provisions of Freedom to Vote Act
--$$ for more boosters & free rapid COVID tests for all Americans
--means-tested child care credit
2. The Senate:
--enacts filibuster reform that gets rid of the filibuster of the motion to proceed, and requires a talking filibuster & 41 votes to sustain it
--Schumer brings these House bills to the floor
--has 50 Dem votes for each, some Rep support, and pressure on other Reps
3. Biden, in State of the Union:
--blasts Republicans for blocking $$ for COVID, child-care credit, and ensuring safe and fair elections
--announces he's asking Pelosi to move other individual bills on climate and immigration provisions Reps have said they're for (e.g., Dreamers)
1. Rather than do what many, many other countries have done and make plentiful at-home tests available super-cheap, the Biden Administration is proposing that the "more than 150m Americans with private insurance will be able to get at-home tests reimbursed by their insurance."
2. So a cashier who wants to be sure some unvaxxed shopper in the supermarket where she works hasn't infected her (and wants to be sure her kids are fine) is supposed to spend a hundred of dollars a week on antigen tests and then...send the receipts to her friendly insurer?
3. Wouldn't it be easier to bust the FDA regulatory obstacles and the Pharma duopoly that benefits from them and make the tests plentiful and cheap and easily available?
1. Choosing to lose a war, and to relegate a country to a new dark age, is terrible. But doing very little to ensure that those who helped us, and those who counted on us, can reach safety before we leave, adds the dishonor of abandonment to the disgrace of defeat.
2. President Biden said today he is acting "to make sure we can have an orderly and safe drawdown of US personnel and other allied personnel and an orderly and safe evacuation of Afghans who helped our troops during our mission and those at special risk from the Taliban advance."
3. But anyone who has heard, directly or indirectly, from Afghans who have worked with us and helped us, who have stepped up at our encouragement--and who are all at grave risk--knows it is simply not true that we now have in place means for their "orderly and safe evacuation."
2. If you're White House chief of staff, you don't say a threat to our national well-being is preventable unless...you're ready to do something about it.
Now it's true the Biden Administration did a very good job rolling out the vaccines. All honor to them for that.
3. But that 30% of so of adults remain unvaccinated threatens a "preventable pandemic"--one not only very damaging to them but potentially worrisome with respect to unvaccinated kids, threatening to reopening society, and ultimately, because of variants, a concern to all of us.
"Trump voters are pro-military. Why are Trump and Carlson attacking the military?"
But the attack is on "woke generals," the "brass," and disloyal civilians in charge. It's an attempt to appeal to aggrieved troops and vets, and to divide the military and subvert civilian control.
It's a classic move from the authoritarian playbook.