Stirewaltisms: Dems Forget How They Got Here

The party’s only mandate was to stop the crazy cavitations of the Trump era.

By
100

The good news for President Biden and his party is that they have come out of August in far better condition than they began it. The bad news is that they are now well aware of that fact but mostly oblivious to the reasons why.

The two flattering self-deceptions that are most irresistible in politics are 1) our side lost because we were too virtuous and unwilling to lie, cheat, and steal like the other guys, and 2) our side is winning because voters really like us. 

The Republican Party has been gagging on the first one for almost two years and is consequently unable to either articulate a message about the future or temper the darkest, angriest voices inside the GOP. Democrats for most of the same period have been struggling with the second self-deception. In our time of intense negative partisanship, voters are more likely to be casting ballots against a candidate or party rather than for them. That was particularly the case in 2020, when the race was a referendum on the fitness of the incumbent. Donald Trump lost that election far more than Biden won it.

But since then, Democrats have struggled to understand that their party’s only discernible mandate was to stop the crazy cavitations of the Trump era. Surprise victories in Georgia’s Senate runoff elections handed Democrats the Senate and fed into the party’s self-congratulatory vibes, and helped obscure the truth: that Georgia and other red states weren’t as much getting more progressive as they were rejecting Republican kookism. What resulted was a mostly wasted year of Democratic internal debates over progressive priorities even as swing voters were making it clear that they were mostly worried about inflation and public safety. 

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
100
By
Comments (100)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. George Mallory

    Thanks, Chris. It is hard to compete with Jonah and David, two of my favorite voices on the public scene. I think that your insights about the miscalculations of Biden and the Dems are of interest. I think that it is high time for the Republicans to come up with a positive campaign program focused on crime, immigration and inflation. It should be simple and it should be presented with sharp contrast to the current Dem policies. Stay away from abortion, charges of fascism, climate change and Biden's deficits. It should presented in the context of looking for national consensus.

    Collapse
    1. Fudrock

      What would this positive campaign entail, as all of these seem like bludgeons for the Democrats, since they are effectively wedge issues for the Causcus? Smart politics, to be sure, but not positive.

      Also, can Republicans can keep ignoring climate change or at least favoring a regressive energy policy? Much like abortion, this is a white elephant that won’t go away.

      Collapse
      1. George Mallory

        A regressive energy policy? Actually, a strong opposition to the latest green legislation and regulations is to preserve the obvious ongoing need for fossil fuels, especially natural gas, the reduction in government regulations which hinder exploration, the building of pipelines and new refineries and opposing the subsidies for electronic vehicles which favor only the rich. Poor people in the US and in Europe are being hammered by the green-endorsed inflation in energy prices at a time when clean energy is nowhere close to filling the gap. There are so many voices from respected individuals who used to be strong environmentalists who dissent from the green agenda that people like you have no excuse for not reading them -- Lomborg, Fred Singer, Steven Kunin, Alex Epstein. Right now, you are running with the lemmings.

        Collapse
        1. Fudrock

          A lemming? Given your list of influences, I could levy the same criticism towards you, since the list includes the head of a fossil fuel policy think tank, a physicist who spent his entire career as a contrarian in various arenas, a former DoE official who posits the reasonable, albeit often overstated, claim that the science isn’t settled, and a political scientist that acknowledges the reality of climate change, but is hostile to most of the policy proposals that presume to address it (an important voice to be sure, but he hasn’t settled the argument). As such, they sing the siren song of being both credible and aligned with your priors (but more importantly, to the priors to those vested in elevating their opinions).

          I can’t begrudge you this. Confirmation bias is an affliction we all suffer from, and as a believer in the risks of climate change, I’m certainly guilty of it as well. And I will cop to the environmentalist movement, fragmented as it is, overstating the risks (or at least the timeframes), elevating only the most dire predictive models, and being too rigid in its policy aspirations, e.g. resistance to nuclear and natural gas (much the same can be said for their oppositions slavish devotion to the status quo) and being unrealistic about the viability of a grid existing entirely on renewables, both in the short term and in the long term. And importantly, I think the environmental movement is not sufficiently concerned with the economic upheaval that would result of grafting fossil fuels out of the existing economy, both nationally and internationally, but I think the risk of that over the next 20-30 years is vanishingly small.

          All that said, the evidence only grows more compelling every year that we need to be more proactive than most on the right would care to admit; indeed, it’s only very recently that the GOP has come out with policy proposals that both acknowledge the issue and propose countermeasures (likely out of fear of losing younger voters), which is improvement over the old line that it was a hoax.

          I’m in favor of the Republican talking point about an “all of the above” approach to reduce the concentration of green house gases in the atmosphere. I think the use of fossil fuels, particularly the increased use of natural gas, is baked into the cake for a very long time, and I presume, as strategically and economically critical resources, that they will continue to be subsidized for at least the next two decades.

          But they seem more inclined to ignore these subsidies and instead choose to pillory those given to green energy as spectacularly wasteful and ineffective when their fundamental goal is 1) to broaden their use to a point where they can reasonably compete with (or augment) fossil fuels, both in cost and in efficacy, in an economy that has over tuned itself to the use of fossil fuels for over 100 years 2) improve economies of scale enough for suppliers that the resultant “green” solution is more affordable to more people (see the much maligned subsidies to Hybrids and EVs that effectively created the markets for both...and now we are looking at whole fleets of electric vehicles on the horizon) 3) create new industries where there had previously been a lack of market incentive to solve the problem (see carbon removal plants, whose sole clients will be governments and municipalities).

          That said, I am an any port in the storm kind of guy on this stuff. Drill for more natural gas. Sure, but offer subsidies the industry to allow them to do it as cleanly as possible without bankrupting themselves. Same goes for carbon capture systems on existing power plants. Nuclear, particularly smaller advanced nuclear plants, bring it on. Renewables as scale, yes, please. Carbon removal plants to mitigate existing, absolutely. EVs and plug-in hybrids? Absolutely, I’ve already voted with my wallet several times on this front.

          Collapse
          1. George Mallory

            We actually have much in common. I have been driving a hybrid sedan for six years and was the first in my neighborhood to install rooftop solar panels. Most of your positions above are an anathema to most earnest environmentalists. So let us keep up the good fight. The pessimistic projections for coming decades are largely based on biased models. Reasonable accommodations are in order without bankrupting the poor to a greater degree.

            Collapse
  2. Bruce Nichols

    it’s a cycle. educating the masses is required, not optional as many on the right - particularly the christian right - seem to believe. public education breaks the cycle. ignorance, inability to think rationally, separate fact from fiction, is the strongman’s workshop. a more sophisticated electorate rejects overly simplistic falsehoods.

    Collapse
  3. Mary Stine

    Okay, so let me see if I've got this: The Greek council is appalled that Animal House has gotten Greek approval and is Doing Stuff. Apparently there was some coda to the double secret probation agreement that Democrats (Animal House) would Do Nothing without Special Permission and also, more importantly would all wear red blazers, short haircuts and normal pants. (no blue jeans at Country clubs). And of course, say very little in public, and only in deferential tones to Republicans.

    Collapse
  4. Bruce Nichols

    primary elections are a structural part of that problem. we need more ranked-choice voting to segue away from extremist dominance. primaries give us two unacceptable candidates.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Leo L. Algminas

    Computers amuse themselves by inventing names for people, as in August Cutline winner Algminas, whom the machine called Alumina. I am not offended; I have been called worse.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Stephen Maturin

    I've been intrigued by the concept of ranked-choice voting. I like the theory that it will result in the election of the candidate who has the greatest support. Maybe this happened in Alaska, but I'm wondering if there is a flaw with ranked-choice voting in our current bi-polar two-party system, .

    As the article states, the R candidates got somewhere in the neighborhood of 60% of the vote. The problem is they spilt that 60%, resulting in a third candidate beating them. In other words 60% of the people who voted wanted a Republican representative. Because of ranked-choice voting they got a Democrat representative. I'm sure Ms. Peltola is a fine person, but she likely won because she was one Democrat on a ballot with two Republicans.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Stephanie

      That is something Tom Cotton said, and it isn't logical.

      If the voters were set on having a Republican, period, the people who ranked Palin first would've ranked Begich second, and vice versa.

      People went with their preferences, and obviously not many people who put Begich #1 put Sarah Palin #2.

      That fits the theory that ranked-choice voting eliminates the wackadoodles because their fans will rank them #1 (and maybe #2, which is a waste); but the wackadoodle can't pick up any votes from the eliminated candidates because no one wanted them as second choice.

      Collapse
  7. Halvor

    Voters, particularly moderates, centrists and swing voters, need to grow up and vote for *what* they like (or what they hate least) instead of *who* they like or who is naughty or nice. Consequences matter. For example, voters hated Al Gore's brown suits and internet arrogance, so some of them died in the Twin Towers or Iraq. Voters hated Hillary's endless laugh loops on talk radio, so some of them died while intubated.

    Both parties have fairly cogent theories about governance, and often the difference comes down to temperament, moral commitment, and arbitrary preference. Endless persuasion will never settle such differences. Results matter.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Philbnichols

    Thanks, Chris, for your skill at your profession, for your love of your fellow man & your country, and for your integrity.

    Collapse
  9. Chip

    This is a well-written piece, but regarding the mandate, it depends. For many 2020 voters, perhaps even the majority of those who voted for Biden, not being Trump was the main or only mandate. For African Americans who voted for Biden, I suspect there was much more to it. For the far-left progressives, ditto (although for very different reasons). Now? I suspect multiple reasons still exist, as inflation and supply chains do not yet seem to have (yet, at least) had strong enough impact to create single-issue voters.

    And in these unpredictable times with polarization and a semi-waning (from the public's perception, at least) pandemic, anything seemingly can go. Neither party can afford to breathe easily.

    Finally, Chris's two self-deceptions are on the mark.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Patrick O'Rouke

      That’s a fair point. Perhaps the distinction he should have made is that it was the mandate from the people who put him over the top.

      I’m a Republican who voted for Biden in Georgia and that mandate was absolutely my reason for voting for a Democrat for President for the first time in my life. A day on Lake Jackson and seeing all the cultish flags everywhere throughout rural Georgia finally broke me. Trump had to lose, and if I had to vote for a guy whose policies I largely oppose, I was finally willing to swallow that. But, make no mistake, the mandate I hoped to send was for him to sit on his hands and do nothing.

      I loathed David Perdue and thought Loeffler was a dud, but I bit my tongue and voted for them in the runoff to try to block Biden from getting anything though the Senate. He and we would have all been better off had Trump not suicide bombed those two races and he could just tell his base that he’d love to do all those things they wanted but McConnell is too super-mean to allow it.

      Collapse
      1. Chip

        Yes, I'm a moderate conservative, reliably Republican voter who voted outside the two-party system for only the second time in my life (the first time being 2016).

        Collapse
  10. Karen OT10

    For the sake of clarity, historians and history students of the past 200 to 250 or so years of European, British and U.S. History who identify as Marxists are not of a single mind and are not by definition "communists" or supporter of the Soviet Union. Furthermore, it is inaccurate to peg Democrats or critics of problems in U.S. or British History, particularly as regards political economics, as "communists" or supporters of Soviet Communism or for that matter necessarily believers in a socialist welfare state. If we could stop comparing apples to oranges, we could communicate better. Our public school systems, which obviously are all "local" and not run by states or the Feds, do promote a sense of idealism about values that the public has up until recent decades seemed to agree on. What has helped me attain a more holistic view of trends, of history and historians, is to try to view all the social sciences from the point of view of evolution and anthropology. Primatology has been especially helpful since it demonstrates, in the research of the past maybe 10 years, that homo sapiens and chimpanzees are the only two mammals that will butcher their neighbors for fun. That helps to set the record straight by removing the "ideals" that permeate our "education". If for example, one comes to realize how much the slave plantation economy of colonial America fed not only the south but also the economy of the north, then maybe one can speculate that race really is part of the story we are grappling with. Having a mixed race man as President may have stirred up some unconscious chimpanzee style hatred among certain white men. Feminism and/or the Womens' Movement had an effect on a lot of things that might trouble young especially white men. Who knows, if we are no better than chimps in our biology? Our better angels speak to lofty ideals and principles of English Common Law and socialist ideals of Germany, Austria and Great Britain. but the science of evolution allows us to ADMIT and ACKNOWLEDGE that when actions were taken by the U.S. Government to make America great again, or to fight alleged Soviet Communist influence in Viet Nam or the influence of the Taliban and ISIS in Afghanistan or any number of endless examples in which the human cost was devastating beyond the pale, we CAN admit that we are selfish creatures seeking our natural economic benefit at all costs.. That is what is done in the "hood" isn't it? I'm just saying that if we could put aside our "holier than thou" attitude about all our isms, maybe we can be more honest, and if we are honest, we don't have to fight and argue about apples and oranges. Maybe I am making no sense. The Left, with a capitol "L" is anti-imperialist to the point that they see any military action of the U.S. Govt's foreign policy as imperialist if it takes advantage of people who are less powerful, people who live and are citizens of or native to other countries. The Left understands how far the arm of capitalist enterprise reaches on a global scale and how far it excuses wrongdoing. I beg to differ that Democrats or liberal American students of politics and or history who condemn U.S. foreign or domestic policies are of necessity "communists" or in the past supporters of the Soviet regime. The people who identify as being on the Left have a lot of divisions among themselves as they too have a holier than thou attitude, but please: just because our schools and colleges and universities have failed to show the U.S. in a good light and have failed to show communism in all its freedom choking evil, this does not mean that our schools or our students or outspoken Democrats or left leaning political activists are in any way communist, necessarily Marxist or supporters of the Federal Government selling off our property/earnings etc.. The devil is the author of confusion. Let's not be confused.

    Collapse
Load More