Tag Archives: Democrats

This Made Me Feel Better

When I saw that eight “rogue” Democrats had bowed to Republican demands to end the government shutdown without a firm agreement to restore the ACA subsidies, I was depressed. And angry. I also was clearly not alone–the pundits I follow were almost uniformly furious.

But then I read Jonathan Last’s analysis in the Bulwark, and felt much better.

Last argues that the very best outcome for Democrats would have been to force Republicans to give them something that would alter the structural balance of power– something like D.C. statehood or the full release of the Epstein files. The next best, he says, would have been getting rid of the filibuster, which would have required Republicans to vote on every unpopular Trump proposal and cleared the way for Democrats to enact sweeping reforms if and when they regain power. The third best outcome would have been to win a tactical concession–perhaps outlawing masks on ICE agents.

Instead, Democrats got the fourth best outcome: Democrats caved without any concessions–while raising the salience of a terrible issue for Republicans.

This is basically what happened. Republicans will allow an ACA subsidy vote in the future, that is meaningless because the House will not pass the bill—and even if it somehow passed, Trump wouldn’t sign it.

But capitulating without getting anything of substance isn’t the worst thing in the world. It preserves the status quo and the status quo is—as last week’s elections showed—good for Democrats.

Trump has plummeted in the polls as the shutdown has dragged on. But what would happen if the Democrats had gotten what they were holding out for–extension of the ACA subsidies and restoration of the Medicaid cuts. Slashing those subsidies and drastically cutting Medicaid were mean-spirited provisions that were central to Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.”

Last’s point is that such a “success” would have been a disaster for the Democrats, because it would have made Trump more popular.

The Democratic proposal was for Trump and Republicans to undo the most unpopular parts of their Big Beautiful Bill.

Had they succeeded, I am fairly certain that 2026 voters would not have given Democratic candidates credit for protecting them.

Why? Our COVID experience suggests that Americans have almost no capacity to grant credit for harms avoided.

Last reminds us that Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill created a political liability for him, because in order to keep GOP legislators onboard, he couldn’t enormously increase the deficit. He needed to include some cost-savings. In GOP land, the most politically palatable cuts are to other people’s health care.

The devil’s bargain Trump made with the BBB was that health insurance costs would rise dramatically for people covered by the ACA and health care access in rural areas would decrease as Medicaid was cut. These effects would be tangible for voters and would manifest months before the midterm elections….

The shutdown presented Trump with the opportunity to have his cake and eat it, too. Having given the holdout Republicans their health care cuts to pass the BBB, he could have undone those cuts as a “concession” to Democrats, thus nullifying their best issue for the 2026 campaign. Democrats would have had to sell voters on the idea that “Your healthcare costs would have gone up without us!”

Good luck with that.

It’s hard to argue with that analysis.

Democrats were doing what Democrats do–trying to avoid harm to the millions of Americans who will lose healthcare–or pay much, much more for it– thanks to Trump and his GOP sycophants. Would those Americans be grateful to the Democrats who saved them from those harms? Some undoubtedly would be–but, as Last contends, most wouldn’t. If the Democrats had won–if they’d forced GOP concessions on ACA subsidies and Medicaid, voters next November wouldn’t be experiencing a world of hurt, and Trump’s GOP would be the beneficiary of its absence.

Why didn’t Trump take this gigantic win? Because it would have meant laying down. He would have had to pretend that he’d been beaten and was capitulating to Chuck Schumer.

Trump’s obsession with strength and dominance simply would not permit that.

So where are we? Last says that– objectively speaking–Democrats emerge from the shutdown in a slightly better position than they entered it. They’ve damaged Trump politically. They’ve insured that health care costs will be a major issue in 2026.
The meaningless future vote on extending the ACA subsidies “will put Republican senators on the spot and create vulnerability for House Republicans when they refuse to take up the bill.”

I feel better. Unfortunately, a lot of Americans won’t…

Comments

An Intriguing New Non-Party

I’ve frequently posted about the multiple negative effects of Indiana’s extreme gerrymandering. One of the most pernicious of those effects has been voter suppression–the tendency of Democrats and Independents who live in “safe” Republican districts to stay home on election day. If you think the result is foreordained, why bother?

In Indiana, the Democrats’ decision not to bother running candidates in many of those “safe” districts has only increased that disengagement. When there is no competition, we shouldn’t be surprised when there is minimal turnout. And Indiana has long had depressingly low voter turnout–last time I looked, we were near the bottom of all states.

This situation has produced a depressingly widespread opinion that progressive candidates (even moderately progressive, as in not committed crazies or Christian Nationalists) have no chance in Indiana. Donors who support Democrats send their dollars elsewhere; discouraged Democrats don’t bother casting ballots.  (Worse still, in many rural districts, many faithful longtime Republican voters who are unhappy with incumbent officials nevertheless cannot bring themselves to vote for a Democrat.)

A new organization has decided that the basic problem in the Hoosier State is that lack of competition. 

The folks who have organized Independent Indiana looked at the data, and discovered that during the last couple of election cycles, over 200 candidates had run for offices in Indiana as Independents. Of that number, 52% won their races, an astonishing percentage. (In contrast, Democrats won 36% of theirs…)

The goal of Independent Indiana is to encourage and support Independent candidates–and to give voters in those gerrymandered districts a choice. 

The organization recently held an informational meeting, and I attended. After introductory remarks from Nathan Gotsch, the Executive Director, and the introduction of board members and a recent operations hire, Nathan introduced a panel consisting of three mayors who had won their elections as Independents. Their comments were enlightening. 

Tom Saunders had formerly been a Republican state representative; he is now an independent on the Lewisville Town Council. As he explained,
“I felt like my party was leaving me, and I wasn’t happy…Toward the end, my conscience wasn’t agreeing with me. I wasn’t sleeping at night, and it was time to come home.” (Many former Republicans can underscore his discomfort…) As he said, “I think I could have run as an independent and gotten elected to the legislature, but my advisors and the people who gave me money said no.” 

Saunders ran for his city council and won. He also had some harsh words for Republicans who are proposing a mid-cycle gerrymander.

“The worst thing that’s happened to the state is the supermajority where we don’t hear the other side’s concerns.”

“If redistricting happens, I think it does open it up [for independents]. If I was 20 years younger, I would [run for a larger office as an independent. My wife might divorce me, but I would.”

“Republicans need to go back 30 years and look what happened the last time they tried this. Democrats walked out, the plan backfired, and Republicans lost seats. I think it’s a mistake.”

Richard Strick, another panelist, is an Independent who has been mayor of the Republican stronghold of Huntington since 2020. As he told the gathering, “We don’t just need independent candidates. We need independent thinking in both parties — left and right officials who know when to put party aside to do what’s needed. At the end of the day, especially at the local level, it’s about delivering and getting results. People will give you a chance if they think you’re sincere and have their best interest at heart.” He enumerated the benefits of independence, noting “you don’t have to be married to an ideology. I’m 100% responsible for what I say and do.”

The third panelist was Shawna Girgis, who served as the Independent mayor of Bedford from 2008 to 2019. She pointed out that the first time she’d run, Republicans quietly told her they were glad she was in the race. “By my second and third campaigns, people were open about supporting me because they saw the results.” She also noted that running against extremists and ideologues can be a bonus: “Sometimes having people work against you is the best thing that can happen. They’re the wrong people with the wrong message, doing the wrong things consistently. That only helps you.”

You can see a video of the entire event here.

As the new Operations director noted, Independent candidates do best in states where there’s no competition–where there’s one party rule. Even people in the dominant party feel unrepresented. 

That sure describes Indiana, where polls reflect that even most Republican voters are unhappy with the Christian Nationalists and culture warriors who currently dominate our government.

Comments

Democrats Govern; Republicans Rule

It’s so easy for sane Americans to focus on the horrible, terrible, cruel and unbelievably stupid things that MAGA Republicans are doing daily. A recent example is the devastation in Texas, where inadequate warnings in advance of the weather–a result partially attributable to massive employee cuts to the Weather Service– cost over 85 people their lives.

What is frustrating is that it was so foreseeable: When the mindless, reckless cuts were being made, Scientific American ran a story headlined “How Trump’s National Weather Service Cuts Could Cost Lives,” warning that “staff cuts at the National Weather Service that have been made by the Trump administration are a danger to public safety as tornadoes, hurricanes and heat loom this spring and summer.”

The GOP has given rational Americans so many targets at both the state and federal levels that there is an understandable tendency to spend our time pointing and complaining. But as the new Chair of the Indiana Democratic Party has reminded us, complaining neglects the most important story, which is that–unlike the GOP– Democrats understand the obligations of governing, and we need to remind voters that all Americans, not just wealthy White ones, do better when Democrats are in charge.

I agree, so I wrote the following:

What happens when Americans elect Democrats? People do better.

When Democrats are in charge, states like California, New York, Massachusetts, Washington raise the minimum wage to $15/hour or higher.

Democrats in Blue states act to protect health coverage (Washington State even created a public health insurance option—the only one in the country) and pass laws requiring paid family and medical leave.

Blue states—including Oregon, California, Washington, Colorado and New York—make it easier to vote, expanding early voting and passing election reforms like automatic voter registration and same day registration.

Democrats support public education, and Blue states like New York, California and Oregon offer tuition-free college programs.

Indiana’s neighbor, Illinois, is a good example of the difference between Democrats who govern for We the People and Republicans who govern for the donor class. This July, Illinois Governor Pritzker signed the state’s Prescription Drug Affordability Act, limiting unfair pricing practices and supporting independent pharmacies, along with four bills to help high school students afford college. In January, Pritzker signed a bill forbidding payment of less than minimum wage to disabled workers.

And the Republicans?

In Red Indiana, they’ve kept the minimum wage at 7.25 since 2009, when they grudgingly had to raise it to match the federal rate.

In Red Indiana, Republicans are throwing people off Medicaid using stricter eligibility checks, work requirements, and enrollment caps, erecting barriers that hurt the most vulnerable populations. 

Red States have made it harder for their citizens to vote– cutting early voting, requiring specific government-issued IDs, and throwing out ballots with minor errors. Polls in Red Indiana and Kentucky close at 6– earlier than any other state—making it harder for working people to cast ballots.

From education to gun safety, from climate and the environment, from education to worker protection, Democratic lawmakers work to make citizens’ lives better and fairer, while Republicans wage culture wars and make it harder for middle-class Americans to earn a decent living.

Which approach really makes America great?

Indiana’s neighbor, Illinois, is just one example of the difference between government for We the People and government for the donor class. Just this month, Governor Pritzker signed the state’s Prescription Drug Affordability Act, limiting unfair pricing practices and supporting independent pharmacies, along with four bills designed to help high school students get into and afford to pay for college in Illinois. In January, he signed a bill forbidding payment of less than minimum wage to disabled workers.

There’s much more.

From education to gun safety, from climate and the environment, from education to worker protection, Democratic lawmakers in Blue America are working to protect the right to vote and the right to fair treatment. Meanwhile, Republicans in Red America are rolling back their citizens’ rights, making it harder to vote and harder for middle-class Americans to earn a decent living.

Which approach really makes America great?

Comments

Words Of Wisdom

One of my “go to” sources for political news and thoughtful analysis is Talking Points Memo. I nearly always find myself in agreement with its editor, Josh Marshall–and especially in his “cut to the chase” commentaries on our current political situation.

Recently, Marshall considered the navel-gazing of the “usual subjects.” He began by citing two recent Bulwark essays. One, by Matt Yglesias, engaged in the sort of “analysis” that drives me up the wall–Yglesias criticised the Democratic Party for clinging to positions that he believed imposed “a decisive disadvantage when it comes to winning the Senate in 2026 and in a challenging position when it comes to the Electoral College.” He argued for a “major repositioning on issues like guns and fossil fuels (among other issues) to make Democrats more competitive in states like Iowa or Texas.

Jonathan Last made a very different argument–and like Marshall, I found it far more persuasive.

The argument was that Democrats are the opposition and that the role of the opposition, especially in such a binary, Manichean moment, is to systematically disqualify the party in power. Any naval-gazing or attempted rebrands are somewhere between irrelevant and counterproductive.

Amen.

Marshall argues that pundits’ emphasis on policy prescriptions misreads the situation in which we find ourselves–that it is a bias held by people who think and write– and that ignores reality. “Opposition parties win when they manage in whole or in part to discredit the party in power — almost always with a ton of help from the party in power itself.”

I spent 21 years teaching law and public policy. I absolutely believe in the importance of policy prescriptions, in the need to consider what the evidence teaches us about policy decisions and mistakes. But if there is one thing I am absolutely convinced of, it is that elections aren’t won or lost by adjusting the nuances of this or that policy.

As Marshall notes,

Democrats who are currently focused on repositioning the party away from being “woke” sound like they’re in a time warp. People are scared about losing their jobs. They’re upset about authoritarian attacks on the rule of law. There’s deepening pessimism about a looming recession. A big focus on “wokism” seems mostly like someone speaking from the past. It’s just not what people are thinking about right now. They’re worried about Trump and the climate of chaos and uncertainty.

Again: politics is all about salience. That’s why people so frequently get themselves mixed up with polls. Maybe your issue has 80-20 support. But if it’s not what voters are voting on, it’s irrelevant. Americans overwhelmingly oppose Trump White House cuts to medical research. But it’s not getting a lot of traction at the moment. Because most people don’t know about it. It’s not a driving focus of the news. It’s salience is low. So it makes sense for Democrats to do everything they can to focus more attention on it.

There’s a mountain of evidence to the effect that people who are against something are more likely to cast ballots. I am confident that every person who participated in the No Kings Day protests will get to the polls.

As Marshall says, the salient issue right now is Trump and the damage he is doing to America. It isn’t only Democrats who are appalled by the assaults on reason and competence and liberty. As one of my favorite protest signs has it, IKEA has better cabinets, and a majority of Americans recognizes the damage that is being done by these clowns and ideologues–to the economy, to health care, to America’s global role, to constitutional governance.

For that matter, every Republican I worked with “back in the day” when I was a Republican and the GOP was a political party rather than a fascist cult is horrified by Trump and terrified by the direction he is taking the country.

Marshall is absolutely right that Democratic success depends upon opposition to Trump and MAGA, not to the fine-tuning of  a positive vision. As he points out, “the positive vision emerges from the outlines of what you oppose. But fundamentally the job of an opposition is to oppose. Don’t overcomplicate it. It’s not simply that you gain more ground from opposing than from grand-strategizing. You learn more from it too.”

America has a lot of long-term systemic flaws, and we need to pay attention to them and fix them. But right now, we need to rid America of today’s Confederates, the MAGA White Nationalists who are trying to remake us into a very different country.

You don’t debate the best way to make the plane safer while it’s going down.

Comments

Things That Make Me Crazy

Can those who read this blog indulge me for three very personal rants?

We face so many major problems in this country right now (can we spell LA?) that it seems terribly self-indulgent to focus on a few annoying aspects of civic debate. On the other hand, I think at least a couple of the behaviors I find so exasperating are symptoms of the inability of We the People to productively address the bigger issues. (Anyway, that’s my justification and I’m sticking to it!)

#1. I recently posted about an emerging argument over regulation. Proponents of taking a closer look at our regulatory processes aren’t the knee-jerk GOP scolds who define “free market” as “free” from any government rules; the concern (as I said in that post) is to guard against over-kill. But I immediately got an email from an acquaintance saying, essentially, “finally, people are realizing that we need to get government out of the way!”

Now, I’ve known this particular correspondent for a long time, and he’s not stupid. But he drank the Kool-Aid back when the GOP’s plutocrats were insisting that government just needed to get out of the way and let good-hearted business-people run their enterprises as they see fit.

We’re beginning to see what that would look like, as planes fall from the sky.  Do we really want to get rid of FDA inspections to ensure that supermarket chickens are safe to eat?  Do we want to turn a blind eye to that factory discharging toxic waste into the local river? Stop requiring clinical trials before approving the sale of medications and vaccines?

Bottom line:  We’re not in Kansas anymore, Toto! We don’t grow our own fruits and vegetables and go into the backyard to kill one of our own chickens for dinner. In a modern society, government regulations are essential.  As I said in my post, it isn’t an “either/or” proposition; policymakers need to determine what regulations are needed, and how much is too much. That’s a lot harder, of course, than spouting ideological idiocies.

#2. This platform, like so many others, is a place where people with different perspectives but generally similar civic goals come to argue about THE question: what should we do? What actions can citizens take in the face of an existential threat to the America we thought we inhabited? 

Those discussions may or may not be experienced as valuable, but one (probably inevitable) response drives me up the wall. It is the comment–in a lecturing tone–to the effect that such-and-such will clearly be ineffective, that it is simply “virtue-signaling” and unlikely to make any difference. It would be one thing if the person pouring cold water on a proposed activity ever followed up with a helpful, do-able suggestion–if the put-down was ever followed by a thoughtful “here’s what we should be doing instead,” but it never is.

One of the defects of Internet conversations is the absence of tone and body-language. Perhaps if we could see and hear the individuals who post these put-downs, they wouldn’t seem so sneering and self-important–but that is certainly what these “I know better than you and what you propose is stupid” comments convey.

#3.  I am OVER the Democrats who keep wallowing in “what went wrong” and “who was to blame” and “why the approach of those of you on the (insert ideological position) is dooming our chances in the future.” I am especially over the focus on Joe Biden, and the utterly stupid accusations of a “cover up”–as Robert Hubbell has pointed out, a “cover up” of the cognitive state of a man who was appearing daily at campaign events, delivering addresses to Congress where he outwitted the entire Republican caucus, providing interviews to major media outlets, and guiding America through a period of stable foreign relations and successful domestic policy. Biden aged in office –and we all saw that–but he was a transformational and incredibly effective President. Should he have withdrawn sooner? Probably. But for goodness sake, GIVE IT A REST. 

Meanwhile, we have a President whose election was at least partially due to the refusal of the mainstream press to give anything close to equal time to his embarrassing stupidity, his obvious mental illness (not to mention his age-related decline from what wasn’t a high bar to begin with). Even the aspects of his “character” (note quotation marks) that do receive coverage–his racism, his felonies, his rapes, his constant lies (are his lips moving?), his “out and proud” corruption –are still being normalized and sane-washed. WHY?

Okay. I’m done. Thanks for indulging me. I think I feel better.

Comments