I get the intent here but I disagree on the political angle.
Political capital is ultimately finite. If it takes half a year to implement their core agenda that's a lot more politically damaging to them than if it takes a month.
I've mentioned in the past that a lot of the damage of doing things when in power is simply that things change a…
I get the intent here but I disagree on the political angle.
Political capital is ultimately finite. If it takes half a year to implement their core agenda that's a lot more politically damaging to them than if it takes a month.
I've mentioned in the past that a lot of the damage of doing things when in power is simply that things change as a consequence. I maintain that this is the biggest damage. But a significant, if smaller, cost is wrangling the party on board with any complex legislation. If Obamacare was brought up and passed in a single month it would have hurt us a lot less at the ballot box: that we spent months and months fighting over it (1) kept it in the news, leading to voters constantly being reminded about what was being done, and (2) brought the ideological ends of the party into direct conflict with each other.
We should absolutely force republicans to go through the same process. If they are 100% hellbent on deportations or ending the EPA or what have you, they will make it happen... eventually. And that eventually is important. Force them to fight for it, force them to focus only on their most damaging and least popular agenda items because they don't have time to move on to the more popular (or less unpopular, as it might be) items on the agenda. Force the less extremist republicans to come into conflict with the more extremist republicans. Make it so the news is constantly covering their horribly unpopular agenda for six months straight because they need to maneuver so many little details to avoid losing three votes in the house while fitting it within the rules of reconciliation. Force them to change the rules on filibusters.
Agendas don't become controversial automatically. They need to be opposed, they need to be fought, they need to be something that the public hears about constantly for months and start viewing in a critical angle regardless of their ideology.
This is especially important for democrats. One of our biggest disadvantages with voters, and especially our base, is people think the party isn't willing to fight. So many people think we're weak or that we're also fully bought by corporations. It is absolutely critical that we fight as hard and loudly as we can. The absolute worst thing we could do is avoid fighting to our fullest ability.
I'd concur if the issue was more broady amalagous and unpopular, like healthcare or gutting environmental/safety/labor regs. But what makes immigration different is the GOP position IS NOT unpopular with the electorate. So having it be in the news for the next 6 months when the GOP could be all John Wayne on the border if not for those bleeding heart Democrats, doesn't hurt the GOP . . it hurts Democrats.
"Repeal and replace" was popular (or at least near neutral) until republicans started to try and enact it, until it was in the news for months and months and more people had to mentally digest the actual consequences of it.
Trump also didn't make ACA repeal a central part of his 2016 campaign; it was part of his campaign plank but there was no specific plan outlined. Meanwhile he's been saying clearly that once in office he will initiate mass deportations and enact massive tariffs.
That Obamacare became more popular after Trump's election is kind of the point... it was something where we fought. Democrats didn't come together and conclude that ACA repeal would be so disastrous that republicans would eat shit for it and that we should let them do so. No, we stymied them every step of the way. The end result being great for us: republicans took the damage of unpopular policy and they failed to implement the policy at the same time. Which, even if you don't give a shit on humanitarian grounds, is still a great political win for us — it saved us the political costs of going through the process to pass it back into law, or something similar to it!
"One of our biggest disadvantages with voters, and especially our base, is people think the party isn't willing to fight. So many people think we're weak or that we're also fully bought by corporations. It is absolutely critical that we fight as hard and loudly as we can."
President Biden could and should have used the bully pulpit to name and shame the corporations that obscenely increased their profit margins during the pandemic, and in its aftermath.
And I do think it would have benefited Kamala Harris to more clearly and specifically attack corporate greedflation. That includes highlighting the difference in the rate increases of CEO wages & benefits and that of ordinary workers.
Also, just look at the pent-up rage that was released and aimed at insurance companies in the aftermath of the killing of that CEO. That rage could have been tapped during the presidential campaign!
This can be extended out to a broader point, I think.
It's hard to deny that we're in a populist era for politics, one that dems at the top are not leaning into sufficiently. Republicans are working with it by painting the weak and powerless as voters' enemies, punching down to get the electorate on board with them.
We have a wide opening to punch up, to attack the rich and the powerful, and paint them as our foil. We should take it and use it.
I get the intent here but I disagree on the political angle.
Political capital is ultimately finite. If it takes half a year to implement their core agenda that's a lot more politically damaging to them than if it takes a month.
I've mentioned in the past that a lot of the damage of doing things when in power is simply that things change as a consequence. I maintain that this is the biggest damage. But a significant, if smaller, cost is wrangling the party on board with any complex legislation. If Obamacare was brought up and passed in a single month it would have hurt us a lot less at the ballot box: that we spent months and months fighting over it (1) kept it in the news, leading to voters constantly being reminded about what was being done, and (2) brought the ideological ends of the party into direct conflict with each other.
We should absolutely force republicans to go through the same process. If they are 100% hellbent on deportations or ending the EPA or what have you, they will make it happen... eventually. And that eventually is important. Force them to fight for it, force them to focus only on their most damaging and least popular agenda items because they don't have time to move on to the more popular (or less unpopular, as it might be) items on the agenda. Force the less extremist republicans to come into conflict with the more extremist republicans. Make it so the news is constantly covering their horribly unpopular agenda for six months straight because they need to maneuver so many little details to avoid losing three votes in the house while fitting it within the rules of reconciliation. Force them to change the rules on filibusters.
Agendas don't become controversial automatically. They need to be opposed, they need to be fought, they need to be something that the public hears about constantly for months and start viewing in a critical angle regardless of their ideology.
This is especially important for democrats. One of our biggest disadvantages with voters, and especially our base, is people think the party isn't willing to fight. So many people think we're weak or that we're also fully bought by corporations. It is absolutely critical that we fight as hard and loudly as we can. The absolute worst thing we could do is avoid fighting to our fullest ability.
I'd concur if the issue was more broady amalagous and unpopular, like healthcare or gutting environmental/safety/labor regs. But what makes immigration different is the GOP position IS NOT unpopular with the electorate. So having it be in the news for the next 6 months when the GOP could be all John Wayne on the border if not for those bleeding heart Democrats, doesn't hurt the GOP . . it hurts Democrats.
"Repeal and replace" was popular (or at least near neutral) until republicans started to try and enact it, until it was in the news for months and months and more people had to mentally digest the actual consequences of it.
Same deal here.
I'm pretty sure repealing the ACA was never popular post-2010 midterms. By 2016 most polling showed the public basically 50/50 on the law
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/12/08/4-views-of-the-aca-medicare-and-the-nations-economy/
and it got more popular once Trump became President, not less.
https://www.kff.org/affordable-care-act/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-june-2017-aca-replacement-plan-and-medicaid/
Trump also didn't make ACA repeal a central part of his 2016 campaign; it was part of his campaign plank but there was no specific plan outlined. Meanwhile he's been saying clearly that once in office he will initiate mass deportations and enact massive tariffs.
That Obamacare became more popular after Trump's election is kind of the point... it was something where we fought. Democrats didn't come together and conclude that ACA repeal would be so disastrous that republicans would eat shit for it and that we should let them do so. No, we stymied them every step of the way. The end result being great for us: republicans took the damage of unpopular policy and they failed to implement the policy at the same time. Which, even if you don't give a shit on humanitarian grounds, is still a great political win for us — it saved us the political costs of going through the process to pass it back into law, or something similar to it!
This!
"One of our biggest disadvantages with voters, and especially our base, is people think the party isn't willing to fight. So many people think we're weak or that we're also fully bought by corporations. It is absolutely critical that we fight as hard and loudly as we can."
President Biden could and should have used the bully pulpit to name and shame the corporations that obscenely increased their profit margins during the pandemic, and in its aftermath.
And I do think it would have benefited Kamala Harris to more clearly and specifically attack corporate greedflation. That includes highlighting the difference in the rate increases of CEO wages & benefits and that of ordinary workers.
Also, just look at the pent-up rage that was released and aimed at insurance companies in the aftermath of the killing of that CEO. That rage could have been tapped during the presidential campaign!
This can be extended out to a broader point, I think.
It's hard to deny that we're in a populist era for politics, one that dems at the top are not leaning into sufficiently. Republicans are working with it by painting the weak and powerless as voters' enemies, punching down to get the electorate on board with them.
We have a wide opening to punch up, to attack the rich and the powerful, and paint them as our foil. We should take it and use it.