I’m a Democrat who would like to see some Democrats lose in November.
At the top of that list is Abdul El-Sayed, the socialist-lite who is running for the U.S. Senate in Michigan.
According to a recent story in the Free Press: “Progressives believe El-Sayed will be a bellwether for the future of the Democratic Party. “What we do is that we break open the entire political calculus in America—period,” Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said at a recent New York fundraiser, according to The New York Times. “If Abdul can win in Michigan, anybody can win anywhere. Anywhere.””
Yes, precisely. That’s why I want him to lose. I want the populist hard-left to get knocked back on its heels. I agree with Carey Bloom who was also quoted in that same Free Press story. A lifelong Democrat and member of Temple Israel, the Michigan synagogue that a terrorist attacked in March, Bloom said, “We cannot let Abdul enter the Democratic Party because the Democratic Party will not be recognizable in our lifetime.”
Maine Democrat Troy Jackson rivals both El-Sayed and Graham Platner, who he replaced on the ticket, for abrasiveness. At a debate last week he told long-time incumbent Susan Collins to “shut up.” He should also be defeated. Those two losses would pretty much preclude my party from taking back the Senate, but they are all but guaranteed to seize control of the House and that will be enough to stop Trump. And, bonus, it should also discourage them from trying to impeach Trump yet again. That’s justified on the merits, but it’s a political fool’s errand.
And, on the Republican side, they should learn the lesson that Trump’s MAGA, hard-right blood and soil populism cost them control of the House and, I hope, many governorships and state legislatures. It’s the main reason that I’ll be voting for Democrat David Crowley for Governor here.
The ideal result for me would be that populism, in all its grotesque forms, would be turned out. Populism is a disease attacking American democracy. It is precisely what our Founders were afraid of, exactly what they set up our system of constitutional democracy to curb. Trump is just the kind of power-hungry autocrat that the Founders worried about and wanted to either preclude or frustrate. So far, their system has bent, but it hasn’t been broken. There’s still time to move back from the brink.
But we cannot move back from the brink with the hard-left equivalent of MAGA populism. In fact, the Democratic Socialist’s platform explicitly calls for the destruction of checks and balances and the creation of an all powerful House of Representatives. And if you think that’s just a pipe dream, consider that mainstream Democrats have called for packing the Supreme Court and eliminating the Senate filibuster under the belief that these moves would open the way for all kinds of hard-left legislation. They don’t seem to understand that it would also clear the way for all kinds of hard-right policies.
This is a broader problem among leftist populists. They live in some fantasy world where if only “the people” or “the little guy” would have power those people and that little guy would want what they want. Actually, they’re just as likely to want what Trump wants.
Populism is bad because it is based on scape-goating others for your problems. It sees the world as a simple place filled with evil oppressors and noble victims and so it discounts personal responsibility and initiative. Populism is emotionalism. It does not believe in restraint, reflection or objective analysis. It places too much faith in government to solve all problems and too little faith in the market to deliver a better life.
And it doesn’t matter which side it comes from. Both MAGA and DSA-influenced candidates are part of the same problem. That’s why — while I do want to see Democrats do well — I don’t want them to run the table. I want El-Sayed and Jackson to lose because I want AOC to be half right. This election will turn out to be a bellwether, but a lesson that the hard-left cannot win anywhere outside of the Bronx.
Populism is just a symptom it’s not the disease. I encourage you to listen to David Friedberg’s recent interview on The diary of a CEO podcast, or ask AI to summarize why he thinks democratic socialism is inevitable.
LikeLike
I agree with much of what you wrote that we need to push the extremes aside for more moderate candidates; however, I have a question regarding this section.
Dave wrote, “And, bonus, it should also discourage them from trying to impeach Trump yet again. That’s justified on the merits, but it’s a political fool’s errand.”
I completely agree that it’s a political fool’s errand to try and impeach President Trump, but I’m wondering if you can share your opinion and tell me what specifically the President has done while in office that falls within “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” which are literally the criteria for impeachment thus justifying your statement that it’s “justified on the merits”?
Remember, it’s very typical that Presidents do things that are overturned by the courts. I think every single President except four have had some of their official acts or executive orders overturned by the courts.
LikeLike
Supporting Trump and Trump-aligned candidates is a strange way to push the extremes aside. We have Trump covering up the Epstein files and Vance supporting the views of a child-rape-enabler (Ramaswamy’s ad). That’s not extreme!?!
The mountain of credible accusations of bribery is enough to get started on impeachment. The flood-the-zone technique has been effective at keeping the media from covering any single instance adequately, but it’s reasonable to conclude that there is rampant bribery happening in the executive branch. There simply hasn’t been any entity willing and able to investigate these accusations. Yet.
We’re living under perhaps the most corrupt executive branch in US history. It would do Rs a favor to end this asap through impeachment. Recall how fast the country moved past Nixon and swept Rs back into power. The longer T is around, the heavier the anchor around Rs. Vote D.
LikeLike
Let me see if I understand your position: If you were in Michigan, you’d support the guy who will vote with Trump more than 90% of the time and, after this nightmare ends, will support whomever the GOP gives us for four years after that? If you lived in Maine, you’d vote for Susan Collins, who, while slightly more independent, is a fairly reliable Republican vote?
And you’d take this principled stand because you don’t like Lefty Populism, like Medicare for All and limits on military spending/adventurism?
I typically agree with your opinions but you’re way off the mark on this one. I’m hoping for a Blue Wave, in both chambers of Congress. The people who are running the show in Washington are an embarrassment and they must be checked and balanced.
LikeLike
I would not support Mike Rogers. I just wouldn’t vote in that race. When you accept the idea that you need to choose the lesser of two evils what you keep getting is two evils.
LikeLike
Sorry Dave–we need the Senate, too. Don’t give Trump the power to appoint more outrageous lifetime-appointed Supreme Court and federal judges. Sayed’s opponent is one of the reasons we started this stupid war in Iran and Susan Collins’s weakness enables Trump and HIS populism. Since when have you become so naive? Your pseudo level-headedness is ridiculous. I’m glad you don’t live in Michigan or Maine, but if this is what you think, I’m afraid this “taking your eyes off the ball” is bad news for Wisconsin politics. It reminds me of the people here in Richland County who say they won’t vote for Crowley because Hong lost and Tony Evers wasn’t good enough for them. I’m glad you don’t live in Michigan or Maine, but if this is what you think, I’m afraid this “taking your eyes off the ball” is bad news for Wisconsin politics. I hope it doesn’t infect the Brewers.
Mary Bard from Richland County.
LikeLike
Does it concern you that so many lifelong Jewish Democrats, like the woman I quote in the blog, cannot support El-Sayed or that his standing in the African American community is so low that Barack Obama needs to fly in this week to try to save him in Detroit? I get that I won’t agree with any candidate 100% of the time. But for me El-Sayed is a bridge too far.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just saw a comment on a post of the French protests. “This many people can’t be wrong!”
The opposite sentiment, ONE (monarch) must always be right is tempting too. Thanks for the ideas, Dave. May we keep it all in balance.
LikeLike
“MAGA and DSA-influenced candidates are part of the same problem.”
False. MAGA is anti-democracy, DSA is pro-democracy. MAGA is anti-multiculturalism, DSA is pro-multiculturalism. MAGA is pro-authoritarianism, DSA is anti-authoritarianism.
Dislike the DSA platform all you want, but it’s just plain incorrect to paint MAGA and DSA as 2 sides of the same coin, except for perhaps in the most elementary of analysis like “both are unhappy with the status quo.” The solutions each proposes for that sentiment are polar opposites.
You throw around the word “populism” and seem to bend it to suit what you want it to mean. Merriam-Webster defines it as “a political philosophy or movement that represents or is claimed to represent the interests of ordinary people especially against the Establishment.” Doesn’t seem too evil to me.
Populism is dangerous when it’s used as a lie to enrich the already-rich, suppress rights, scapegoat minorities, and decrease democracy (MAGA). Populism is just fine when ordinary people participate democratically to improve their own lives (DSA). Do you have a disagreement with populism, democracy, or neither?
LikeLike
Rollie wrote, “MAGA is anti-democracy, DSA is pro-democracy. MAGA is anti-multiculturalism, DSA is pro-multiculturalism. MAGA is pro-authoritarianism, DSA is anti-authoritarianism.”
Those are some bold claims. Let’s address these claims one at a time so everyone can understand what’s really going on.
“MAGA is anti-democracy”
False. MAGA, aka Republicans to left wing extremists, is pro Constitutional Democratic Republic which is what the United States of America is. Your claim is pure unadulterated propaganda and it’s false.
“DSA is pro-democracy”
False. The DSA is pro “Direct Democracy” and that is not the same as using a generic term like “democracy”, Using the generic “democracy” in that way is propaganda that’s trying to pull the wool over the eyes of sincerely gullible people that are ignorant of historical facts. Direct Democracy is the functional equivalent of mob rule aka mobocracy which is a rough equivalent to social anarchy like what happened in France in the late 1700’s. The USA has been operating as a Constitutional Democratic Republic for 250 years, not this generic “democracy” like the DSA and their surrogates proclaim. Your claim is pure unadulterated propaganda and it’s utterly false.
“MAGA is anti-multiculturalism”
False. MAGA, aka Republicans to left wing extremists, are fully onboard with multiculturalism as long as those that choose to join our country follow our laws and reasonably assimilate enough to effectively communicate and function within our already existing multicultural society. There must be come level of cross assimilation for a melting pot to effectively function, that’s how a melting pot works.
“DSA is pro-multiculturalism”
True but only sort of. On the surface the DSA mouths the words of multiculturalism; however, they are so openly bigoted and prejudice towards select cultural groups that already exist within the USA and they openly demonize them. Within multiculturalism there is a very strong implication of tolerance. Culture is the shared set of beliefs, values, customs, behaviors, and arts that bind a group of people together. Multiculturalism to the DSA is essentially “agree with our set of values or you’re evil”. The DSA wears a faux mask of multiculturalism trying to hide their true core intolerance, indoctrinated bigotries and outright prejudice. The extreme political left is trying to use multiculturalism as a cudgel to shut down discussion much like they do when they falsely sling around words like racist and fascist, this behavior undermines the literary value of the words.
“MAGA is pro-authoritarianism”
False. MAGA, aka Republicans to left wing extremists, are not and have never been pro-authoritarianism, they are pro strong effective leadership within the confines of our Constitutional Democratic Republic. Authoritarianism is a system of government or centralized power that demands strict obedience to authority and quashes political opposition. Want to see evidence that the extreme left has its head buried in the sand when it comes to their bastardization of the word “authoritarianism”, look no further than the absurd “No Kings” rallies across the USA. Strong leadership is a management or political style characterized by decisive action, clear vision, and firmness, which can still operate within democratic rules and institutional checks. Your claim is pure unadulterated propaganda and it’s false.
“DSA is anti-authoritarianism.”
True but only sort of; generally those that are pro Direct Democracy are against authoritarianism as a form of government however, the DSA, and those that support the political left’s 21 century ideological shift towards the extreme, tend to call anything that differs from their mobocracy ideology “authoritarianism” and that is an actual bastardization of the word. The way the DSA uses the term “anti-authoritarianism” to imply that MAGA and Republicans are pro-authoritarianism is pure unadulterated propaganda and it’s false.
The DSA, and those that support their extreme ideology, is dominated by rage addicted, intolerant, morally bankrupt, anti-USA anarchists.
I hope this clears a few things up.
P.S. You should read Jonathan Turley’s book “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
MAGA is one man, not a coherent policy platform. If you think Trump even knows what a Constitutional Democratic Republic is you’re lying to yourself. Trump has the views I described, thus MAGA does. I was being generous by explicitly not tying all Rs to MAGA, but if you disagree, ok.
Merriam-Webster says democracy means “government by the people: rule of the majority.” Even if I grant you the use of your preferred sub-definitions, Trump (MAGA) is anti-democracy, because he doesn’t respect the results of free and fair elections.
Merriam-Webster says multiculturalism means “cultural pluralism or diversity (as within a society, an organization, or an educational institution): a multicultural social state or a doctrine or policy that promotes or advocates such a state.” Saying a culture must amend itself to be accepted into society is not multiculturalism.
Merriam-Webster’s applicable definition of authoritarian is “of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people.” These are exactly the types of leaders that Trump (MAGA) lavishes praise on and says he wishes to emulate. Trump (MAGA) does not act like he believes he is constitutionally responsible to the people.
Do you really think the truth is propaganda?
LikeLike
Rollie,
You’re welcome to your opinion and so am I.
Each of your statements that I addressed is pure parroted propaganda and if you truly can’t recognize that fact that’s not my problem.
Do you really think the propaganda is truth?
LikeLike
I used definitions of words and applied the definitions to real-world observations. Feel free to claim my observations are false, and I should not believe my own eyes. If the sky really is blue, I’m not parroting anybody by stating the fact. But am I spreading propaganda?
To answer your and my questions, let’s again use the definition. Propaganda: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause.
So yes, truth can be propaganda, and propaganda can be the truth. I learned something, because I always associate propaganda with lies, which it certainly can be based on. When you used the term as an insult to me, who is simply stating truthful observations, you were correct that the truth can be used as propaganda. I don’t think truthful propaganda is a bad thing, in fact I think it’s a good thing, but that’s my opinion.
LikeLike