Sean O’Brien

[Healing]

Part of the reason I chose O’Brien is because I knew it would be somewhat provocative. I’m much closer to Faiz Shakir than I am Sean O’Brien, but people have got to realize we need Teamsters and other working class men in order to win elections. If someone like Faiz can realize this, then a ton of other Democrats should be able to.

Fine, that’s logical, even if I disagree. I think you carry a political posture (actual politics +articulation) that differs from any other poster. As such, I think your credibility is ever more important for the credibility of your message; associating your handle with Sean O’Brien doesn’t strike me as a good thing for Paine’s message, in this environment.

 

[Paine]

Fine, that’s logical, even if I disagree. I think you carry a political posture (actual politics +articulation) that differs from any other poster. As such, I think your credibility is ever more important for the credibility of your message; associating your handle with Sean O’Brien doesn’t strike me as a good thing for Paine’s message, in this environment.

That’s fair. I don’t necessarily intend to associate myself with O’Brien. I think we need to listen to a wide variety of people to gain insight about the moment we’re in. He is at the intersection of several of the threads we’ve been discussing since November, so I think he’s a particularly interesting figure to examine and keep an eye on.

 

[superrific]

You’re going to have to get over your fixation on the word neoliberal. Just because some dumb leftist said you’re no different than a Republican doesn’t mean the word has no meaning. It is a well-documented and researched ideology that has pervaded segments of both parties since the Carter administration. This isn’t a concept just advanced by leftists.

My take is a lot more nuanced than O’Brien’s, but he is channeling the general anger of working class people towards the politics of the Democratic Party.

Why did a Democrat sign NAFTA into law? Why didn’t we pass card check under the Obama administration? Why did Obama negotiate the TPP? Why didn’t O’Brien get invited to speak at the DNC? Why did Harris not walk a Teamsters picket line during the campaign when she was asked to?

Democrats rightly need to be held to a higher standard on labor issues than Republicans. No one expects the Republicans to do the right thing on labor, so they get extra credit even when they’re just paying lip service. That’s just the truth, especially for Teamsters since they seem to lean conservative on cultural issues.

This is part and parcel of the identity politics conversation. Democrats thought they could treat unions as just another identity group within their coalition rather than treating them as central to their entire political program. Now they (and liberal parties around the world) are reaping the consequences of this hollowing out.

1. I use neoliberal as message board shorthand, but if you'd prefer that I use "Democrats have fucked organized labor for 40 years" that will work too. I'm tired of playing this game.

2. The anger toward Democrats is almost entirely about cultural and racial issues. I don't know why it's so hard to understand. For almost the entire campaign, all they could talk about was DEI and illegals and trans and LGTBQ. Trump gets into office, and the first thing he does is an all-out assault on DEI. He's not even talked about anything that would help working class people economically. For a decade Trump has done nothing but stoke culture wars.

I am not interested in this rope-a-dope. I have zero confidence that the strongest pro-worker platform ever would attract much additional union support, because I see no actual evidence that those issues have any impact on electoral outcomes. I mean, we just had a test case. The most pro-union administration against the most anti-union candidate (who had been previously an anti-union president). Gee. And it wasn't just the presidential race, either. As I've mentioned multiple times in part because I have trouble getting my head around it: the Michigan legislature voted to repeal right-to-work legislation. They lost their majority, I think. Working class people and union members voted more Pub than they had in 2020 and 2022.

3. Here's the thing: the strongest Dem constituencies are the ones who do not benefit from unionization. Dems back unions even though they do nothing for us and arguably raise prices. I have never joined a union because I have never been in a position to do so, and yet I vote pro-union reliably while the actual union members vote on the basis of penises and white skin. I will keep doing that because it's the right thing to do but I'm really not interested in being lectured to by Sean O'Brien.

4. If you really want to trigger me, you could do worse than mentioning the TPP. All I will say about that is that I very much doubt you know what was actually in that agreement, and I very much doubt the vast, vast majority of people who complain about it know what was in it. I don't want some link to some jackass talking about how it does X or Y because it didn't do those things. I read the thing. If you want to read it, we can talk. Otherwise, this is all I have to say about the TPP.

5. NAFTA has actually been a great agreement for the signatory countries, and pretty much every constituency within those countries too. I was really skeptical when it was first negotiated. I didn't like it at all. But it has worked. If there's a free trade agreement that has caused real harm, it was China's accession to the WTO and that's a different story. But not NAFTA. So I roll my eyes when I hear complaints about it.

Card check? It got killed because dumbasses voted Tea Party. We didn't have 60 votes in the 2009 Senate until June. We lost that threshold in December 2009. In the meantime, Obama focused on Obamacare (great for working people!), Dodd-Frank (to prevent more bank bailouts, good for working people), and stimulus (good for working people). Once we lost the House in 2010, card check couldn't ever happen. IT WAS NOT OBAMA'S FAULT. IT WAS NOT THE DEMS' FAULT.

I don't know if you've fallen for this, or if it's just folks like O'Brien, but what you're describing is the old filibuster bullshit. DEMS HAD CONTROL AND THEY DIDN'T DO IT. Well, they didn't really have control.

6. Should we get rid of the filibuster so we don't have these problems? Sure. And that was how the Dems planned to pass PRO Act. Everyone lined up . . . except we got Sinema'd. We ran her out of the party and now we have Ruben instead. Too bad we lost Sherrod and Casey. Maybe if we had Bill Nelson. Oh. Or Mandela Barnes. Oh.

 

[CFordUNC]

I'm with @Paine on this and I think I understand exactly the points he's trying to make (he's way more intelligent than I am so hopefully that's true). And I'd reckon that mine and Paine's ideological viewpoints may differ in many respects, and align in others.

I completely understand the desire to blame voters for being morons and delivering the election for the singularly worst presidential candidate in the history of our country (and second place probably isn't even remotely close). Trust me, I get it. I've got an entire extended family of poor, working class, blue collar, non-college educated, rural-dwelling folks who voted directly against their economic self-interests- whether they understand it or not. I get the frustration. But Paine is right that the way for the Democratic Party out of this current predicament is almost strictly by creating and articulating a vision that the singular best way to improve the country, and creating as much equality as is possible, is by lifting *everyone* up economically. The biggest divide in our country right now isn't Black vs. white, gay vs. straight, Christian vs. non-Christian, etc.- it's have's versus have-not's. Right now, the biggest dilemma facing the Democratic Party is that the have-not's are voting for a party that is mostly comprised of the have's, and the have's have got the have-not's convinced that the reason for their economic plight is because lazy Black people get welfare, Hispanics are taking all of their jobs, gays want to turn their kids trans, and trans people want to hide out in women's restrooms and dominate women' sports.

I think Paine's point, and it's similar to one that I've been making about not falling into the culture warring trap laid by the GOP, is that Democrats have got to completely jettison anything that can be construed as identity politics in favor of actually finding a way to get into the rural communities, get into the blue collar and working class areas, get into the factories and the farms and the plants, get into the labor unions, etc. and lay out their vision for how their economic policies are going to life EVERYONE up- not just Black people or Hispanic people or immigrants, etc.- but every single person regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, etc. It's going to be up to people who are infinitely smarter than me to figure out how to execute it successfully, but I think that needs to be the game plan.

The GOP is currently serving up an opportunity for Democrats on a golden platter- not silver, but golden- to take back the mantle of being the party of the working class, because Republicans are in full control of every lever of power in the federal government, and not only are they doing nothing to help alleviate the economic pressures people are feeling, they are directly exacerbating and making those economic pressures worse. Those transgender sports bans ain't going to mean a damn thing in 6 months, 9 months, 12 months if inflation is at 5% again and climbing, gas prices are out of control, grocery prices are skyrocketing, etc.

Everyone here knows my story that I shared- I'm a former die-hard Republican, 2016 Trump voter, originally from a poor family, born in one of the poorest parts of North Carolina. I grew up thinking that Democrats were a bunch of America-hating, godless, communist snobs. But now I'm proud to align with the Democratic Party now because the party is way closer than the other party at present to upholding many of the classical conservative values and principles that I believe strongly in. Yet, there is tons about the Democratic Party with which I disagree policy-wise and ideologically. But I believe that overall Democratic policies make my life and the lives of most people around me better, and I think that life is more prosperous for more people when Democrats are in power. That's what Dems have to do all across America now in the next 18-36 months: help the folks in rural, working class, blue collar, everyday America see that that their policy aims make life better economically for every single person without regard to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious preference, etc.

If the Dems can set aside the academic faculty lounge jargon and theory, and set aside a focus on making things more equitable by race, in favor of making things more equal opportunity by socioeconomic strata, I think they have a strong chance in 2026 and 2028 after the Republicans drive the country into the ditch economically for everyone except for the techbro billionaires.

 

[Paine]

I'm with @Paine on this and I think I understand exactly the points he's trying to make (he's way more intelligent than I am so hopefully that's true). And I'd reckon that mine and Paine's ideological viewpoints may differ in many respects, and align in others.

I completely understand the desire to blame voters for being morons and delivering the election for the singularly worst presidential candidate in the history of our country (and second place probably isn't even remotely close). Trust me, I get it. I've got an entire extended family of poor, working class, blue collar, non-college educated, rural-dwelling folks who voted directly against their economic self-interests- whether they understand it or not. I get the frustration. But Paine is right that the way for the Democratic Party out of this current predicament is almost strictly by creating and articulating a vision that the singular best way to improve the country, and creating as much equality as is possible, is by lifting *everyone* up economically. The biggest divide in our country right now isn't Black vs. white, gay vs. straight, Christian vs. non-Christian, etc.- it's have's versus have-not's. Right now, the biggest dilemma facing the Democratic Party is that the have-not's are voting for a party that is mostly comprised of the have's, and the have's have got the have-not's convinced that the reason for their economic plight is because lazy Black people get welfare, Hispanics are taking all of their jobs, gays want to turn their kids trans, and trans people want to hide out in women's restrooms and dominate women' sports.

I think Paine's point, and it's similar to one that I've been making about not falling into the culture warring trap laid by the GOP, is that Democrats have got to completely jettison anything that can be construed as identity politics in favor of actually finding a way to get into the rural communities, get into the blue collar and working class areas, get into the factories and the farms and the plants, get into the labor unions, etc. and lay out their vision for how their economic policies are going to life EVERYONE up- not just Black people or Hispanic people or immigrants, etc.- but every single person regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, etc. It's going to be up to people who are infinitely smarter than me to figure out how to execute it successfully, but I think that needs to be the game plan.

The GOP is currently serving up an opportunity for Democrats on a golden platter- not silver, but golden- to take back the mantle of being the party of the working class, because Republicans are in full control of every lever of power in the federal government, and not only are they doing nothing to help alleviate the economic pressures people are feeling, they are directly exacerbating and making those economic pressures worse. Those transgender sports bans ain't going to mean a damn thing in 6 months, 9 months, 12 months if inflation is at 5% again and climbing, gas prices are out of control, grocery prices are skyrocketing, etc.

Everyone here knows my story that I shared- I'm a former die-hard Republican, 2016 Trump voter, originally from a poor family, born in one of the poorest parts of North Carolina. I grew up thinking that Democrats were a bunch of America-hating, godless, communist snobs. But now I'm proud to align with the Democratic Party now because the party is way closer than the other party at present to upholding many of the classical conservative values and principles that I believe strongly in. Yet, there is tons about the Democratic Party with which I disagree policy-wise and ideologically. But I believe that overall Democratic policies make my life and the lives of most people around me better, and I think that life is more prosperous for more people when Democrats are in power. That's what Dems have to do all across America now in the next 18-36 months: help the folks in rural, working class, blue collar, everyday America see that that their policy aims make life better economically for every single person without regard to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious preference, etc.

If the Dems can set aside the academic faculty lounge jargon and theory, and set aside a focus on making things more equitable by race, in favor of making things more equal opportunity by socioeconomic strata, I think they have a strong chance in 2026 and 2028 after the Republicans drive the country into the ditch economically for everyone except for the techbro billionaires.

Always appreciate reading your take on things.

I think the part about you initially thinking of Dems as anti-American is something that leads a ton of people to the Republican Party. Obviously a lot of this is pure propaganda on the part of the GOP, but there has to be a core of something there in order for the narrative to work.

For many people, this went hand in hand with the other parts of what you said: perceiving Dems as godless or perceiving them as Communistic/socialistic. Thinking those things makes it easier to think of Dems and liberals more widely as anti-American.

One way you get rid of the godless thing is by leaning more into the strategy that super has suggested. The Warnock strategy. I think this can be a piece of what some Dems embrace moving forward.

Another piece of this, as much as I hate to admit it, is a kind of healthy nationalism. The left, in part because of the rise of woke, has somewhat retreated from traditional American symbols, even the flag. I don’t think it helps the party’s brand for liberals to constantly talk about how racist we are as a country or how the founding fathers are just dead white guys.

Successful left-wing movements in this country have always acknowledged that we have come short of our promises as a nation, but that is is our job to help the nation fulfill its promises.

The caveat is what we’ve been talking about: underlying these other changes has to be the common thread of universal economic rights. Otherwise, the other pieces do not work.

 

[Icky Mettle]

What do you want us to do with that "criticism?" If it wasn't for Democrats, there would be no unions at all. Fact. The Pubs would have repealed the Wagner Act a long time ago. Dems in Michigan repealed the right-to-work laws that had actually screwed unions for decades. It was a Pub law. Who did the Teamsters' national endorse in any races in Michigan? Oh.

This is the fallout from ideas like "neoliberalism." This is what happens. To the leftists who peddle these nonsense and dangerous ideas, I say FAFO. You got what you wanted: Dem scalps. Have fun under Trump, assholes. I've been fighting the good fight for 30+ years and I'm tired of being told that I'm no different from Pubs.

We’ve seen this for a while. Democrats take the heat for not getting certain people/groups everything they want all at once. Like shit can actually happen that way. But they’re cool with the Republicans who are diametrically opposed to their interests, because— hey— at least they’re not the Dems who are looking out for their interests, but can’t give them everything they want all at once.

 

[Zoo_View]

I think O’Brien was of the mind that Trump would win. So, by his calculation, he is in a better position now than he would’ve been had he endorsed Harris. He would’ve lost credibility with over half of his members and had no leverage with the incoming administration. At least now, he has something.

I still think it’s stupid that he didn’t endorse the Democrats from a larger labor organizing perspective, but it makes sense for him from a pure politics perspective.

O’Brien is similar to Saruman in Lord of the Rings.

He made a play to be a power as Saruman did; now he’s completely beholden to Trump/MAGA/Sauron.

 

[Paine]

O’Brien is similar to Saruman in Lord of the Rings.

He made a play to be a power as Saruman did; now he’s completely beholden to Trump/MAGA/Sauron.

Don’t think that’s true. The Teamsters are going to continue to hold sway in the Democratic Party for a variety of reasons. Don’t think there will be much of an appetite for blaming O’Brien among the party bigwigs. Silly to say he’s “completely beholden” to Trump.

 

[SnoopRob]

I'm with @Paine on this and I think I understand exactly the points he's trying to make (he's way more intelligent than I am so hopefully that's true). And I'd reckon that mine and Paine's ideological viewpoints may differ in many respects, and align in others.

I completely understand the desire to blame voters for being morons and delivering the election for the singularly worst presidential candidate in the history of our country (and second place probably isn't even remotely close). Trust me, I get it. I've got an entire extended family of poor, working class, blue collar, non-college educated, rural-dwelling folks who voted directly against their economic self-interests- whether they understand it or not. I get the frustration. But Paine is right that the way for the Democratic Party out of this current predicament is almost strictly by creating and articulating a vision that the singular best way to improve the country, and creating as much equality as is possible, is by lifting *everyone* up economically. The biggest divide in our country right now isn't Black vs. white, gay vs. straight, Christian vs. non-Christian, etc.- it's have's versus have-not's. Right now, the biggest dilemma facing the Democratic Party is that the have-not's are voting for a party that is mostly comprised of the have's, and the have's have got the have-not's convinced that the reason for their economic plight is because lazy Black people get welfare, Hispanics are taking all of their jobs, gays want to turn their kids trans, and trans people want to hide out in women's restrooms and dominate women' sports.

I think Paine's point, and it's similar to one that I've been making about not falling into the culture warring trap laid by the GOP, is that Democrats have got to completely jettison anything that can be construed as identity politics in favor of actually finding a way to get into the rural communities, get into the blue collar and working class areas, get into the factories and the farms and the plants, get into the labor unions, etc. and lay out their vision for how their economic policies are going to life EVERYONE up- not just Black people or Hispanic people or immigrants, etc.- but every single person regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, etc. It's going to be up to people who are infinitely smarter than me to figure out how to execute it successfully, but I think that needs to be the game plan.

The GOP is currently serving up an opportunity for Democrats on a golden platter- not silver, but golden- to take back the mantle of being the party of the working class, because Republicans are in full control of every lever of power in the federal government, and not only are they doing nothing to help alleviate the economic pressures people are feeling, they are directly exacerbating and making those economic pressures worse. Those transgender sports bans ain't going to mean a damn thing in 6 months, 9 months, 12 months if inflation is at 5% again and climbing, gas prices are out of control, grocery prices are skyrocketing, etc.

Everyone here knows my story that I shared- I'm a former die-hard Republican, 2016 Trump voter, originally from a poor family, born in one of the poorest parts of North Carolina. I grew up thinking that Democrats were a bunch of America-hating, godless, communist snobs. But now I'm proud to align with the Democratic Party now because the party is way closer than the other party at present to upholding many of the classical conservative values and principles that I believe strongly in. Yet, there is tons about the Democratic Party with which I disagree policy-wise and ideologically. But I believe that overall Democratic policies make my life and the lives of most people around me better, and I think that life is more prosperous for more people when Democrats are in power. That's what Dems have to do all across America now in the next 18-36 months: help the folks in rural, working class, blue collar, everyday America see that that their policy aims make life better economically for every single person without regard to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious preference, etc.

If the Dems can set aside the academic faculty lounge jargon and theory, and set aside a focus on making things more equitable by race, in favor of making things more equal opportunity by socioeconomic strata, I think they have a strong chance in 2026 and 2028 after the Republicans drive the country into the ditch economically for everyone except for the techbro billionaires.

In other words, the Dems can be a party of bigots focused on the lower classes and the Pubs a party of bigots focused on the upper classes?

I agree that Dems need to focus on economic issues and put forth a plan that raises everyone up economically...but they have to do the same on social issues and raise everyone up socially, as well.

If you only raise economic levels without addressing social issues, you end up with the 1950s...the economic tide raises all boats but you end up with a society where large groups are expected to be second class citizens with a little more money in their pockets.

That's not my view of America and it doubt you'd get a majority of Dems to go along with it. When you say that we should do things "without regard to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious preference, etc.", what you're really saying is that we continue to privilege whites, heterosexuals, cisgender folks, Christians, and other traditionally dominant folks. If you're going focus on economic issues exclusively, then I'm guessing you split the Democratic Party in half and give future elections to Pubs until such a plan is rejected.

 

[CFordUNC]

In other words, the Dems can be a party of bigots focused on the lower classes and the Pubs a party of bigots focused on the upper classes?

I agree that Dems need to focus on economic issues and put forth a plan that raises everyone up economically...but they have to do the same on social issues and raise everyone up socially, as well.

If you only raise economic levels without addressing social issues, you end up with the 1950s...the economic tide raises all boats but you end up with a society where large groups are expected to be second class citizens with a little more money in their pockets.

That's not my view of America and it doubt you'd get a majority of Dems to go along with it. When you say that we should do things "without regard to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious preference, etc.", what you're really saying is that we continue to privilege whites, heterosexuals, cisgender folks, Christians, and other traditionally dominant folks. If you're going focus on economic issues exclusively, then I'm guessing you split the Democratic Party in half and give future elections to Pubs until such a plan is rejected.

Those are all fair and valid points of rebuttal. I'm going to do a terrible job of explaining my point, I fear, but I just think that, fairly or unfairly, we're at a moment in time in our country where people just don't want the race stuff, gender stuff, identity politics stuff. If they did, Democrats would win, IMO. Donald Trump just won with a coalition that included (I believe) more Black folks (particularly men), more Hispanic and Latino folks, etc. than the Republican Party has ever had. What that tells me is that a very significant number of people in our country don't want to be identified as being Black, white, Hispanic, gay, straight, etc.- they simply want to be "American." And I think that the Democrats turn a lot of folks off with the perception that they are obsessed with identity politics. Trust me, I am am absolutely aware that the Republicans are as big- or even bigger- offenders of identity politics, but that's not what the voting public at large seems to think or perceive. And to me, that is a big problem that I think can only be corrected by the Dems abandoning virtually all vestiges of identity politics.

By no means do I intend to imply that fighting for systemic justice, equality, etc. is a fight not worth undertaking. I don't mean that at all. The Democrats can and should want to fight and advocate for all of those things. But they can fight and advocate for those things if they aren't in power, and IMO they can't get into power by appearing to be SJW's (and I don't mean that as a pejorative).

I will caveat all of this by saying that I fully recognize that I may be completely off base, and that my priors as a hard-core Republican and as someone with residual vestiges of conservative inclinations, may be clouding my perspective. I also recognize that I have the privilege to opine on all of this stuff as an affluent, straight, white, Christian male.

 

[Paine]

It’s a multi-legged stool. Dems have been trying to operate without the economic leg for too long, while leaning too heavily on the social leg. Again, this is not about abandoning social issues. This is about creating a firm economic foundation on which rights for social justice can be more easily fought.

 

[rodoheel]

I'm with @Paine on this and I think I understand exactly the points he's trying to make (he's way more intelligent than I am so hopefully that's true). And I'd reckon that mine and Paine's ideological viewpoints may differ in many respects, and align in others.

I completely understand the desire to blame voters for being morons and delivering the election for the singularly worst presidential candidate in the history of our country (and second place probably isn't even remotely close). Trust me, I get it. I've got an entire extended family of poor, working class, blue collar, non-college educated, rural-dwelling folks who voted directly against their economic self-interests- whether they understand it or not. I get the frustration. But Paine is right that the way for the Democratic Party out of this current predicament is almost strictly by creating and articulating a vision that the singular best way to improve the country, and creating as much equality as is possible, is by lifting *everyone* up economically. The biggest divide in our country right now isn't Black vs. white, gay vs. straight, Christian vs. non-Christian, etc.- it's have's versus have-not's. Right now, the biggest dilemma facing the Democratic Party is that the have-not's are voting for a party that is mostly comprised of the have's, and the have's have got the have-not's convinced that the reason for their economic plight is because lazy Black people get welfare, Hispanics are taking all of their jobs, gays want to turn their kids trans, and trans people want to hide out in women's restrooms and dominate women' sports.

I think Paine's point, and it's similar to one that I've been making about not falling into the culture warring trap laid by the GOP, is that Democrats have got to completely jettison anything that can be construed as identity politics in favor of actually finding a way to get into the rural communities, get into the blue collar and working class areas, get into the factories and the farms and the plants, get into the labor unions, etc. and lay out their vision for how their economic policies are going to life EVERYONE up- not just Black people or Hispanic people or immigrants, etc.- but every single person regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, etc. It's going to be up to people who are infinitely smarter than me to figure out how to execute it successfully, but I think that needs to be the game plan.

The GOP is currently serving up an opportunity for Democrats on a golden platter- not silver, but golden- to take back the mantle of being the party of the working class, because Republicans are in full control of every lever of power in the federal government, and not only are they doing nothing to help alleviate the economic pressures people are feeling, they are directly exacerbating and making those economic pressures worse. Those transgender sports bans ain't going to mean a damn thing in 6 months, 9 months, 12 months if inflation is at 5% again and climbing, gas prices are out of control, grocery prices are skyrocketing, etc.

Everyone here knows my story that I shared- I'm a former die-hard Republican, 2016 Trump voter, originally from a poor family, born in one of the poorest parts of North Carolina. I grew up thinking that Democrats were a bunch of America-hating, godless, communist snobs. But now I'm proud to align with the Democratic Party now because the party is way closer than the other party at present to upholding many of the classical conservative values and principles that I believe strongly in. Yet, there is tons about the Democratic Party with which I disagree policy-wise and ideologically. But I believe that overall Democratic policies make my life and the lives of most people around me better, and I think that life is more prosperous for more people when Democrats are in power. That's what Dems have to do all across America now in the next 18-36 months: help the folks in rural, working class, blue collar, everyday America see that that their policy aims make life better economically for every single person without regard to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious preference, etc.

If the Dems can set aside the academic faculty lounge jargon and theory, and set aside a focus on making things more equitable by race, in favor of making things more equal opportunity by socioeconomic strata, I think they have a strong chance in 2026 and 2028 after the Republicans drive the country into the ditch economically for everyone except for the techbro billionaires.

All the people you want to win over with messaging think that government is evil and unions are anti-prosperity. The only way Dems are going to convince those people with economic-based messaging is gonna be if Trump and Musk succeed in literally destroying the economy.

 

[Zoo_View]

It’s a multi-legged stool. Dems have been trying to operate without the economic leg for too long, while leaning too heavily on the social leg. Again, this is not about abandoning social issues. This is about creating a firm economic foundation on which rights for social justice can be more easily fought.

The Democrats face a problem Republicans don’t.

Right-wingers will vote for Republicans regardless.

Left-wingers hold Democrats to ridiculous “standards.” To use something similar to Paine’s verbiage, “identity leftists” demand identity purity while “economic leftists” demand economic purity.

If the Democrats aren’t “pure,” leftists punish them at the polls while right-wingers take what they can get.

Also, if Democrats go too far left, so-called “moderates” and “independents” flee to the “tax-cutting,” “fiscally conservative” GOP.

 

[Paine]

The Democrats face a problem Republicans don’t.

Right-wingers will vote for Republicans regardless.

Left-wingers hold Democrats to ridiculous “standards.” To use something similar to Paine’s verbiage, “identity leftists” demand identity purity while “economic leftists” demand economic purity.

If the Democrats aren’t “pure,” leftists punish them at the polls while right-wingers take what they can get.

Also, if Democrats go too far left, so-called “moderates” and “independents” flee to the “tax-cutting,” “fiscally conservative” GOP.

There aren’t enough “leftists” to swing elections in favor or against the Democratic Party. Whether we are talking about identity leftists or economic leftists, the same statement holds.

There are a large number of left-leaning non-voters. We don’t have enough information to know specifically why these people are sitting out. Safe to say some are leftists who are dissatisfied with Democrats. A much larger number are non-political people who are fed up with the system as a whole due to it not improving their economic day to day.

Trump was able to appreciably increase the amount of working class whites voting for him 2016. A large number of these weren’t working class whites who previously voted Democratic, they were working class whites who didn’t vote before Trump. They were people with economic populist economic beliefs and reactionary beliefs around immigration and social issues. We see this phenomenon continue to play out: there is a certain segment of Trump voters that turn out for Trump and Trump only. It remains to be seen what happens do them once Trump is gone.

Obama’s 2008 strategy was somewhat similar in the opposite direction. His campaign leaned into economic populism especially in the waning days. This helped him turn out larger amounts of non voters than previous Democratic candidates had. Obama certainly didn’t think we should abandon social justice, but he did understand how to moderate his stances on social issues while playing up the populist economic angle.

The only way for Democrats to wrangle their coalition together while bringing in more non-voters (and possibly even peeling off some Trump voters) is via economic populism. That has to be the unifying theme or nothing else makes sense. It just becomes a fragmented mess of interest groups instead of a political party organizing around a principle.

 

[SnoopRob]

Those are all fair and valid points of rebuttal. I'm going to do a terrible job of explaining my point, I fear, but I just think that, fairly or unfairly, we're at a moment in time in our country where people just don't want the race stuff, gender stuff, identity politics stuff. If they did, Democrats would win, IMO. Donald Trump just won with a coalition that included (I believe) more Black folks (particularly men), more Hispanic and Latino folks, etc. than the Republican Party has ever had. What that tells me is that a very significant number of people in our country don't want to be identified as being Black, white, Hispanic, gay, straight, etc.- they simply want to be "American." And I think that the Democrats turn a lot of folks off with the perception that they are obsessed with identity politics. Trust me, I am am absolutely aware that the Republicans are as big- or even bigger- offenders of identity politics, but that's not what the voting public at large seems to think or perceive. And to me, that is a big problem that I think can only be corrected by the Dems abandoning virtually all vestiges of identity politics.

By no means do I intend to imply that fighting for systemic justice, equality, etc. is a fight not worth undertaking. I don't mean that at all. The Democrats can and should want to fight and advocate for all of those things. But they can fight and advocate for those things if they aren't in power, and IMO they can't get into power by appearing to be SJW's (and I don't mean that as a pejorative).

I will caveat all of this by saying that I fully recognize that I may be completely off base, and that my priors as a hard-core Republican and as someone with residual vestiges of conservative inclinations, may be clouding my perspective. I also recognize that I have the privilege to opine on all of this stuff as an affluent, straight, white, Christian male.

I think that Paine's idea of a multi-leg stool is probably the best way to go. The Dems need a better economic message, but the party can't abandon minorities.

I have no idea how Dems refuse to abandon minorities while apparently not "offending" swing voters. For the most part, it is Pubs driving these issues into the political sphere while Dems are merely trying to protect folks from attacks. Sure, Dems could likely give a little on ancillary issues like transgender men in sports, but there's no way to really give on transgender issues unless Dems are willing to support transgender folks being pushed back into second class citizen status. But I think the message has to be that America is for "all of us" and that standing for minorities is us living up to the promise of our nation.

Dems suffer from, instead of being a true big tent party, being a collection of small tents on the same property. The question, in some way, is how we get Dems to abandon their small tents and agree to come together under one large tent without having too many people leave the property altogether.

 

[Zoo_View]

There aren’t enough “leftists” to swing elections in favor or against the Democratic Party. Whether we are talking about identity leftists or economic leftists, the same statement holds.

There are a large number of left-leaning non-voters. We don’t have enough information to know specifically why these people are sitting out. Safe to say some are leftists who are dissatisfied with Democrats. A much larger number are non-political people who are fed up with the system as a whole due to it not improving their economic day to day.

Trump was able to appreciably increase the amount of working class whites voting for him 2016. A large number of these weren’t working class whites who previously voted Democratic, they were working class whites who didn’t vote before Trump. They were people with economic populist economic beliefs and reactionary beliefs around immigration and social issues. We see this phenomenon continue to play out: there is a certain segment of Trump voters that turn out for Trump and Trump only. It remains to be seen what happens do them once Trump is gone.

Obama’s 2008 strategy was somewhat similar in the opposite direction. His campaign leaned into economic populism especially in the waning days. This helped him turn out larger amounts of non voters than previous Democratic candidates had. Obama certainly didn’t think we should abandon social justice, but he did understand how to moderate his stances on social issues while playing up the populist economic angle.

The only way for Democrats to wrangle their coalition together while bringing in more non-voters (and possibly even peeling off some Trump voters) is via economic populism. That has to be the unifying theme or nothing else makes sense. It just becomes a fragmented mess of interest groups instead of a political party organizing around a principle.

The “working class” whites represented by Sean O’Brien are NOT voting on economic issues.

Democrats can talk up all sorts of economic issues and the Sean O’Briens are voting on identity politics - and the identity politics they’re voting on are white men are oppressed.

 

[wmheel1287]

I think you all are searching for a unifying theme that simply does not exist. There is nothing that unites people in our current moment. Trump voters aren't united. Their vote is a rejection of unity. They largely hate each other as much as they hate "us".

They voted to burn it all down. They voted for chaos and economic disruption. They want to see the train wreck even if it means a seat in one of the derailed cars.

Until the American public gets the devastation fetish satisfied, there will be no rational political movement in America.

 

[TitanNC]

Other than Peggy Noonan’s weekly slurping of DJT her weekend opinion piece had a good point. She finished with something like - Dems run all of America’s great cities. Focus on fixing them.

I think there is some truth in that.

 

[mpaer]

I think Paine's point, and it's similar to one that I've been making about not falling into the culture warring trap laid by the GOP, is that Democrats have got to completely jettison anything that can be construed as identity politics in favor of actually finding a way to get into the rural communities, get into the blue collar and working class areas, get into the factories and the farms and the plants, get into the labor unions, etc. and lay out their vision for how their economic policies are going to life EVERYONE up- not just Black people or Hispanic people or immigrants, etc.- but every single person regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, etc. It's going to be up to people who are infinitely smarter than me to figure out how to execute it successfully, but I think that needs to be the game plan.


If the Dems can set aside the academic faculty lounge jargon and theory..

I think Joe Biden did a good job-first go around, of paragraph 1 above And did a good job with legislation around that
Per your Academic faculty lounge comment-I understand what you mean-But my personal experience is that as young person-mid 60s-the faculty in my at the time very small Catholic church-those faculty that went out and got arrested for Civil rights activities-they set the tone for my political outlook for my life (Admittedly this was reinforced by my mother as being the right thing to do )....So I listen to Faculty Lounge talk

 

[Paine]

And so we’ve arrived back to where we were in November. All I can say to close this thread out is: if you don’t think Democrats can win back working-class people, you are consigning yourself to a future where they never win an election again. No one is saying that they have to win back every working class person who voted for Trump, but we have to win back some. Especially the working-class minorities who voted for Trump in 2024. This is politics.