Yascha Mounk and David Axelrod reflect on the last decade of American politics and discuss a Democratic strategy for the future.
"for all of my questions lamenting the moral and political mistakes of the Democratic Party, think that Donald Trump is an existential threat to our political system, and that a second term by Trump would be much worse than the first."
It is exactly the opposite. For all the moral and political mistakes of the Trump administration, think that continued dominance and control of the Democratic Party is the existential threat to not only our political system, but to the survival of the republic and the health of the world. A second term in which the Democrats hold any body of our three branches of government will ensure continued decline of everything.
If only the Democrat dominated money corruption of political quid pro quo along with the attempted destruction of First Amendment rights and the breathtaking government collusion with media and big tech as a Ministry of Truth where the evidence of tyrannical speech oppression is profound, maybe we could ignore the poor and working class crushing impact from authoritarian COVID policies and energy policies based on the luxury cult belief in climate crisis. Maybe we could also ignore the profound globalist project trajectory of liberal upper class wealth accumulation at the expense of American poor and working class economic outcomes and opportunities. Lastly, maybe we could ignore the mess at the southern border in what is a clear voter replacement strategy... favoring the ongoing demographic changes to the nation that benefit the Democrats while harming the people of the nation.
I grew up in the Midwest and have family there, and have lived in on the liberal left coast for over 40 years. I am an outsider living inside the liberal bubble. But I can see out.... easily.
Liberals generally cannot see outside their bubble. They are also much more thin-skinned and cannot handle criticism and cannot admit they are wrong about anything... and take two tactics to prevent it: shifting the argument (as in "you used a non-compliant word so let's now focus on that") or attacking the character and integrity of those that criticize them. There are psychological reasons in that liberals have the added need to feel like their education credentials support their status hierarchy. There is no damn humility in the liberal enclave. They are people that are not ignorant, but know so much that just isn't so... but will kill you rather than have to accept that they are wrong about anything.
David Axelrod is one of the few liberals that has the capacity and humility to see outside of his liberal bubble. That is why he is so effective at what he does. But he has to walk on some liberal eggshells in how he frames things, but because of the risk he goes too far and is cast out from the blue tribe.
Democrats are 80% of the American Ivy League-educated managerial class establishment gaping wound that is allowed to fester by the likes of Joe Biden. Donald Trump is only possible because of what the Democrats have become. Democrats created Donald Trump, and all they have done in response to Donald Trump is to increase and accelerate the things that make him popular.
Axelrod equated minority obstruction with minority tyranny. He should rethink that. If a sizable minority opposes something, you should have a high threshold for cramming it down their throats.
Federalism was intended to allow local communities to govern themselves, without interference from that city on the Potomac. One size does not fit all.
The federal government does have a role to play when local governments become tyrannies, but they keep on playing! Federalism makes local tyranny self limiting, because people can leave town if things get bad enough. It’s much more difficult to leave the USA.
And THAT is why I am a paid subscriber! Great interview.
Axelrod twice mentions the problem of Biden's age if reelected, but as a partisan he has to underplay what is so obvious to the rest of us: the Republicans will make Kamala Harris an issue because she is an issue. Better than most, Axelrod should recognize that Harris is Biden's self-inflicted Sarah Palin.
I have found Biden as President pretty much as advertised: moderate, competent and a good compromise. Unlike Trump, though, his age is showing, and the Kamala Problem grows more obvious with every passing week, every new verbal stumble, every new non-sequitur or improvised peculiarity.
To be clear, I would still (probably) vote for Harris if it came down to her and Trump, only because she would at least have the party's A-Team to advise her; Trump has so badly scarred what remains of the Republican A-Team that he'd have available only the yes-men, the scum, and the most desperate political wannabes, which seems to be the way he likes it.
But I'd be clear in my vote that Harris lacks any political savvy, any coherent thinking, any public presence or ability to inspire even her own party, much less the nation. That was what Obama had, and I can only imagine that Axelrod knows privately what the rest of us can say in public: Harris has to go.
How could a President who delivered the biggest expansion of health care in fifty years, the biggest expansion of regulating Wall Street in eighty years, and the (at the time) biggest expansion of renewable energy ever--not to mention beginning his watch in the depths of the worst economic crisis since the Depression and ending it with the economy steadily growing and unemployment steadily dropping--have left so many people *who agreed with those goals* feeling like he accomplished nothing? I suspect that if we can answer that question, it'll be an important clue to what's wrong with politics these days.