First and foremost, you have to like, respect and be truly curious about the people you're trying to win over. It is evident to over half the country that Democrats really don't like them, care about their concerns or think they could possibly know anything about anything. When I read pieces like this, I can't help feeling like it's an effort to find the right 'narrative', the right things to say, the right policy formulation but I don't get the feeling there is genuine concern or interest towards the average American other than as recalcitrant objects to 'set straight' and boy do Democrats think they are the ones to do it. They do not like or respect 'not progressives' as they constantly make abundantly clear. Until they adjust their attitude, they will wander in the wilderness.
"After all, Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris both played hard to the center and ended up with little to show for it. "
Telling someone you love them after you have punched them in the face is only persuasive to a very small number of people. Most will not buy your new stance.
Besides, they had plenty to show for it, particularly Harris, who was clearly a lot more comfortable moving to the Center and it showed. They just didn't WIN.
In economic terms Harris may have moderated. However, in cultural terms she was wedded to the far, far-left. Three examples. First, she supported Biden’s failed border policies. Second, she was VP (and did not object) when he invited the ever-loathsome Dylan Mulvaney to visit the White House. Third, her staff apparently vetoed appearing on the Joe Rogan show. There is even a joke about this “I haven’t seen a man beat a woman so badly since the Olympics”. The joke is funny, because it is true.
If the only goal is to win elections, why not just become Republicans? They're winning right now, you can win too!
A more defensible and patriotic approach would be to offer a better alternative to Republican governance. Now define "better" and draw lines between that definition and specific Democratic programs -- creating or changing the programs as necessary. There's room in there to suppress programs you think would achieve "better" but are unpopular enough to prevent you from getting elected, but there's no room to tout programs (cheerleading for Hamas comes to mind) that make things worse just to pick some votes up.
So what has the author come up with? Taxing corporations? One would expect an explanation of what that tax money would be used for, right? I mean, unless it's just meant to be punitive, in which case one would expect an explanation of what, exactly, is being punished.
And it's impossible to take the idea seriously if the author doesn't even nod to the fact that corporate earnings are already taxed when they're passed on to the shareholders. One should also wonder, if the corporations are set aside, what "the economy" is that they're looting?
I'd like to think that Democrats can come up with guiding principles that not only enable them to win but make them deserve to win. I'm not seeing that so far.
Sam, you sound just as confused as everyone else, including me. I don't know exactly what the Democrats' flagship ideas should be.
But I think a couple of simple principles should guide the search: One, If implemented, they should work. Yes, a party has to get elected, but most of us who call ourselves Democrats want to be elected in order to make Americans' lives as good as they can be. If our platform does not begin from that premise, then who are we or where are we?
Two, Implementation can be complex, but we have to learn to explain the core of the complex ideas simply.
Three, we should not look to Europe for examples because Europe has fallen way behind the U.S. economically of late and because we are different, with different resources and different problems.
Five years ago, I tried to summarize the economic issues in a 130-page book, Capitalism for America. It explains some of the economic choices we have to make in simple, I hope not simplistic, terms. My biased opinion is that it would help if more Democrats would read it.
Excellent. I would only add that the solutions that Democrats push should be clearly and defensibly Constitutional. Constitutional shortcuts (e.g. statehood for DC, student loan forgiveness) just make them look like unscrupulous opportunists and panderers, a role that the Republicans play much, much better.
I have to say I have a hard time squaring the rational-sounding idea of USP and the current sacred-victim, entitled parasite culture intersecting with business. I keep thinking of Kneeling Nancy and the media-supported George Floyd color revolution. Or government employees and the Covid epidemic where there appear to be conflicts of interest and zero transparency. The author also seems to connect baser human instincts like envy with the desire to punish successful businessmen who may be identified as aligned with conspiracy theories, racisms, sexisms, haters and Trumputler in general.
In an open market environment you don't have to buy the product, USP or not, if you don't like it. Governments, on the other hand, can fine you, throw you in jail or kill you if you don't dance to the rhythm.
There is a lot of meat in this analysis for what troubles the Democrats. Frankly, this realization should have happened after the 2016 election, but for the sensationally fortuitous global pandemic that allowed mass mail-in ballots and related shenanigans that allowed Democrats to squeak by in winning, and then the Dodd female rage vote of 2022 that prevented a red wave.
Here is the secret sauce... Democrats have been made weak by their media and tech advantages. It is a DEI-level crutch that allowed Democrats of all ranks to lie to themselves that the people loved their ideological dog food. It caused the Democrats to be the party of fakes, lies and propaganda.
Very little attention has been given to the attractiveness of authenticity compared that of fakes.
Trump for all his flaws has been 100% authentic. Harris with all her flaws has been largely inauthentic.
Not only did the electorate see this, but the lack of authenticity did compound harm as it telegraphed two messages: One - that the Democrats considered the electorate stupid enough to buy the act and this created a feeling of being disrespected. Two - it created a deficit of trust due to the lack of authenticity.
I was thinking about the business I lead and what makes for a successful sales professional. More than anything it is respect and trust. If you cannot deliver a feeling of respect and trustworthiness for your constituents, they will never buy what you are selling.
Democrats need to learn that their Hollywood and media assist isn’t a powerful enough crutch to help them overcome their flaws, and that voters can be accepting of flaws because it is human and they have them too… but they cannot be accepting of fakers.
So this is the other problem... the brand of Democrat has been trashed by the political behavior of Democrats. To attract voters, the party needs to shed this propensity for play acting... because the people see through it.
I like the idea of stakeholder capitalism. Too many on the left are reflexively “anti capitalist” whatever that means as you’re hammering out your censure on your iPhone, on your way to catch a flight to wherever, or in between taking your Amazon delivery off the front porch, buying something on Etsy, getting DoorDash, or on a commercial break on one of your many streaming services. The level of hypocrisy is sometimes stunning.
The idea of anti corporation seems like a non starter as long as money is speech. Too many people still believe in now debunked theories of trickling down or floating all boats. I’d like to see legislation limiting the top C level salaries to 10 or 100 times the median salary for a company. I haven’t seen a strong case for why breaking up Google would actually lead to lower costs or more freedom or more dignity. It seems to me like it would make things that we are used to more expensive or more disjointed, but I am uninformed and have not yet seen it argued cogently and thoroughly like so many of these essays. I need to learn more and I welcome recommendations.
This is a valuable initial contribution to what I hope is an informative and exciting debate. Big "like" here. It's never easy to be the first one into the pool.
That said, I think that the article commits the "besetting sin" of the Left in general: treating the propositions that it needs to PROVE as if they were assumptions upon which any right-minded person would want to act, no proof required, and with at least the implication that anyone who disagrees is just wrong-headed or objecting in bad faith.
More anti-trust enforcement is something that I perennially support, and I applauded many of the actions of the Biden Administration. It's an ongoing frustration that these, like so many accomplishments of the Administration, have gone practically unreported. But anti-trust enforcement should continue to be based on negative impact on the consumer, not on size alone. The Leftist mantra that Big is Bad is debatable on its face, and should have to be proven on a case-by-case basis.
Another example: the proposition quoted approvingly that "One or another of Google’s platforms today stands between you and your parents, between you and your children, and between you and your friends " etc. I'm open to evidence of that, but from where I sit, Google stands between me and nothing and nobody. It has -- through its own investment and ideas -- created NEW platforms through which I can make all those connections, and I do use them a lot because they're so much more convenient than the old ways, but the old ways are still available. Some people even insist on using those old ways and do; most of us consider those people to be cranks, more or less. If any firm is guilty of the charges made here it's more Apple in my view, with their closed systems and insistence on customer compliance, but they're a darling of the Left, and always seem to be exempted from this kind of "analysis".
I'm all for tax reform, and a simple, strongly progressive tax code with few loopholes. Personally, I think that we should go back to the tax rates of the Eisenhower Administration wholesale (adjusted for inflation) and revise from there as needed. But I'll need to see proof for the frequent and (as presented) evidence-free refrain that "Amazon pays no taxes". When I see that evidence, I'll still need to see whether, if true, Amazon is practicing criminal tax evasion, or perfectly legal tax avoidance, i.e., taking full advantage of the incentives that the government itself has provided. The former should result in arrests and indictments; the latter is a rational response to the way the system is designed, and the attacks are directed at the wrong entity, even if made in good faith.
And any criticism of the "excesses" of Amazon in particular should take into account the benefits that accrue to society from the fact that Amazon exists. Personally, I'm not at all disturbed that small retailers who used to be able to exploit market limitations to make money on high prices and lousy service have had to clean up their acts or go out of business when faced with good prices and reliable service. We're going to memory-hole the covid pandemic the way our grandparents did the 1919 influenza pandemic; that seems unfortunately to be human nature. Before we do, though, let me remind everyone one more time what a lifesaver having Amazon was during that time for thousands, and maybe millions, of people. And while we may feel that we're now finished with pandemics, I doubt that pandemics are finished with us.
I'd get into "stakeholder capitalism", but I think that I've gone on long enough for now. This is a serious subject, and I'm confident that there will be other opportunities to consider it together.
Sam, let me help you get a clue regarding advertising—your particular, idiotic blind spot.
An anecdote from my true experience:
In the late 1990s my ad agency hosted a cadre of top tier broadcast,advertising, and PR professionals from former Soviet countries who were eager to learn how to wield the “magic” of influencing “the public.”
They were not interested in our advocacy of authenticity as the key to success.
They wanted to know about “neurolinguistic programming.”🤣🤣🤣
Look it up.
I think it’s probably pretty close to what you believe would be the key to Democrat success.
Oh—did I mention that you’re an idiot? As are any people who consider your pablum seriously?
That’s an important part of my message.
YOU ARE CURRENTLY AN IDIOT.
GET A CLUE (if your ego will allow you to get one.)
If you don’t, no biggie.
You can remain just another drop in the bucket of leftist progressive piss.
Thinking like a democrat. Your only interest in the people is to determine where they are going so you can get out front and lead them. The problem is where they are going is not where you will lead them. You want to get out front to change their direction. Wilson and Roosevelt were both Marxists and every democrat leader since them has tried to steer America to that direction. But Americans can see what Marxism leads to and they do not want to go there. Democrats and RINOs do their best to conceal where they want to take us. They think Americans are ignorant, even stupid. If they weren't, they would want the workers' paradise. By hook or by crook the democrats are going to get us there. They refuse to see the hell-hole that Marxism inevitably results in.
First and foremost, you have to like, respect and be truly curious about the people you're trying to win over. It is evident to over half the country that Democrats really don't like them, care about their concerns or think they could possibly know anything about anything. When I read pieces like this, I can't help feeling like it's an effort to find the right 'narrative', the right things to say, the right policy formulation but I don't get the feeling there is genuine concern or interest towards the average American other than as recalcitrant objects to 'set straight' and boy do Democrats think they are the ones to do it. They do not like or respect 'not progressives' as they constantly make abundantly clear. Until they adjust their attitude, they will wander in the wilderness.
"After all, Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris both played hard to the center and ended up with little to show for it. "
Telling someone you love them after you have punched them in the face is only persuasive to a very small number of people. Most will not buy your new stance.
Besides, they had plenty to show for it, particularly Harris, who was clearly a lot more comfortable moving to the Center and it showed. They just didn't WIN.
The election was a well-deserved complete and utter REPUDIATION of leftist “progressive” social, economic, and cultural perspectives.
In economic terms Harris may have moderated. However, in cultural terms she was wedded to the far, far-left. Three examples. First, she supported Biden’s failed border policies. Second, she was VP (and did not object) when he invited the ever-loathsome Dylan Mulvaney to visit the White House. Third, her staff apparently vetoed appearing on the Joe Rogan show. There is even a joke about this “I haven’t seen a man beat a woman so badly since the Olympics”. The joke is funny, because it is true.
This is just weird.
If the only goal is to win elections, why not just become Republicans? They're winning right now, you can win too!
A more defensible and patriotic approach would be to offer a better alternative to Republican governance. Now define "better" and draw lines between that definition and specific Democratic programs -- creating or changing the programs as necessary. There's room in there to suppress programs you think would achieve "better" but are unpopular enough to prevent you from getting elected, but there's no room to tout programs (cheerleading for Hamas comes to mind) that make things worse just to pick some votes up.
So what has the author come up with? Taxing corporations? One would expect an explanation of what that tax money would be used for, right? I mean, unless it's just meant to be punitive, in which case one would expect an explanation of what, exactly, is being punished.
And it's impossible to take the idea seriously if the author doesn't even nod to the fact that corporate earnings are already taxed when they're passed on to the shareholders. One should also wonder, if the corporations are set aside, what "the economy" is that they're looting?
I'd like to think that Democrats can come up with guiding principles that not only enable them to win but make them deserve to win. I'm not seeing that so far.
Sam, you sound just as confused as everyone else, including me. I don't know exactly what the Democrats' flagship ideas should be.
But I think a couple of simple principles should guide the search: One, If implemented, they should work. Yes, a party has to get elected, but most of us who call ourselves Democrats want to be elected in order to make Americans' lives as good as they can be. If our platform does not begin from that premise, then who are we or where are we?
Two, Implementation can be complex, but we have to learn to explain the core of the complex ideas simply.
Three, we should not look to Europe for examples because Europe has fallen way behind the U.S. economically of late and because we are different, with different resources and different problems.
Five years ago, I tried to summarize the economic issues in a 130-page book, Capitalism for America. It explains some of the economic choices we have to make in simple, I hope not simplistic, terms. My biased opinion is that it would help if more Democrats would read it.
Excellent. I would only add that the solutions that Democrats push should be clearly and defensibly Constitutional. Constitutional shortcuts (e.g. statehood for DC, student loan forgiveness) just make them look like unscrupulous opportunists and panderers, a role that the Republicans play much, much better.
Yes, stuff should constitutional.
I have to say I have a hard time squaring the rational-sounding idea of USP and the current sacred-victim, entitled parasite culture intersecting with business. I keep thinking of Kneeling Nancy and the media-supported George Floyd color revolution. Or government employees and the Covid epidemic where there appear to be conflicts of interest and zero transparency. The author also seems to connect baser human instincts like envy with the desire to punish successful businessmen who may be identified as aligned with conspiracy theories, racisms, sexisms, haters and Trumputler in general.
In an open market environment you don't have to buy the product, USP or not, if you don't like it. Governments, on the other hand, can fine you, throw you in jail or kill you if you don't dance to the rhythm.
There is a lot of meat in this analysis for what troubles the Democrats. Frankly, this realization should have happened after the 2016 election, but for the sensationally fortuitous global pandemic that allowed mass mail-in ballots and related shenanigans that allowed Democrats to squeak by in winning, and then the Dodd female rage vote of 2022 that prevented a red wave.
Here is the secret sauce... Democrats have been made weak by their media and tech advantages. It is a DEI-level crutch that allowed Democrats of all ranks to lie to themselves that the people loved their ideological dog food. It caused the Democrats to be the party of fakes, lies and propaganda.
Very little attention has been given to the attractiveness of authenticity compared that of fakes.
Trump for all his flaws has been 100% authentic. Harris with all her flaws has been largely inauthentic.
Not only did the electorate see this, but the lack of authenticity did compound harm as it telegraphed two messages: One - that the Democrats considered the electorate stupid enough to buy the act and this created a feeling of being disrespected. Two - it created a deficit of trust due to the lack of authenticity.
I was thinking about the business I lead and what makes for a successful sales professional. More than anything it is respect and trust. If you cannot deliver a feeling of respect and trustworthiness for your constituents, they will never buy what you are selling.
Democrats need to learn that their Hollywood and media assist isn’t a powerful enough crutch to help them overcome their flaws, and that voters can be accepting of flaws because it is human and they have them too… but they cannot be accepting of fakers.
So this is the other problem... the brand of Democrat has been trashed by the political behavior of Democrats. To attract voters, the party needs to shed this propensity for play acting... because the people see through it.
I like the idea of stakeholder capitalism. Too many on the left are reflexively “anti capitalist” whatever that means as you’re hammering out your censure on your iPhone, on your way to catch a flight to wherever, or in between taking your Amazon delivery off the front porch, buying something on Etsy, getting DoorDash, or on a commercial break on one of your many streaming services. The level of hypocrisy is sometimes stunning.
The idea of anti corporation seems like a non starter as long as money is speech. Too many people still believe in now debunked theories of trickling down or floating all boats. I’d like to see legislation limiting the top C level salaries to 10 or 100 times the median salary for a company. I haven’t seen a strong case for why breaking up Google would actually lead to lower costs or more freedom or more dignity. It seems to me like it would make things that we are used to more expensive or more disjointed, but I am uninformed and have not yet seen it argued cogently and thoroughly like so many of these essays. I need to learn more and I welcome recommendations.
This is a valuable initial contribution to what I hope is an informative and exciting debate. Big "like" here. It's never easy to be the first one into the pool.
That said, I think that the article commits the "besetting sin" of the Left in general: treating the propositions that it needs to PROVE as if they were assumptions upon which any right-minded person would want to act, no proof required, and with at least the implication that anyone who disagrees is just wrong-headed or objecting in bad faith.
More anti-trust enforcement is something that I perennially support, and I applauded many of the actions of the Biden Administration. It's an ongoing frustration that these, like so many accomplishments of the Administration, have gone practically unreported. But anti-trust enforcement should continue to be based on negative impact on the consumer, not on size alone. The Leftist mantra that Big is Bad is debatable on its face, and should have to be proven on a case-by-case basis.
Another example: the proposition quoted approvingly that "One or another of Google’s platforms today stands between you and your parents, between you and your children, and between you and your friends " etc. I'm open to evidence of that, but from where I sit, Google stands between me and nothing and nobody. It has -- through its own investment and ideas -- created NEW platforms through which I can make all those connections, and I do use them a lot because they're so much more convenient than the old ways, but the old ways are still available. Some people even insist on using those old ways and do; most of us consider those people to be cranks, more or less. If any firm is guilty of the charges made here it's more Apple in my view, with their closed systems and insistence on customer compliance, but they're a darling of the Left, and always seem to be exempted from this kind of "analysis".
I'm all for tax reform, and a simple, strongly progressive tax code with few loopholes. Personally, I think that we should go back to the tax rates of the Eisenhower Administration wholesale (adjusted for inflation) and revise from there as needed. But I'll need to see proof for the frequent and (as presented) evidence-free refrain that "Amazon pays no taxes". When I see that evidence, I'll still need to see whether, if true, Amazon is practicing criminal tax evasion, or perfectly legal tax avoidance, i.e., taking full advantage of the incentives that the government itself has provided. The former should result in arrests and indictments; the latter is a rational response to the way the system is designed, and the attacks are directed at the wrong entity, even if made in good faith.
And any criticism of the "excesses" of Amazon in particular should take into account the benefits that accrue to society from the fact that Amazon exists. Personally, I'm not at all disturbed that small retailers who used to be able to exploit market limitations to make money on high prices and lousy service have had to clean up their acts or go out of business when faced with good prices and reliable service. We're going to memory-hole the covid pandemic the way our grandparents did the 1919 influenza pandemic; that seems unfortunately to be human nature. Before we do, though, let me remind everyone one more time what a lifesaver having Amazon was during that time for thousands, and maybe millions, of people. And while we may feel that we're now finished with pandemics, I doubt that pandemics are finished with us.
I'd get into "stakeholder capitalism", but I think that I've gone on long enough for now. This is a serious subject, and I'm confident that there will be other opportunities to consider it together.
Sam, let me help you get a clue regarding advertising—your particular, idiotic blind spot.
An anecdote from my true experience:
In the late 1990s my ad agency hosted a cadre of top tier broadcast,advertising, and PR professionals from former Soviet countries who were eager to learn how to wield the “magic” of influencing “the public.”
They were not interested in our advocacy of authenticity as the key to success.
They wanted to know about “neurolinguistic programming.”🤣🤣🤣
Look it up.
I think it’s probably pretty close to what you believe would be the key to Democrat success.
Oh—did I mention that you’re an idiot? As are any people who consider your pablum seriously?
That’s an important part of my message.
YOU ARE CURRENTLY AN IDIOT.
GET A CLUE (if your ego will allow you to get one.)
If you don’t, no biggie.
You can remain just another drop in the bucket of leftist progressive piss.
Sam, you seem to be the worst kind of idiot—a proudly ignorant idiot. You seem to believe you are educated.
I can totally believe you are “teaching” an advertising course, even though you admit you know nothing about it.
I worked in the advertising industry for 30 years.
Anyone who takes this particular expression of your pablum (on this matter) seriously is also an idiot.
There are at least several of your kind, as I count the idiotic responses. (Each one of them longing for their own paid subscription on Substack?)
Thinking like a democrat. Your only interest in the people is to determine where they are going so you can get out front and lead them. The problem is where they are going is not where you will lead them. You want to get out front to change their direction. Wilson and Roosevelt were both Marxists and every democrat leader since them has tried to steer America to that direction. But Americans can see what Marxism leads to and they do not want to go there. Democrats and RINOs do their best to conceal where they want to take us. They think Americans are ignorant, even stupid. If they weren't, they would want the workers' paradise. By hook or by crook the democrats are going to get us there. They refuse to see the hell-hole that Marxism inevitably results in.