The way that Trump completely dominated the Republican Party was one of the biggest political stories of the last ten years, but it's old news now.
The much bigger story now and into the near future to me is how the Democratic Party responds. Which way will the party drift, to the left, to the center, or some of both? Which personalities will rise to the top as viable candidates? Will the D's finally abandon Identity Politics, Intersectionality, and social justice fundamentalism? Will the D's learn again how to talk with working class people and their cosmopolitan base at the same time?
The notion that 'Identity Politics, Intersectionality, and social justice fundamentalism' and 'how to talk to working class people' mutually exclusive is of course ridiculous. Buying into that argument is to buy into the most simplistic and flawed GOP talking points.
Harris ran away from 'identity politics' as fast as she could, and it did not help her.
As long as Dems allow the GOP to make scapegoats out of a handful of transgender children and international students who are against genocide, they will keep losing and remain as unpopular as they are today. Charles Schumer is about as far from 'woke' as someone can be, and he is the least liked national politician right now, even less popular than Trump himself.
Sorry, but you can’t be serious. Normie Americans are not into identity politics. The most effective ad Trump ran was the she’s for they/them. It’s an 80/20 issue.
She ran away from it but she couldn't run far because she was starting from neck deep in it. She was also DEI-hire incarnate. Hopefully the next candidate doesn't have that problem.
The fact that would would call a woman with 20+ years of high level political experience nothing more that a 'DEI-hire' shows your true colors. Thanks for making your MAGA-lite tendency clear.
I think you meant to say 'Hopefully the next candidate (is a straight white man).'
This is just tired framing. She was handed the nomination. Literally. And those who handed it to her explicitly stated her sex and race as reasons for doing so. So yes. She was a DEI candidate.
And the parting shot that the only reason someone could oppose this is if they are a racist, it’s just sad.
She ran a truly pathetic campaign for President in 2019 that didn't even make it into 2020. Never in a million years would have been the VP pick after that except for DEI thinking. Then was handed the nomination in 2024 with no process at all. Like I said, DEI incarnate. The Dems have a chance to win again when they stop pissing on their own voters legs and telling them its raining.
Wrong! Just because a person is not White does no meant they are a DEI candidate! There are PLENTY OF INCOMPETENT White people in positions of power. In fact, there have always been! Just look at the majority of people in the Trump administration! Enough said!
In fact, women and non White candidates, in particular, Black people more often than not, have to be TWICE AS GOOD TO GET HALF AS MUCH!
I never said anyone who isn't white is a DEI candidate. I don't think Obama was - he earned it. But Harris certainly was, for the reasons I spelled out.
Look at what Gavin Newsom is doing. He threw trans athletes under the bus, he's branched out and invited guests like Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon (!) onto his podcast, and he's described the Democratic brand as "toxic". He is clearly tacking to the right to shore up his political viability for a 2028 run.
Newsom may have his personal flaws but I think his political instincts are impeccable.
Appreciate the mention of FDR's abuses, which often get glossed over amid the general veneration. The excesses of HUAC and McCarthyism can't really be understood outside the context of some of FDR's tactics against his enemies and critics.
I appreciate the reminder about HUAC. This is the first time in my lifetime that the US government has intentionally set itself the agenda of persecuting people like me (and I'm fairly old). But it's not the first time in history that it's done that.
I share your overall positivity about the durability of our republic and Constitution. I think a lot about the mid-19th century (as plenty of others have), the politics of cruelty (Indian Removal Act, Chinese Exclusion Act, slavery, etc) preceding and precipitating an era of great social reform (abolition, women's rights) in the midst of a religious revival and the birth of Transcendentalism - the greatest literary/philosophical movement the country has ever know. In truly dark times, bright lights tend to become all the more brilliant. Our history, in that respect, gives me hope.
There is a British Trump. There is a French Trump. There is a Dutch Trump. There is a Finnish Trump. There is a German Trump. There is a Pilipino Trump. There is an Argentinian Trump. There is a Hungarian Trump.
Biden did not reverse Trump's tariffs on China or attempt to resurrect the TPP once he took office.
Why? I suspect it's because the Democrats understood that they are hemorrhaging blue collar voters and, as this last November made clear, those voters are a crucial component for any winning electoral coalition.
For that reason I suspect that it's irrelevant who wins in 2028, Democrat or Republican. Protectionism is just too popular with blue collar voters, especially union voters who wield a disproportionate amount of influence in swing states. (See Shawn Fain's interviews in the press in the aftermath of "Liberation Day".) Domestic political concerns may trump everything else and tariffs may be here to stay.
I don't agree with anything stated in this article except, "I am proud to be a citizen and believe in the promise of our Constitution." But you're still my favorite Liberal writer.
You could be right about Trump himself. He is not smart enough to pull off the rebirth of American nationalism and economic solidarity between corporations and labor. Though whoever wrote his speech in Abu Dhabi did a good job and he will be given credit in foreign policy for putting an end to neocon or leftist interventionist globalism.
But the problem with your prediction of Dems rebounding is that they are even less popular than Trump! I am a white guy under 30 and all of my friends HATE the Democratic party and would never vote for them. Culturally, the Dems have really ruined their reputation as smart, public-spirited nerds with open hearts. They seem incompetent, taxing people to death and then using that money to pay both DEI hire urban planners and green energy people and also the environmental lawyers who are stopping housing or infrastructure from being built (see Ezra Kleins “Abundance” for more). How can you spend money to stop and start something at once?
If that’s true, why did Trump only narrowly win the popular vote against a bad Democratic candidate? Why did the Republicans only narrowly win the House?
Because the Republicans are lazy and corrupt as well. Trump is unlikable to huge sections of the population, but palatable to some men as a system smasher.
The pharma executive order you referenced reveals the extent of Trump’s “populism” - it has no teeth, it’s purely a request that they voluntarily lower drug prices. Compare that to his orders against law firms who he thinks wronged him, which imposed actual restrictions.
Oh my, what are we smoking in here?! Rachel Maddow had me addicted to hopium from 2016-2017, but come on, real life is better than these factless preachings. It’s harmful pandering.
Thoughts on the debt problem Ross? A seemingly anomalous question in the light of the commentary above but addressing this issue will become increasingly critical over time. Both parties presumably know that something must be done but neither wished to move first and be punished accordingly.
Although Ross Barkan mentions these will be 'tough years', the theme of this article is still more optimistic that warranted. He states that he 'underrated the degree of damage Trump would do in those first 100 days', as many people did, but he still underrates the damage already done, and the certain damage to come.
In the case of Trump and DOGE, 'what is ruined by fiat can be rebuilt by fiat' is not really true at all. The massive gashes to the federal government have only just begun, and cannot simply be replaced overnight. There is no reason to think any number of the agencies that have been gutted or entirely eliminated will ever come back. This sort of damage cannot simply be reversed...let alone that, again, it has only been four months.
Barkan also does not address the simple fact that the Democratic Party is even more unpopular that the GOP. He mentions that the Dems have experienced 'slippage' in some places, but not that the party overall has no real direction and no trusted leadership. Jeffries is no more popular that Mike Johnson, and Schumer is less popular that Trump himself.
Like many moderate pundits, Barkan dismisses the notion that fascism is growing under Trump, once again still 'underrating' the incredible damage Trump and his team have already inflicted, and how rapidly they have already moved the country into the direction of authoritarianism on many fronts. We shouldn't be grateful this attack hasn't been even worse so far - we should be horrified at how much has happened already.
MAGA's nonstop attacks on democracy are already being normalized by politicians and pundits, who seem to think some distant election, where a highly unpopular party may get some power, will save us.
Democrats are unpopular, but we quite literally live in a two-party, binary system, so if the party in power is unpopular, the party in opposition will benefit. Americans only get two choices.
A Democratic president can, over a few years, rebuild the federal bureaucracy. But I get catastrophism sells. I'm also not a "moderate."
The recency bias and short term knowledge of so many folks is rather unfortunate - you can pull up polling and the discourse from shortly after the 2004 election, when many people were saying the Dems were out of touch, out flanked, and in terminal decline, and when Bush had come away with 44 percent of the latino vote and gay marriage bans were at their peak. We all know what happened in 2006 and 2008 (and the same was true shortly after 2012 when people were saying the same about the Republicans!).
Political history and gravity didn't start in 2020.
Trump's personal approval rating at this point is still higher than that of the Democratic Party's. And the GOP's approval rating is higher as well.
Don't get me wrong, I think the safe money is on the Dems winning the House in 2026 (while failing to take the Senate). But 2028 is an entirely different matter where national perceptions of the Democratic "brand" doom the party's presidential prospects.
If the choice is only between a party that is openly and ferociously advocating and pushing toward authoritarianism, and the only alternative, whose resistance has been tepid at best, and the plan is to simply bide out time while that party has some chance at taking a few seats of power back, then it is democracy itself, not MAGA that is in 'twilight'.
And no, a Democratic president will not be able to rebuild the damage to the civil service workforce in a few years, especially with the 'slippage' in the Senate and the overall abysmal approval ratings of the Democratic Party...not to mention he damage to the climate, to the countless families impacted by MAGAs attacks, to American's reputation in the world...
The 'it'll be ok, just wait it out, "play dead'' mentality is simply a terrible response. What you dismiss as 'catastrophic' is what many more would simply call 'an honest assessment'.
The way that Trump completely dominated the Republican Party was one of the biggest political stories of the last ten years, but it's old news now.
The much bigger story now and into the near future to me is how the Democratic Party responds. Which way will the party drift, to the left, to the center, or some of both? Which personalities will rise to the top as viable candidates? Will the D's finally abandon Identity Politics, Intersectionality, and social justice fundamentalism? Will the D's learn again how to talk with working class people and their cosmopolitan base at the same time?
We will see.
The notion that 'Identity Politics, Intersectionality, and social justice fundamentalism' and 'how to talk to working class people' mutually exclusive is of course ridiculous. Buying into that argument is to buy into the most simplistic and flawed GOP talking points.
Harris ran away from 'identity politics' as fast as she could, and it did not help her.
As long as Dems allow the GOP to make scapegoats out of a handful of transgender children and international students who are against genocide, they will keep losing and remain as unpopular as they are today. Charles Schumer is about as far from 'woke' as someone can be, and he is the least liked national politician right now, even less popular than Trump himself.
Sorry, but you can’t be serious. Normie Americans are not into identity politics. The most effective ad Trump ran was the she’s for they/them. It’s an 80/20 issue.
She ran away from it but she couldn't run far because she was starting from neck deep in it. She was also DEI-hire incarnate. Hopefully the next candidate doesn't have that problem.
The fact that would would call a woman with 20+ years of high level political experience nothing more that a 'DEI-hire' shows your true colors. Thanks for making your MAGA-lite tendency clear.
I think you meant to say 'Hopefully the next candidate (is a straight white man).'
This is just tired framing. She was handed the nomination. Literally. And those who handed it to her explicitly stated her sex and race as reasons for doing so. So yes. She was a DEI candidate.
And the parting shot that the only reason someone could oppose this is if they are a racist, it’s just sad.
She ran a truly pathetic campaign for President in 2019 that didn't even make it into 2020. Never in a million years would have been the VP pick after that except for DEI thinking. Then was handed the nomination in 2024 with no process at all. Like I said, DEI incarnate. The Dems have a chance to win again when they stop pissing on their own voters legs and telling them its raining.
Wrong! Just because a person is not White does no meant they are a DEI candidate! There are PLENTY OF INCOMPETENT White people in positions of power. In fact, there have always been! Just look at the majority of people in the Trump administration! Enough said!
In fact, women and non White candidates, in particular, Black people more often than not, have to be TWICE AS GOOD TO GET HALF AS MUCH!
I never said anyone who isn't white is a DEI candidate. I don't think Obama was - he earned it. But Harris certainly was, for the reasons I spelled out.
Look at what Gavin Newsom is doing. He threw trans athletes under the bus, he's branched out and invited guests like Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon (!) onto his podcast, and he's described the Democratic brand as "toxic". He is clearly tacking to the right to shore up his political viability for a 2028 run.
Newsom may have his personal flaws but I think his political instincts are impeccable.
Appreciate the mention of FDR's abuses, which often get glossed over amid the general veneration. The excesses of HUAC and McCarthyism can't really be understood outside the context of some of FDR's tactics against his enemies and critics.
I appreciate the reminder about HUAC. This is the first time in my lifetime that the US government has intentionally set itself the agenda of persecuting people like me (and I'm fairly old). But it's not the first time in history that it's done that.
I share your overall positivity about the durability of our republic and Constitution. I think a lot about the mid-19th century (as plenty of others have), the politics of cruelty (Indian Removal Act, Chinese Exclusion Act, slavery, etc) preceding and precipitating an era of great social reform (abolition, women's rights) in the midst of a religious revival and the birth of Transcendentalism - the greatest literary/philosophical movement the country has ever know. In truly dark times, bright lights tend to become all the more brilliant. Our history, in that respect, gives me hope.
There is a British Trump. There is a French Trump. There is a Dutch Trump. There is a Finnish Trump. There is a German Trump. There is a Pilipino Trump. There is an Argentinian Trump. There is a Hungarian Trump.
Maybe the issue isn't Trump.
If your novel is remotely as idiotic and pompous as your assessment of Trump, then you most probably are a failed novelist. Why bother.
Nah, I'm successful at both ;-). Keep playing, though.
Biden did not reverse Trump's tariffs on China or attempt to resurrect the TPP once he took office.
Why? I suspect it's because the Democrats understood that they are hemorrhaging blue collar voters and, as this last November made clear, those voters are a crucial component for any winning electoral coalition.
For that reason I suspect that it's irrelevant who wins in 2028, Democrat or Republican. Protectionism is just too popular with blue collar voters, especially union voters who wield a disproportionate amount of influence in swing states. (See Shawn Fain's interviews in the press in the aftermath of "Liberation Day".) Domestic political concerns may trump everything else and tariffs may be here to stay.
I don't agree with anything stated in this article except, "I am proud to be a citizen and believe in the promise of our Constitution." But you're still my favorite Liberal writer.
You could be right about Trump himself. He is not smart enough to pull off the rebirth of American nationalism and economic solidarity between corporations and labor. Though whoever wrote his speech in Abu Dhabi did a good job and he will be given credit in foreign policy for putting an end to neocon or leftist interventionist globalism.
But the problem with your prediction of Dems rebounding is that they are even less popular than Trump! I am a white guy under 30 and all of my friends HATE the Democratic party and would never vote for them. Culturally, the Dems have really ruined their reputation as smart, public-spirited nerds with open hearts. They seem incompetent, taxing people to death and then using that money to pay both DEI hire urban planners and green energy people and also the environmental lawyers who are stopping housing or infrastructure from being built (see Ezra Kleins “Abundance” for more). How can you spend money to stop and start something at once?
If that’s true, why did Trump only narrowly win the popular vote against a bad Democratic candidate? Why did the Republicans only narrowly win the House?
Because the Republicans are lazy and corrupt as well. Trump is unlikable to huge sections of the population, but palatable to some men as a system smasher.
The pharma executive order you referenced reveals the extent of Trump’s “populism” - it has no teeth, it’s purely a request that they voluntarily lower drug prices. Compare that to his orders against law firms who he thinks wronged him, which imposed actual restrictions.
That subtitle is a work of art
Oh my, what are we smoking in here?! Rachel Maddow had me addicted to hopium from 2016-2017, but come on, real life is better than these factless preachings. It’s harmful pandering.
Thoughts on the debt problem Ross? A seemingly anomalous question in the light of the commentary above but addressing this issue will become increasingly critical over time. Both parties presumably know that something must be done but neither wished to move first and be punished accordingly.
Time wounds all heels
Although Ross Barkan mentions these will be 'tough years', the theme of this article is still more optimistic that warranted. He states that he 'underrated the degree of damage Trump would do in those first 100 days', as many people did, but he still underrates the damage already done, and the certain damage to come.
In the case of Trump and DOGE, 'what is ruined by fiat can be rebuilt by fiat' is not really true at all. The massive gashes to the federal government have only just begun, and cannot simply be replaced overnight. There is no reason to think any number of the agencies that have been gutted or entirely eliminated will ever come back. This sort of damage cannot simply be reversed...let alone that, again, it has only been four months.
Barkan also does not address the simple fact that the Democratic Party is even more unpopular that the GOP. He mentions that the Dems have experienced 'slippage' in some places, but not that the party overall has no real direction and no trusted leadership. Jeffries is no more popular that Mike Johnson, and Schumer is less popular that Trump himself.
Like many moderate pundits, Barkan dismisses the notion that fascism is growing under Trump, once again still 'underrating' the incredible damage Trump and his team have already inflicted, and how rapidly they have already moved the country into the direction of authoritarianism on many fronts. We shouldn't be grateful this attack hasn't been even worse so far - we should be horrified at how much has happened already.
MAGA's nonstop attacks on democracy are already being normalized by politicians and pundits, who seem to think some distant election, where a highly unpopular party may get some power, will save us.
Democrats are unpopular, but we quite literally live in a two-party, binary system, so if the party in power is unpopular, the party in opposition will benefit. Americans only get two choices.
A Democratic president can, over a few years, rebuild the federal bureaucracy. But I get catastrophism sells. I'm also not a "moderate."
The recency bias and short term knowledge of so many folks is rather unfortunate - you can pull up polling and the discourse from shortly after the 2004 election, when many people were saying the Dems were out of touch, out flanked, and in terminal decline, and when Bush had come away with 44 percent of the latino vote and gay marriage bans were at their peak. We all know what happened in 2006 and 2008 (and the same was true shortly after 2012 when people were saying the same about the Republicans!).
Political history and gravity didn't start in 2020.
Trump's personal approval rating at this point is still higher than that of the Democratic Party's. And the GOP's approval rating is higher as well.
Don't get me wrong, I think the safe money is on the Dems winning the House in 2026 (while failing to take the Senate). But 2028 is an entirely different matter where national perceptions of the Democratic "brand" doom the party's presidential prospects.
If the choice is only between a party that is openly and ferociously advocating and pushing toward authoritarianism, and the only alternative, whose resistance has been tepid at best, and the plan is to simply bide out time while that party has some chance at taking a few seats of power back, then it is democracy itself, not MAGA that is in 'twilight'.
And no, a Democratic president will not be able to rebuild the damage to the civil service workforce in a few years, especially with the 'slippage' in the Senate and the overall abysmal approval ratings of the Democratic Party...not to mention he damage to the climate, to the countless families impacted by MAGAs attacks, to American's reputation in the world...
The 'it'll be ok, just wait it out, "play dead'' mentality is simply a terrible response. What you dismiss as 'catastrophic' is what many more would simply call 'an honest assessment'.
Okay, then what exactly should Ross do? Run around going "Oh My God we're doomed," arms flailing? Who would that help?
There are alternatives between 'it'll be fine, do nothing' and 'we're doomed, do nothing'.