Insightful piece on how group change can occur but, in this case, gives the group far too much credit. Biden standing down wasn't the result of a finally reached group consensus. It was made by Biden alone for reasons he will no doubt memoir. He wasn't fired or forced out by the group; Biden voluntarily quit. If he hadn't, the Democratic party would likely still be in the predicament it found itself in for 25 days following Biden's disastrous debate performance, due to inadequate party mechanisms or political will to deal with the crisis.
Very insightful piece. I was definitely one of those stuck in the status quo. I will need to use this experience to attempt to approach situations like this differently.
A simple proposal: increase # of seats in HoR to 600, use 3 seat PR-RCV consistently by switching to having 1/3reps whenever a state doesnt have a multiple of 3 for its # of Reps assigned, but implement it in 2 stages, first in those states with the worst records of suppression of minority voters, i.e. the South + NY + CA...
This wd help the Dem party remain dominant at first but diversify their leadership by region. It wd safely elect moderate Republicans from NY/CA and limit the effect of the social conservative/populist activists within the GOP to one(or 2) of the rep or 1/3rep seats per district or 1/3district in the South. This will make it so that to have an impact on policy, they would need to win allies among others...
This is a conservative adoption of PR that presumes we have entered into a spell of CA style one party domination in the majority of the country. It wd not end one party domination but rather diversify the dominant party and change its incentives and encourage the rise of a new alternative major party..
One impediment to change occurs when the problems to be solved appear overwhelming because people clump everything together in their thoughts. The problem of getting Biden to step down was conflated with the possibility of conflict of unknown extent and intensity among plausible candidates for the nomination. The possibilities for disaster loomed large for most people. When Biden did step down, it became possible to think about the next step, but Biden made that even simpler by endorsing Harris almost simultaneously. Most Democratic political actors, whatever their personal preferences or ambitions might have been then immediately coalesced around Harris, thus avoiding the fear of chaos that had paralyzed many people. The broader party membership reacted in much the same way. The next essential step, the election of Harris is very clear. Further change hoped for by the author, though, is dependent on many things, including the number of Democrats who are elected to Congress, the opinions and the skills of the new President, and the presently amorphous state of opinion in the post-election populace, and the flexibility of our national institutions.
And in whether the electoral reform movement--meaning, organizers & volunteers & venues to get the word out--is able to form effective coalitions and keep compelling messaging in front of people.
Yes, Biden apparently genuinely thought that "only he" could do what was needed. In spite of what was increasingly obvious: that he was having steadily
increasing difficulty getting his message across. On top of killing support from many over Gaza.
More concerning to me is the absolute rejection of consideration of widening the campaign to other candidates. Phillips was condemned (I, like many, had long hoped Biden would drop out. I voted for Phillips mainly to register my disappointment at "the process").
Was this all about Biden's focus on staying? Or was concern about dissipating sources of campaign finance a major consideration?
If we had a campaign finance voucher program in place (even without fusion voting) other strong candidates (I like Ro Khanna) might have been able to gen up a serious challenge. I write about that in my essays on michaelfoxworth.substack.com
Thank you for this piece. Yes: "I often pondered this dynamic when Trump was president. Privately, most congressional Republicans did not like him. But publicly, they were supportive."
This is why I support the "Constitutional Right To Secrecy" for congress/house. Nice video explainer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg4dJ8nyiPo - allows you to have your cake and eat it too. Show public support, but vote your conscience.
Insightful piece on how group change can occur but, in this case, gives the group far too much credit. Biden standing down wasn't the result of a finally reached group consensus. It was made by Biden alone for reasons he will no doubt memoir. He wasn't fired or forced out by the group; Biden voluntarily quit. If he hadn't, the Democratic party would likely still be in the predicament it found itself in for 25 days following Biden's disastrous debate performance, due to inadequate party mechanisms or political will to deal with the crisis.
Very insightful piece. I was definitely one of those stuck in the status quo. I will need to use this experience to attempt to approach situations like this differently.
A simple proposal: increase # of seats in HoR to 600, use 3 seat PR-RCV consistently by switching to having 1/3reps whenever a state doesnt have a multiple of 3 for its # of Reps assigned, but implement it in 2 stages, first in those states with the worst records of suppression of minority voters, i.e. the South + NY + CA...
This wd help the Dem party remain dominant at first but diversify their leadership by region. It wd safely elect moderate Republicans from NY/CA and limit the effect of the social conservative/populist activists within the GOP to one(or 2) of the rep or 1/3rep seats per district or 1/3district in the South. This will make it so that to have an impact on policy, they would need to win allies among others...
This is a conservative adoption of PR that presumes we have entered into a spell of CA style one party domination in the majority of the country. It wd not end one party domination but rather diversify the dominant party and change its incentives and encourage the rise of a new alternative major party..
Liked your New Republic piece today. Nothing so far is a good sign, to wit:
Kamala Harris, things the media is talking about, one week in:
Something about cats
Something about a coconut meme
Her laugh
How she's going to call Trump dumb and weird
How much money she's raking in
That she is a brat or something
How she's going to stand up to Israel (stay tuned for plan)
How Trump is purposefully mispronouncing her name
Kamala Harris, things the media is not talking about, one week in:
650,000 homeless in U.S.
Massive income inequality
20% inflation in food prices under Biden
Climate change solutions
That she called Charles Mingus a "performer" (he was a bassist and bandleader)
#
One impediment to change occurs when the problems to be solved appear overwhelming because people clump everything together in their thoughts. The problem of getting Biden to step down was conflated with the possibility of conflict of unknown extent and intensity among plausible candidates for the nomination. The possibilities for disaster loomed large for most people. When Biden did step down, it became possible to think about the next step, but Biden made that even simpler by endorsing Harris almost simultaneously. Most Democratic political actors, whatever their personal preferences or ambitions might have been then immediately coalesced around Harris, thus avoiding the fear of chaos that had paralyzed many people. The broader party membership reacted in much the same way. The next essential step, the election of Harris is very clear. Further change hoped for by the author, though, is dependent on many things, including the number of Democrats who are elected to Congress, the opinions and the skills of the new President, and the presently amorphous state of opinion in the post-election populace, and the flexibility of our national institutions.
And in whether the electoral reform movement--meaning, organizers & volunteers & venues to get the word out--is able to form effective coalitions and keep compelling messaging in front of people.
Yes, Biden apparently genuinely thought that "only he" could do what was needed. In spite of what was increasingly obvious: that he was having steadily
increasing difficulty getting his message across. On top of killing support from many over Gaza.
More concerning to me is the absolute rejection of consideration of widening the campaign to other candidates. Phillips was condemned (I, like many, had long hoped Biden would drop out. I voted for Phillips mainly to register my disappointment at "the process").
Was this all about Biden's focus on staying? Or was concern about dissipating sources of campaign finance a major consideration?
If we had a campaign finance voucher program in place (even without fusion voting) other strong candidates (I like Ro Khanna) might have been able to gen up a serious challenge. I write about that in my essays on michaelfoxworth.substack.com
Thank you for this piece. Yes: "I often pondered this dynamic when Trump was president. Privately, most congressional Republicans did not like him. But publicly, they were supportive."
This is why I support the "Constitutional Right To Secrecy" for congress/house. Nice video explainer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg4dJ8nyiPo - allows you to have your cake and eat it too. Show public support, but vote your conscience.