Sometimes the risk of staying the course is greater than changing the course. Here’s how I’m thinking about the choice Democrats have to make, and the consequences for 2024 and beyond.
Great read. I was on the fence after the debate. Then I recalled how out of place Biden looked at the parachute review in Europe, where world leaders were gathered. He looked a little bit baffled, with mouth agape. He moved slowly. He just looked old, and not in a benign way. My heart sank at the debate just watching his somewhat tentative walk to the podium. It didn't bode well, and things just got worse from there, as we all know. What should have been a slam dunk against a raving lunatic and fascist turned out to be a disaster for Democrats. My concern is that Biden will continue to have events or situations where he looks old, frail and not completely with it. No amount of rousing speeches or shows of strength will counter those bad moments. I've come to the conclusion that the risks of choosing someone else are outweighed by keeping Biden at the head of the ticket. Heck, even Biden resigning as soon as possible and letting Harris take over sounds better than hoping for a miracle from Biden. So much of the future of the world rests on this election. A changed narrative and the excitement of an alternative (and not a wacky alternative like RFK) to Biden and Trump could energize a lot of Democrats and independents.
This certainly a predicament for the Democratic Party as well as for the country generally and the prospects for a good resolution do not seem favorable at the moment. Dropping Biden from the ticket may be like jumping from the frying pan into the fire, but then neither alternative is that good.
But standing back a bit from this immediate problem, imagine how different things would be if we enjoyed a vibrant multiple-party system. With three or perhaps five or six viable candidate in the race there would surely be some better alternatives. And it would be unlikely that we would have a Supreme Court like the one we now have.
I'm asking again for you to look at my writing (links later) where I'm trying make the case for campaign finance vouchers as a killer campaign issue, especially down ballot.
This essay raises some questions that beg to be answered and I claim vouchers are part of the answers.
1. Quote: "Trump has benefited from a completely predictable nostalgia bias..." Begged question: Why did he benefit so strongly? Answer: Because it is not just "nostalgia bias." Income numbers are bad, especially for those (the "80%") affected by food price inflation and housing costs. See https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/the-second-coming-trump-vs-biden
2. Quote: "... if there had been an open primary..." Begged question: Why was there no open primary? My suggested best answer: campaign finance. Primaries are expensive. Biden's insiders are focused on preserving their money and money-gathering power. Sure, Biden wants to run, and his team wants the focus to be on his run. But they can read polls and knew Biden was weak from the beginning. Others, focused on voters, had been calling for him to drop out and open up the contest for a year.
3. Quote: "I’m very certain it would still be very close." and "... Democratic candidate would benefit from a novelty bias and the opportunity to define themselves as a fresh start and a fresh face." Begged question: Why would it still be close, even with "fresh" faces? Answer: not so "fresh." The public has been hearing nothing but promises from both parties for 30-40 years and just watching things get worse. And consistently, in poll after poll, pointing to campaign finance as a key reason. Meanwhile the huge deficits, the Fed, and the big interdependent financial firms are rapidly pushing us towards a truly catastrophic financial crash that will kill democracy permanently. What would dramatically change the race? Being truly "fresh" (and put campaign finance dependent Republican candidates in a big bind). How? By firing up the public with vouchers and then backing that up by employing the calculated risk of rejecting big money from corporations (esp. banks). Biden, steeped in the past, probably could not even consider it. Three of the Senators running for president in 2020 proposed vouchers. But they did not make vouchers a big play. In 2024, vouchers should be central. That would take advantage of what the public already "knows" about the effect of "big" money
4. Quote: " Democrats have strong candidates [for Senate]. Republicans do not." Begged question: Why do the Republicans not have strong candidates. Answer: Besides their past commitment to tax cuts and "trickle down", their need to pledge support to Trump shuts them off from creative ideas. They are strategically weak. Now is the time to hit them between the eyes with vouchers.
5. Quote: "... a vibrant contest will engage many voters, particularly younger voters..." Begged question: Really? Answer: Yes, some younger voters will come back. But only some. The younger voters have all become politically aware during a time when politics became totally unresponsive to "mere voters". And they know why (or strongly suspect) - campaign finance. Fail to address abusive campaign finance and the youth will fail to respond. Address it convincingly and watch them unfold.
6. Quote: " How can we be really continuing down this path?" and " metastability" and disconnect between state and underlying attitudes and pointing to growth of "independents" as evidence of instability. Begged question: What is keeping the state from changing and what could cause the state to change in a positive way? Answer: The state is temporarily static because neither party can see a viable alternative to the money chase. The Dems cannot see how to get vouchers without first giving up on major sources of funding, especially the banks and corporations. So, they do not put a huge push on vouchers. Such a push would logically require them to commit to forgoing certain money sources. And directly address their role in allowing the banks to bring on 2008. And explain not throwing any of the 2008 criminals in jail. And continuing to allow the banking situation to get worse. Without such Mea Culpa their words about Citizens United and campaign finance are not taken seriously. Until then, Democratic talk about the problems of 80% of the population will continue to be seen as mere talk.
7. Quote: " to get out of this doom loop, we need electoral system reform." Begged question: Yes, all those things, but how get there? Answer: Bring voters back into real power. Vouchers are no substitute for those missing electoral system reform elements. But vouchers would inspire hope and hope will buy time. Time can buy much.
Good job. This sums it up better than anything else I've read, and it isn't easy. It's a complicated mess, and our real options have been dwindling as one party went increasingly nuts and the other got compromised as a matter of political survival and necessity, though I think Democrats should have staked out the 'responsible government' ground along the way, just as you have to tell a self-destructive adolescent things they can't hear hoping they'll survive long enough to come around and realize the old man wasn't a complete idiot.
If Democrats had provided an intelligible narrative about what Republicans were doing and what it would result in people might remember it now and be mad at the people who actually screwed them instead of falling for the usual devastating scapegoating that accompanies a serious social decline. If, if if .... It has been a game of inches with Republicans capitalizing on minuscule victories and stolen elections while Democrats blow massive chances, not seeing that the other side is actually as nuts as they appear. Too late on that one.
The cards are badly stacked.
I disagree with the people who say we've been through this before and it always works out. I think it might be different this time and it makes me sad as hell. America was a miracle for my family, as it was for so many others, in spite of all the horrible things we did at the macro level. And it makes me especially sad so many of those leading the charge into authoritarianism are from this group -- those for whom immigration was salvation for their families. Notably, the conservatives on the Supreme Court with Catholic roots.
I'm convinced they don't see what they bought into. It's as primal in motivation as it is well rationalized. I speak this shit, having had a very old-fashioned education by Jesuits, and it's a monstrous rejection of the elements of the tradition that count, the good stuff, and an embracing of the worst -- the institutional part -- a blind craving for authority out of fear and a defense of the ways of the Roman Empire that doomed it, and all empires, to dissolution.
Great read. I was on the fence after the debate. Then I recalled how out of place Biden looked at the parachute review in Europe, where world leaders were gathered. He looked a little bit baffled, with mouth agape. He moved slowly. He just looked old, and not in a benign way. My heart sank at the debate just watching his somewhat tentative walk to the podium. It didn't bode well, and things just got worse from there, as we all know. What should have been a slam dunk against a raving lunatic and fascist turned out to be a disaster for Democrats. My concern is that Biden will continue to have events or situations where he looks old, frail and not completely with it. No amount of rousing speeches or shows of strength will counter those bad moments. I've come to the conclusion that the risks of choosing someone else are outweighed by keeping Biden at the head of the ticket. Heck, even Biden resigning as soon as possible and letting Harris take over sounds better than hoping for a miracle from Biden. So much of the future of the world rests on this election. A changed narrative and the excitement of an alternative (and not a wacky alternative like RFK) to Biden and Trump could energize a lot of Democrats and independents.
This certainly a predicament for the Democratic Party as well as for the country generally and the prospects for a good resolution do not seem favorable at the moment. Dropping Biden from the ticket may be like jumping from the frying pan into the fire, but then neither alternative is that good.
But standing back a bit from this immediate problem, imagine how different things would be if we enjoyed a vibrant multiple-party system. With three or perhaps five or six viable candidate in the race there would surely be some better alternatives. And it would be unlikely that we would have a Supreme Court like the one we now have.
Mr. Drutman
I'm asking again for you to look at my writing (links later) where I'm trying make the case for campaign finance vouchers as a killer campaign issue, especially down ballot.
This essay raises some questions that beg to be answered and I claim vouchers are part of the answers.
1. Quote: "Trump has benefited from a completely predictable nostalgia bias..." Begged question: Why did he benefit so strongly? Answer: Because it is not just "nostalgia bias." Income numbers are bad, especially for those (the "80%") affected by food price inflation and housing costs. See https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/the-second-coming-trump-vs-biden
2. Quote: "... if there had been an open primary..." Begged question: Why was there no open primary? My suggested best answer: campaign finance. Primaries are expensive. Biden's insiders are focused on preserving their money and money-gathering power. Sure, Biden wants to run, and his team wants the focus to be on his run. But they can read polls and knew Biden was weak from the beginning. Others, focused on voters, had been calling for him to drop out and open up the contest for a year.
3. Quote: "I’m very certain it would still be very close." and "... Democratic candidate would benefit from a novelty bias and the opportunity to define themselves as a fresh start and a fresh face." Begged question: Why would it still be close, even with "fresh" faces? Answer: not so "fresh." The public has been hearing nothing but promises from both parties for 30-40 years and just watching things get worse. And consistently, in poll after poll, pointing to campaign finance as a key reason. Meanwhile the huge deficits, the Fed, and the big interdependent financial firms are rapidly pushing us towards a truly catastrophic financial crash that will kill democracy permanently. What would dramatically change the race? Being truly "fresh" (and put campaign finance dependent Republican candidates in a big bind). How? By firing up the public with vouchers and then backing that up by employing the calculated risk of rejecting big money from corporations (esp. banks). Biden, steeped in the past, probably could not even consider it. Three of the Senators running for president in 2020 proposed vouchers. But they did not make vouchers a big play. In 2024, vouchers should be central. That would take advantage of what the public already "knows" about the effect of "big" money
4. Quote: " Democrats have strong candidates [for Senate]. Republicans do not." Begged question: Why do the Republicans not have strong candidates. Answer: Besides their past commitment to tax cuts and "trickle down", their need to pledge support to Trump shuts them off from creative ideas. They are strategically weak. Now is the time to hit them between the eyes with vouchers.
5. Quote: "... a vibrant contest will engage many voters, particularly younger voters..." Begged question: Really? Answer: Yes, some younger voters will come back. But only some. The younger voters have all become politically aware during a time when politics became totally unresponsive to "mere voters". And they know why (or strongly suspect) - campaign finance. Fail to address abusive campaign finance and the youth will fail to respond. Address it convincingly and watch them unfold.
6. Quote: " How can we be really continuing down this path?" and " metastability" and disconnect between state and underlying attitudes and pointing to growth of "independents" as evidence of instability. Begged question: What is keeping the state from changing and what could cause the state to change in a positive way? Answer: The state is temporarily static because neither party can see a viable alternative to the money chase. The Dems cannot see how to get vouchers without first giving up on major sources of funding, especially the banks and corporations. So, they do not put a huge push on vouchers. Such a push would logically require them to commit to forgoing certain money sources. And directly address their role in allowing the banks to bring on 2008. And explain not throwing any of the 2008 criminals in jail. And continuing to allow the banking situation to get worse. Without such Mea Culpa their words about Citizens United and campaign finance are not taken seriously. Until then, Democratic talk about the problems of 80% of the population will continue to be seen as mere talk.
7. Quote: " to get out of this doom loop, we need electoral system reform." Begged question: Yes, all those things, but how get there? Answer: Bring voters back into real power. Vouchers are no substitute for those missing electoral system reform elements. But vouchers would inspire hope and hope will buy time. Time can buy much.
Please read my essays on vouchers:
- campaign finance myths and where vouchers fit: https://michaelfoxworth.substack.com/p/achilles-heel-of-control-by-big-campaign,
- How configure a federal voucher program? https://michaelfoxworth.substack.com/p/national-democracy-dollars-details,
- Who would pay for vouchers? https://michaelfoxworth.substack.com/p/federal-democracy-dollars-who-would
Good job. This sums it up better than anything else I've read, and it isn't easy. It's a complicated mess, and our real options have been dwindling as one party went increasingly nuts and the other got compromised as a matter of political survival and necessity, though I think Democrats should have staked out the 'responsible government' ground along the way, just as you have to tell a self-destructive adolescent things they can't hear hoping they'll survive long enough to come around and realize the old man wasn't a complete idiot.
If Democrats had provided an intelligible narrative about what Republicans were doing and what it would result in people might remember it now and be mad at the people who actually screwed them instead of falling for the usual devastating scapegoating that accompanies a serious social decline. If, if if .... It has been a game of inches with Republicans capitalizing on minuscule victories and stolen elections while Democrats blow massive chances, not seeing that the other side is actually as nuts as they appear. Too late on that one.
The cards are badly stacked.
I disagree with the people who say we've been through this before and it always works out. I think it might be different this time and it makes me sad as hell. America was a miracle for my family, as it was for so many others, in spite of all the horrible things we did at the macro level. And it makes me especially sad so many of those leading the charge into authoritarianism are from this group -- those for whom immigration was salvation for their families. Notably, the conservatives on the Supreme Court with Catholic roots.
I'm convinced they don't see what they bought into. It's as primal in motivation as it is well rationalized. I speak this shit, having had a very old-fashioned education by Jesuits, and it's a monstrous rejection of the elements of the tradition that count, the good stuff, and an embracing of the worst -- the institutional part -- a blind craving for authority out of fear and a defense of the ways of the Roman Empire that doomed it, and all empires, to dissolution.