Crossing the Ocean in a Rowboat
You’ve probably noticed that the vast majority of my political “analysis” — more like screaming into the void, amirite? — focuses on Donald Trump and Republicans. And there’s a couple of reasons for that: For one, they’re the ones in charge and there’s limited utility in complaining about the minority party; and two, given that I grew up interested in Republican politics and the “conservative movement,” I feel more of a concern for the health of that slice of American politics. Also, I’m sure there’s some “narcissism of small differences” going on there, because so many of the people who have become enthusiastic supports of Trump and his agenda were people that I assumed knew better, given their decades of decrying exactly the sort of behavior Trump has displayed during his tenure. And it’s only possible to be disappointed in people who should know better, or so it has been explained to me.
That’s a polite way of saying, I guess, that I never put much thought into the internecine arguments among Democrats, or the Left more broadly. One, because they weren’t going to take notes from someone like me anyway; and two, I generally preferred them to be weak and disorganized because didn’t want them to have political power. But now that most Republicans are in the throes of mass hysteria, suddenly the health and sanity of the Democrats is effectively a matter of national security. So when I take a look to my left these days, it’s…unsettling.
I often joke [it’s macabre humor, I suppose] that America politics works best when we have two sane and competent parties, but right now I’d settle for one. So to my more liberal brethren, I beg you, please, get it together.
One of the most infuriating things about the Trump era, particularly in his first term, was the way he enabled Democrats to indulge some of their crankiest leftwing desires on the assumption that Donald Trump’s radioactive unpopularity would make leftwing crankery preferable by default. We saw some of this in the 2018 midterms when several otherwise unelectable Democrats rode into office on an anti-Trump wave. That led to some truly dumb political moments, especially in 2020, with electoral poisons like “Defund the Police” and the spread of Campus Leftism language policing. The liberal stance in 2020 was effectively “You’re goddam right we’re leftwing. What’re you gonna do, vote for Trump?” And while Joe Biden was able to temporarily paper over that sentiment, we learned in 2024 that when faced with the question of “What’re you gonna do, vote for Trump?” a plurality of the American electorate is willing to say “Yes.”
That should terrify anyone who cares either about Democrats winning elections or Republicans losing them. I do not, however, detect a sense of urgency among elected officials.
The first such thing I noticed was late last week when a clip surfaced of Texas Democrat representative Jasmine Crockett, one of the younger firebrands in the House, telling some panel that Democrats needed to “get bold” when they retake power; which to her entailed things like expanding the Supreme Court [to install more liberal-leaning justices to balance the current right-leaning tilt], and abolishing the filibuster to enable [what she imagines to be] the Democrat majority to pass legislation through the Senate through a simple majority.
And I guess I’m just curious what gives Rep. Crockett the idea that what the American electorate craves in this environment is more “boldness” in the form of overturning long-established political norms and traditions. Haven’t we had quite enough “boldness” in recent years? I’ve long conceded that my particular slate of policy preferences and political philosophy is not especially popular among voters at the moment, so I try to take my own feelings out of it, and I still get the sense that voters don’t want a never ending cycle of constitutional brinksmanship. What voters want, chiefly, is to not have to worry about their elected officials tinkering with the foundation of American governance. Americans want a break.
We have entered an era of post-liberalism in American politics, and both the Left and the Right, broadly, have their own ideas for how to best commandeer it for their own ends. But we should recognize it as pernicious regardless of which side engages in it. The post-liberal Right is every bit as unappealing to me as the post-liberal Left. What I would prefer is for a de-escalation in this arms race, and instead return to something approaching normal order, where Congress passes legislation and the President enforces it. Now, I know that’s just pie-in-the-sky constitutionalism, but a guy can dream.
When I look out at the American political landscape looking for anyone saying such a thing, or even effectively opposing Trump’s post-liberalism, that field is pretty barren. In the Senate, we have Chuck Schumer, who isn’t half the tactician of Mitch McConnell and somehow manages to be less charismatic. Aside from him, the most newsworthy Senator is a 90 year old self-proclaimed socialist whose appeal is mostly constrained to the sort of voter likely to be found sleeping on the ground at an Ivy League school and accusing Israel of genocide. In the House, there’s Hakeem Jeffries who thus far hasn’t done anything to cause me to even form an opinion about him.
The person most visibly carrying the banner for Democrats at the moment is California governor Gavin Newsom, and the most I can say about him is could someone please get that man some water, because he is thirsty. I’ve never seen someone who wanted to be president as bad as Gavin Newsom. Maybe it’s just my conservative proclivities talking, but anyone who desires political power that passionately shouldn’t be trusted with it. There’s something off-putting about it to me. But right now he’s basically the only show in town.
There’s an idea in video game culture called “button mashing,” and it’s when a new player of a game who doesn’t yet understand the game or how to play it will just sort of frantically press buttons on the controller with no timing or strategy and just hope for the best. Gavin Newsom is giving off “button mashing” vibes to me. He’s just trying things with no real strategy and seeing what gets him attention. First, he started a podcast and extended invitations to Trump supporters in a supposed effort to find some common ground, which led to him having a conversation with Trump sycophant Charlie Kirk and throwing transgender people under the bus.
More recently, he’s taken to adopting Donald Trump’s social media persona, posting unhinged all-caps screeds and ending them with “thank you for your attention to this matter!” And, I mean, it’s something, I guess? There’s definitely a desire among Trump opponents to feel like someone is “fighting” him, and Newsom seems all too willing to fill that role.
It’s also sort of funny to watch Trump supports point out that Newsom’s post make him sound like an unhinged asshole — yes, yes he does. That’s the point. He sounds to Trump supporters the way Donald Trump sounds to the rest of us.
But I just can’t bring myself to get excited about a Gavin Newsom candidacy. Granted, I’m not really the target audience, but it’s just not appealing to me. It feels stilted and plastic. He’s too made-for-TV. He looks like the villain in every 80s teen movie. In a way, he reminds me of a slightly more sociable Ted Cruz. He wants it so bad and he’s trying so hard to the extent that it makes me uncomfortable. And even beyond all of that, the governor of California is not a position from which presidents emerge, at least not since 1980. California has basically become the stereotype for bad leftwing governance, and I don’t think that’s an asset in the swing states.
Now, I know no one likes a bunch of criticisms without suggestions, so I’ll toss a name out there — Maryland governor Wes Moore. On paper, he should be a solid candidate. Relatively young — and compared to recent candidates, he’s positively embryonic — a veteran of the 82nd Airborne, college football player, Rhodes Scholar, and whenever I’ve seen him on local television he seems telegenic. But then again, Kamala Harris should be a good candidate on paper and we saw how that turned out.
What concerns me in this particular moment is that Democrats will become overly enamored with the post-liberal temptation. Similar to how Donald Trump was borne out of a Republican desire to have their own Obama [a celebrity candidate who operated outside of traditional systems], I worry who Democrats will turn to if they seek their own Trump.
As an addendum to this item, however, there may be some slight reasons for optimism. Just this morning, the center-left political organization Third Way released a memo that encourages Democrats to jettison some of the language they’d adopted recently that turned out to be politically toxic.
From the memo:
For a party that spends billions of dollars trying to find the perfect language to connect to voters, Democrats and their allies use an awful lot of words and phrases no ordinary person would ever dream of saying. […]
In reality, most Democrats do not run or govern on wildly out-of-touch social positions. But voters would be excused to believe we do because of the words that come out of our mouths—words which sound like we are hiding behind unfamiliar phrases to mask extreme intent. […]
Why the tortured language? After all, many Democrats are aware that the words and phrases we use can be profoundly alienating. But they use it because plain, authentic language that voters understand often rebounds badly among many activists and advocacy organizations. These activists and advocates may take on noble causes, but in doing so they often demand compliance with their preferred messages; that is how “birthing person” became a stand-in for mother or mom. And if we don’t think more carefully about our language, many in America will be banking on help from Donald Trump and Republicans, because Democratic levers of power will be few and far between.
Some of the words they encourage Democrats to avoid: Privilege, Triggering, Microaggression, Cultural appropriation, The unhoused, Birthing person/inseminated person, Pregnant people, Chest feeding, Cisgender, Heteronormative, Patriarchy, LGBTQIA+, Latinx, BIPOC, etc.
It’s encouraging because it shows that at least some of the people in charge of making sure Democrats win elections are aware of the disadvantages they face in the current climate, which comes after news that young white men are registering as Republicans in unprecedented numbers.
I used to joke that leftists were going to make Donald Trump president for life by turning off every voter to the right of Che Guevara, but if they’re not careful, he just might take them up on it.
Culinary Crackdown
Last weekend, Sean Charles Dunn — a 37-year-old [former] Department of Justice employee became internet famous for angrily throwing a sandwich at federal agents stationed in D.C.
Now, just as general life advice, don’t throw things at the police. But perhaps more importantly, don’t give them an excuse to do what they want to do in the first place. According to Dunn’s lawyer, he offered to turn himself in to police, but the Justice Department refused — preferring instead to send 20 agents to his home to arrest him, seemingly just for the optics of frog-marching him out the door. It also gives people like U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro [which is still a hell of a thing to write] the opportunity to post bullshit like this, in which she says, in part, “He thought it was funny [to throw a sandwich]. Well, he doesn’t think it’s funny today because we charged him with a felony: assault on a police officer. And we’re gonna back the police to the hilt! So there! Stick your Subway sandwich somewhere else.”
What a time to be alive, y’know? A U.S. Attorney basically cutting pro wrestling ads, shit-talking some no-name who got a little emotional at a police officer.
I’m not a lawyer, but I have a difficult time imagining a scenario where throwing a sandwich amounts to felony assault. But that’s sort of the point — the charging of the felony, the sending 20 agents to his house to arrest him, this isn’t really about the “crime” itself. It’s about making an example of him. It’s about sending a message to anyone else who might be minded to protest the goings-on in D.C. — if you do something silly, you just might catch a felony and have 20 federal agents march you down the sidewalk for show.
To paraphrase a sentiment often used to describe the Trump administration, the brutality is the point.
Occasional Trivia
Answer from last time:
Category: Film Awards
Clue: Ron Howard received the 1995 Directors Guild of America Award for this Tom Hanks film.
Apollo 13
Today’s clue:
Category: U.S. Bodies of Water
Clue: The south shore of this lake forms the northern boundary of New Orleans.
Dispatches from the Homefront
In an effort to cutdown on the amount of nonsense children’s programming my kids watch, I’ve instituted a new tradition in which we watch Jeopardy while we eat dinner. But it’s currently in summer reruns for the next couple of weeks, so we’ve had to improvise.
We sat down for dinner one night this week, and my younger daughter excitedly says “Daddy, it’s time for Jeopardy!”
And I had to explain to her that “Actually no, Jeopardy isn’t on tonight.”
To which she sort of disappointedly says “…but we watch Jeopardy while we eat.”
“I know,” I assured her, “It’ll be back in a couple of weeks. But tonight we’re gonna watch baseball.”
“Oh,” she said, perking up. “Ok. I like baseball too!”
“Look at you angling to be the favorite!” I said, jokingly giving the side-eye to my older daughter who doesn’t like Jeopardy or baseball.