pjwestin

Here's what I wrote to my delegate's office:

I am writing to you because I am worried about the upcoming DNC chair elections, and I'm attempting to reach my local delegate. A recent piece in Politico seemed to suggest that many in the party believe that the takeaway from the 2024 election is that the party moved too far to the left, and that it became too involved in identity politics. As Joseph Paolino Jr., the DNC committeeman for Rhode Island, put it, “The progressive wing of the party has to recognize — we all have to recognize — the country’s not progressive, and not to the far left or the far right. They’re in the middle."

Of course, the idea that the Democratic Party has gone too far left is absurd. This is the party that passed NAFTA. This is the party that ended Glass-Steagall. This is the party that added work requirements to Welfare. This is the party that prioritizesd banks over homeowners during the subprime mortgage crisis. This is the party that adopted and passed the Heritage Foundation's healthcare plan. On paper, this is a center-right party.

However, I believe it is true that this party has focused too much on identity politics, and we need to place that blame where it squarely belongs: on the center. It was centrist Democrats who, in the absence of any coherent economic message, increasingly adopted the language of identity politics. It was the center who used identity politics as a cudgel, not only against their right-wing opponents, but also those on the left who questioned the party's priorities. It was Hillary Clinton (who no serious person would describe as, "far-left") who said:

"If we broke up the big banks tomorrow...would that end racism? Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the LGBT community? Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?”

If the party were to decide that it was going to spend less time on identity politics and more time on a serious progressive platform, that would make sense. Polling indicates that many progressive policies, even those considered, "far-left," like higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy, a higher minimum wage, Medicare for All, and even Universal Basic Income, all command widespread support from across the electorate. They are certainly more popular than the crypto-based, "economic opportunity," platform pitched by Mark Cuban this year.

However, based on what I have read from Politico, it does not seem like the party is interested in a progressive economic message. It seems that many in the party are simply concerned with abandoning the aspects of identity politics that they believe are unpopular. One Florida member made some offensive and thinly veiled attacks on the trans community, saying that he didn't want to be a member of the, "freak show party." It appears that, instead of reflecting on how the Democrats' centrist economic policies have failed the working class, many members would like to abandon vulnerable members of the party that they believe are no longer politically useful.

The Democrats don't need to start jettisoning demographic groups, they need a progressive platform that can bring the party together. They need to move to the left economically, not to the right socially. However, if the party does decide to stop protecting the most vulnerable Americans in the interest of being more, "centerist," there is an upside; voters will finally be able to abandon the Democratic Party without harming marginalized groups.

Well, I doubt he blames himself for anything that's occurred, and I certainly don't think he's going to become a socialist or anything like that. He does seem aware that 40 years of free market capitalism without any pushback from a real progressive party on behalf of the working class has created the conditions necessary for Trump, and that's more self-awareness than I've seen from Nancy Pelosi. That being said, I'm sure this newfound progressive streak will boil down to, "let's raise the federal minimum wage so we can get back to capitalism as usual."

He's an old-school Regan conservative who writes a column for the New York Times. He also does a weekly PBS news segment; it used to be with this even older liberal named ~~David Brooks~~ (Mark Shields, what a dumb typo), but he retired, and now it's with a young liberal who's so moderate they barely even disagree.

Funny enough, I actually don't think he's being contrarian. He was on PBS Newshour for their election night coverage, and he seemed shook. The next day, he commented on Twitter something to the effect of, "maybe the answer is that the Democrats need to pick someone that makes people like me unconformable." I think he's watched his economic outlook completely win American politics over the last 40 years, only to find the prize at the end was fascism.

Watching David Brooks, of all people, develop more introspection and self-awareness than the entire Democratic party leadership has been a real trip.

You're right, but the nuance you're discussing is not what's being discussed here. Listen to this bit:

“The progressive wing of the party has to recognize — we all have to recognize — the country’s not progressive, and not to the far left or the far right. They’re in the middle,” said Joseph Paolino Jr., DNC committeeman for Rhode Island. “I’m going to look for a chair who’s going to be talking to the center and who’s going to be for the guy who drives a truck back home at the end of the day.”

Or as one DNC member from Florida put it: “I don’t want to be the freak show party, like they have branded us. You know, when you’re a mom with three kids, and you live in middle America and you’re just not really into politics, and you see these ads that scare the bejesus out of you, you’re like, ‘I know Trump’s weird or whatever, but I would rather his weirdness that doesn’t affect my kids.’”

These speakers aren't distinguishing between socially left and economically left, and reading between the lines, it is very clear that the member from Florida is talking about dropping support for trans people (in a thinly veiled and very offensive way, I might add). They lost the working class because they don't have a working class message, but they're blaming the social policies for their loss.

There is an argument to be made that the way they are approaching socially progressive issues is hurting them. Kamala Harris telling the ACLU that she supports transition surgery for migrant detainees painted a very large target on her back for a policy that would have effected a very, very small number of people. That probably should have been a, "pick your battles," moment for her.

If the argument was, "We're not going to focus on trans people in sports for now, because a lot of people still don't support that, but we're going to talk about how Medicare for All helps everyone, and we'll make sure that gender affirming care is covered," OK, there's a case to be made for that. But what they're actually saying is, "Well, the economic policy is set by the donors, so there's nothing we can do about that, but the trans stuff seems to be costing us more votes than it's winning us, let's drop that." They're trying to jettison the progressive groups they think aren't helping them instead of building an agenda for progressives to rally behind.

I mean, the fact that they only had any potential with the super majority is the problem. In 2001, the Senate Republicans just fired parliamentarian Robert Dove because they didn't like the answers he was giving them. In 2010, Senate Democrats realized they only had four weeks to get their agenda through unimpeded, passed a single bill, and spent the rest of Obama's presidency comprising with obstructionists. In 2021, Biden let immigration reform and a $15 minimum wage get killed by the parliamentarian despite his party begging him to ignore her. Now, in 2025, a literal fascist will be in the White House and his allies will control both houses of Congress; do you really think he's going to care if someone in an advisory position gives a non-binding ruling saying he's not allowed to do something? The fact that Democrats can't get anything done without 60 Senate seats isn't an excuse, it's embarrassing.

They had the super majority at the start of that term. They couldn't have pushed something as complicated as the ACA through, but they could have moved on something small like affirming Roe. Besides, the Republicans always find a way to ram through legislation without a super majority (and I'd suspect we're about to see them abolish it entirely), but the Democrats never do.

For example, when the Senate parliamentarian tells the Democrats that they can't pass a $15 minimum wage through a simple majority, the Democrats give up. When the parliamentarian tells the Republicans they can't do something, they ignore them, and one time, they just flat our fired the guy.

You can argue about whether the Republicans are being unethical or underhanded, but at the end of the day, they achieve things, and the Democrats don't. The Democrats will tell you that they need 60 votes to do anything and that the parliamentarian won't allow them to pass non-budgetary items without one, but Senate filibuster rules can be changed, and the Parliamentarian has no real authority. Playing by the rules while your opponent cheats isn't noble, it's stupid.

As they begin to dissect their collapse in the presidential election, some Democratic National Committee members are concluding that the party is too “woke,” too focused on identity politics and too out of touch with broad stretches of America.

From the bottom of my heart, fuck these people. They've moved so far towards neoliberal policy positions that they no longer have an economic message to give their working-class base. In the absence of a coherent economic vision for the party, they keep doubling down on, "identity politics," to keep the the Obama Coalition happy; they have nothing to unify their base, so their only option is to take up any position that is important to the demographic groups that make up the party. Now that this strategy has been thoroughly and decisively defeated, their reaction isn't to return to the progressive economic policies that won them these groups in the first place, but instead to figure which minorities are, "unpopular," so they can abandon them. What a bunch of stupid, shortsighted cowards.

Yeah, sports is a great analogy. Just because you don't like basketball, doesn't mean you won't like soccer, and just cause you don't like turn-based RPGs, doesn't mean you won't like 2D platformers. It's all about finding what you vibe with.

Lots of good advice here, but I would just add, start with your interests and work out from there. You like puzzle games? Portal is a great physics puzzle game, so you might like that. It's also a 3D platformer, so you'll find out if you like games with a lot of running and jumping. It's also technically a first-person shooter (not in the sense that you shoot enemies, but you do shoot a portal gun at walls), so if you don't like that aspect of the game, you'll know that FPSs aren't for you.

Doesn't have to be the type of gameplay either. You like designing things? Maybe try the Sims or Animal Crossing. Like horror movies? Maybe start with something simple but creepy, like Limbo. Detective stories? Something like Strange Horticulture might be up your alley.

The most important thing is to look around and see what catches your interest. Read some reviews, watch some gameplay footage, and find something that's right for you. Don't just say, "I'm going to do video games now," and buy a Call of Duty or Dark Souls because, "gamers," like them.

I mean, yeah, but they'd be in a better position to make that argument if they hadn't been campaigning with Mark Cuban. (Not that Robert Reich needs to be told that, but it still needs to be said.)

In America (or anywhere else with a two party system), this can be understood through the Ratchet Effect.