Also, can you find any area of agreement with Trump policies? Someone can be wrong but still say something right. The questionable source of a truth does not negate the truth in question.
We Democrats have ask ourselves how we could lose to this guy, not just once but twice. My answer is that the D leadership is driven by pollsters. “If we do this we’ll get support from this small group (i.e., trans voters) and we combine it with this other small group and . . . . we’ll get enough voters to win.” The Trump leadership by contrast is focusing on a brand for the middle.
John-I think you're accurate about the Dems coalition. The Trump brand is more complicated. It is not the "middle" as we have traditionally thought about it in political terms. Although the economy seemed to be salient for many Trump voters last year, much of Trump's pull was on the cultural issues--like DEI and wokeness--that somewhat transcended political ideology. Let's keep in mind that, despite Trump's insistence he won "big," he just eeked out a popular vote majority. The battle continues to be on the margins. There's work to be done.
Unless we as a population find ways to not vilify people who disagree we can never heal. I must confess I’m unforgiving of the complete stupidity behind some of the 2025 Trump moves but I appreciate your attempt to look at both sides of this pancake. Calling someone who disagrees a traitor is not helpful. Although sometimes calling them an idiot is to me very satisfying😂
“Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease.
Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed – in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.”
― Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison
I agree with your overall premise, Ben, but I have to quibble with your data. The argument that POC are equal (or close) economically struck me as suspect. First, if you look at wealth you get a different answer - median wealth among White households is way above the figure for Black or Hispanic households. Even looking at income, I would make two points: one, the difference in the data will be statistically significant so should not be dismissed as meaningless and, two, more importantly, you are looking at the percent in a range. I would guess that there are more Blacks at the low end of the range, and more Whites at the upper end, which would make the fact that they happen to be in the same range misleading.
You didn’t mention the Trump policy that might be the most acceptable to those who don’t support him and that is not allowing trans athletes to compete in women’s sports. Even many Dem politicians agree with that one, Moulton in your state and Newsom in CA to name two. I disagree with Trump on trans policy in general, leave them alone as far as I am concerned, but when it comes to sports it does strike me like a question of fairness.
Michael: I agree that both wealth and where one is within the middle class income scale are relevant. But the larger point is that as Black and Hispanic families are on a trajectory edging closer to white families, they are--and will over time-- adjust their political priorities closer to the breakdown of the larger whole and, again, edging away from race-based considerations. Dem's strategy needs to recognize that.
In my class on public health policy, I spend a lot of time on implementation. Why? Because the way in which policy is implemented becomes the actual policy. A policy, such as control over the Southern border, can be necessary, ethical, and legal in theory, but a disaster if not properly implemented as such. For instance, if families are separated from one another, if random individuals suddenly disappear into El Salvadoran jails, can I still agree that the policy is designed to be necessary, ethical, and legal? No--the policy is only how it is implemented. That's why I'm having so much trouble with this Pancake's premise.
No disagreement with you. That's why I said, "In almost every way I find it wrong—indeed, often criminal—in how they are doing it." Whether immigration or downsizing the bureaucracy, it's the grotesque implementation that overwhelms even reasonable policies.
We Democrats have ask ourselves how we could lose to this guy, not just once but twice. My answer is that the D leadership is driven by pollsters. “If we do this we’ll get support from this small group (i.e., trans voters) and we combine it with this other small group and . . . . we’ll get enough voters to win.” The Trump leadership by contrast is focusing on a brand for the middle.
John-I think you're accurate about the Dems coalition. The Trump brand is more complicated. It is not the "middle" as we have traditionally thought about it in political terms. Although the economy seemed to be salient for many Trump voters last year, much of Trump's pull was on the cultural issues--like DEI and wokeness--that somewhat transcended political ideology. Let's keep in mind that, despite Trump's insistence he won "big," he just eeked out a popular vote majority. The battle continues to be on the margins. There's work to be done.
What’s a “10-blade”?
Guess I’ve been watching too many medical shows. It’s a type of scalpel.
Unless we as a population find ways to not vilify people who disagree we can never heal. I must confess I’m unforgiving of the complete stupidity behind some of the 2025 Trump moves but I appreciate your attempt to look at both sides of this pancake. Calling someone who disagrees a traitor is not helpful. Although sometimes calling them an idiot is to me very satisfying😂
Sue: Stupidity vs malice (or evil):
“Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease.
Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed – in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.”
― Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison
I appreciate the well thought out comments posted today.
I agree with your overall premise, Ben, but I have to quibble with your data. The argument that POC are equal (or close) economically struck me as suspect. First, if you look at wealth you get a different answer - median wealth among White households is way above the figure for Black or Hispanic households. Even looking at income, I would make two points: one, the difference in the data will be statistically significant so should not be dismissed as meaningless and, two, more importantly, you are looking at the percent in a range. I would guess that there are more Blacks at the low end of the range, and more Whites at the upper end, which would make the fact that they happen to be in the same range misleading.
You didn’t mention the Trump policy that might be the most acceptable to those who don’t support him and that is not allowing trans athletes to compete in women’s sports. Even many Dem politicians agree with that one, Moulton in your state and Newsom in CA to name two. I disagree with Trump on trans policy in general, leave them alone as far as I am concerned, but when it comes to sports it does strike me like a question of fairness.
Michael: I agree that both wealth and where one is within the middle class income scale are relevant. But the larger point is that as Black and Hispanic families are on a trajectory edging closer to white families, they are--and will over time-- adjust their political priorities closer to the breakdown of the larger whole and, again, edging away from race-based considerations. Dem's strategy needs to recognize that.
In my class on public health policy, I spend a lot of time on implementation. Why? Because the way in which policy is implemented becomes the actual policy. A policy, such as control over the Southern border, can be necessary, ethical, and legal in theory, but a disaster if not properly implemented as such. For instance, if families are separated from one another, if random individuals suddenly disappear into El Salvadoran jails, can I still agree that the policy is designed to be necessary, ethical, and legal? No--the policy is only how it is implemented. That's why I'm having so much trouble with this Pancake's premise.
No disagreement with you. That's why I said, "In almost every way I find it wrong—indeed, often criminal—in how they are doing it." Whether immigration or downsizing the bureaucracy, it's the grotesque implementation that overwhelms even reasonable policies.