Democrats, The Government Shutdown, and the Trolley Problem

 On Sunday, November 9th, the US Senate voted 60 to 40 to pass a continuing resolution to reopen the US government, which had been closed for 40 days.  Seven moderate Democrats and one Independent joined Republicans in passing the resolution, to reach the required supermajority of 60 votes to invoke cloture and force a vote on the bill.  The resolution did not contain Democrats’ single, key demand, which was a continuation of the expanded ACA healthcare insurance subsidies for people making more than 4x the poverty level.  The expansion of ACA subsidies was enacted in 2021 as part of Biden’s American Rescue Plan Act, post-covid economic stimulus package.

When the Senate passed the continuing resolution to end the record-breaking government shutdown, Democrats across the country were outraged.  Social media exploded with withering criticism of the Senators who agreed to end the shutdown.  House Democrats, celebrities, late-night hosts and rank & file Democrats almost universally condemned the Senators for “caving” on the confrontation.  

I disagree.  From the outset, I thought that the government shutdown was ill-considered and counter-productive, likely to lead to worse outcomes than doing nothing.  I already published a post on the topic on April 14, 2025, when a government shutdown was proposed in the spring.  

For Democrats, the government shutdown was a trolley problem.  On one track were the people receiving expanded ACA subsidies, and on the other track were the people on food stamps, federal workers, citizens and business using air travel, and other government services of benefit to society.  Democrats threw the trolley switch to try to protect people on ACA subsidies, but threatening people on SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), federal employees and other Americans.  Democrats believed, wrongly, that Republicans would compromise to restore reliable air traffic, or feel a sense of responsibility to SNAP recipients and throw the switch back.

By early November, the long-term consequences of the shutdown were becoming apparent.  Approximately 3 million federal workers had not been paid for a month.  Federal services, programs, grants and data-collection were all suspended.  In particular, SNAP was suspended, with the immediate prospect that 42 million people dependent on food stamps would be without sufficient food.  And unpaid air-traffic controllers were showing their irritation by creating flight delays, causing the FAA to preemptively cancel thousands of flights, culminating in the cancellation of nearly 3000 flights on November 9th.

Democrats saw this chaos as evidence that Republicans would soon compromise on ACA subsidies.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  Republicans had absolutely no intention of giving Democrats a legislative win.  If Democrats gave just a moment’s consideration into Republicans’ options, they would have realized that the Trump administration would treat the government shutdown as an opportunity to expand authoritarian control and accelerate the dismantling of functioning government, and above all, to deny Democrats a legislative victory.  

The path forward for Republicans was clear.  First, the Trump administration would have let the shutdown persist until holiday flight travel was hopelessly snarled, and food stamp recipients were suffering malnutrition by the millions.  Then, Trump would militarize air traffic control, declaring all civilian air traffic controllers military inductees.  This would solve the air traffic crisis, and give Trump unprecedented power over private-sector air transportation.  After the chaos and uncertainty of thousands of flight cancellations, restoration of confidence in air travel would be welcomed by the traveling public.  Next, Trump would declare that Congress was derelict in its duties to provide a budget, and issue an emergency order to the Treasury to fund the military and other Republican priorities (but not food stamps).  This would be counter to Constitutional processes, but it is doubtful that the Supreme Court would rule against Trump in an extended crisis.  Third, eventually, he would convince the Republican Senate to end the filibuster, and pass a flurry of voter suppression bills, to ensure that Democrats did not win elections in 2026 or 2028.  

I’m a chess player.  In a situation of conflict, I put myself in my opponent’s shoes, and think about what my opponent is likely to do in response to my actions.  Democrats failed to do that before beginning the government shut-down.  Even a moment’s reflection from the Republican perspective would show that there was no chance in hell that Republicans would compromise with Democrats on the ACA subsidies.  Further, there was no chance that Republicans would responsibly protect SNAP recipients from the Democratic diversion of the trolley onto the track for people on food stamps.  Republicans hate social welfare programs and would celebrate the opportunity to shut down the food stamp program.  From the outset, it was apparent that the shutdown would harm marginalized people – the very people that Democrats claim to defend.

In the end, the legislation passed included a continuing resolution to fund the government at current levels through January 30, 2026.  Three appropriations bills were also passed, funding various agencies through September 30th, 2026, the end of the standard fiscal year.   SNAP benefits were among the appropriations funded through September.  Federal employees will receive back-pay, and mass firings will be reversed.  This action leaves nine more appropriations bills to be negotiated and passed by January 30th.  

The approved bill also included a provision allowing a number of Republican Senators to sue the Justice Department for invasion of privacy, in regard to the FBI investigation into the well-documented attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.  Each Senator who was investigated could receive up to $500,000 and compensation for legal fees.  This provision is controversial, even among Republicans, and House Speaker Johnson has promised a vote next week to repeal that provision.  But repeal would require another supermajority vote in the Senate and President Trump’s signature, so the repeal vote in the House is just political theater.

I think the shutdown, and the Democratic response to the shutdown, shows that today’s Democratic party has lost its heart, its soul and its collective mind in panic over Trump’s authoritarianism.  I am most disappointed that the Democratic party has completely lost sight of caring for the needs of people.  Today’s Democratic party is willing to harm people for an unrealistic hope of political gain.  Dems were foolish regarding their chances of success, and heartless in their decision on the trolley problem.  Republicans were absolutely never going to compromise on ACA, so the trolley would hit both sets of victims.

Republicans decisively won the elections in 2024, at all levels.  At this time, Democrats simply do not have the votes for constitutional resistance, and un-constitutional resistance would take the country into uncharted territory.  Democrats need to realize that when there's chaos in society, before long, citizens will be happy for an authoritarian to step in and end the chaos.  That's the real hazard of a protracted shut-down.  It would have been an opportunity for Trump to expand authoritarian control, to dismantle more of the federal government and for Republicans to put in place mechanisms to ensure permanent one-party rule.  I'm glad the eight Democratic and Independent Senators voted to restore funding.  These Senators saved the nation from a progressive disaster.

Without question, American democracy is threatened by Trumpian authoritarianism.  But we have to be smarter about the kind of resistance to Trump.  Our bulwark is the Constitution, our institutions, and our long history as a representative democracy.  We will have elections in another year, if Democrats do not provide justification for cancelling those elections.  There will be bitter fights over the mid-cycle gerrymandering, but we will still have elections.  The public can be fooled for a while, but not for long.   We will have an election for a new president in 2028, and the public will render judgment on Trump and his legacy.  I am confident that we will begin rebuilding in 2029, and build a stronger nation, based upon the values of governmental responsibility, truth, and care for our citizens.
---------
Appendix
Background for the 2025 Government Shutdown.
On October 31,, 2025, the US Federal government shut down due to a failure of Congress to pass a budget or continuing resolution to fund the government.  Republicans, with a narrow majority in both chambers, had constructed their proposed 2026 budget with no input from Democrats.  The Democrats demanded a single item to support the Republican budget – the extension of a health-insurance subsidy tied to the Affordable Care Act.  The insurance subsidy was included for low-income families in the original ACA legislation of 2010.  In 2021, a Democratically-controlled Congress expanded those subsidies, to include families making more the 4x the minimum wage.  The expanded subsidy was scheduled to expire in November 2025.  According to Google, 22 million people use the expanded subsidy to lower their insurance costs.  Online sources cast some doubt on that number, suggesting that the real number is about 11 million people.  There may be some confusion between the people receiving any ACA subsidies, and the people with relatively higher income receiving the expanded subsidy.  

On November 12, the House of Representatives passed the revised Continuing Resolution passed by the Senate, ending the eleventh government shutdown at a record 42 days. Democrats in the Senate had invoked the privilege of the filibuster to block passage of the bill for 40 days.  By Senate rules, a super-majority of 60 votes was necessary to end debate and force a vote on the bill.  Republicans had only 52 votes, with one Republican dissenter.  

By mid-November, the stakes in the conflict grew higher.  Air traffic controllers had not been paid in over a month, but were required to still work.  The controllers began slow-downs and walk-outs to put pressure on Congress to end the stalemate.  The FAA curtailed permitted flights, resulting in cancellations ranging from 1000 flights to 3000 flights per day.  Three million federal employees are not receiving paychecks.  And most importantly, 42 million Americans who receive SNAP (food stamp) benefits have stopped receiving benefits as of the beginning of the month.  There were legal battles about whether states can step in to temporarily fund the program, whether available funding should be used until depleted, and whether the federal government is permitted to make partial payments with available funds.  

The deal with Republicans funds the government through the end of January, 2026, and funding for some agencies through September, 2026.  The deal will reverse firings of federal employees during the shutdown, provide back-pay for federal employees, and fully fund SNAP through September 2026.
----
The image in this post was generated by a free on-line AI program.
References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_federal_government_shutdown#Affordable_Care_Act_subsidies

https://cei.org/blog/obamacares-subsidy-cliff-how-many-enrollees-are-actually-affected/

Thirteen Political Tribes

 The United States has become more politically polarized over the past 40 years.  Growing polarization threatens the ability of our representatives to compromise without alienating their political base, and it threatens their ability govern effectively.

The Capitol invasion of January 6^th may push Republican political divisions to the breaking point.  Similarly, divisions among Democrats will make Biden’s work more difficult, even with Democrats controlling the Presidency, with narrow majorities in the House & Senate (but not the Supreme Court).  I believe that our two-party system is on the cusp of a once-in-a-century re-organization, with traditional constituencies changing sides, and a third or fourth major party developing.

The two major parties are coalitions of a number of different constituencies, with differing socio-economic, racial, gender and geographic backgrounds.  I divided the constituencies into six Democratic tribes, six Republican tribes, and one Apolitical tribe. The differences between the tribes are potential fault lines that could fracture the two political alliances. 

Thirteen Political Tribes

The American voting system is the biggest factor binding these disparate tribes together.  Our system of partisan primaries tends to weed out moderates, and reward strong partisans.  Further, our typical plurality victory rules (“first-past-the-post”) in general elections tend to entrench the two-party system (Duverger's law, if you are interested)

The alliances that develop due to these forces are diverse.  The voting system forces alliances, and these are the alliances that evolved.  The alliances in each party do share broad sets of values, according to a dichotomy suggested by Jacob Bronowski (without a political context) in “Science and Human Values”.  Democrats prioritize values that join people into societies, and Republicans prioritize freedoms as single individuals.  But as the weighting of these values becomes more extreme, some individuals and groups are finding themselves uncomfortable within their own party and interested in change.

Here’s how I classify the diverse tribes of each party.

Democratic Party:                                                            Republican Party:
Liberal Elites                                                                       Law & Order Republicans
Angry Progressives                                                          Monied Republicans
BIPOC                                                                                   Salvation Republicans
Organized Labor                                                               NRA/Trump Bullies
LGBTQ+                                                                                Libertarians
Disengaged Young Urban Poor                                   Disengaged Rural White Poor

A thirteenth tribe is the genuinely apolitical, disengaged group.  This group is poorly informed, and fails to discern a difference between the parties.   The group ranges from homeless & working poor to other poorly informed and cynically disengaged non-voters.

Women tend to favor the Democratic Party, but curiously, do not strongly identify as a distinct political tribe, either in partisanship, or in self-identification.  Reproductive rights are an important issue to many women (and men), but it doesn't seem to unify a supermajority of women under a single banner.

There are detailed descriptions of each tribe below.  I have not based this on any scientific research or polling.  These tribes are simply based on my perception, based on people I know or have encountered through politics.  There is considerable overlap between the categories, such that Monied Republicans may also be Salvation Republicans, and Barack Obama can be classified as belonging to both the Liberal Elite tribe and the BIPOC tribe.  But I think for most voters, there will be a primary tribal allegiance.  If you are reading this, you are probably a member of the Liberal Elite tribe, centered around higher education, as I am.  Individual politicians can gain clout within their own party by representing more than one constituency.  Examples include Barack Obama, as a Liberal Elite and BIPOC, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a Latina BIPOC and Angry Progressive, Pete Buttigieg as LGBTQ+ and Liberal Elite, and Donald Trump as a Monied Republican and an NRA Bully.

The 2020 election and its aftermath showed significant movement in these core constituencies.  The Democratic Party lost vote share in Democratic stronghold districts, particularly among less than college-educated BIPOC, organized labor and young urban voters.  In Alaska, this was particularly noticeable in remote Alaska districts with majority Native Alaskan populations.  These losses were documented nationwide among BIPOC voters, and contributed to the loss of a net eleven seats in the US House, in an election that should have carried Democratic coat-tails.

Disaffected and disillusioned Republicans include the members of the Lincoln Project, Lisa Murkowski, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Colin Powell and staffers for various national figures.  Republicans lost vote share in the suburbs, particularly among women; these losses largely drove President Biden’s victory.

I framed these changes as losses, rather than gains by the opposing party, because they seem to be driven by disillusionment, rather than by attraction of the competing ideology.  Going forward, I expect party affiliations to be driven more strongly by education, as the right-wing propaganda machine continues to influence voters with lower education and news engagement.  I expect Monied Republicans to migrate to the Democratic Party, as it becomes apparent that Republican policies are slow death to business, even in a lower-tax environment.  I expect some of the Organized Labor, BIPOC, and Disengaged Urban Poor voters to migrate to the Republican Party.  Democrats can not take these loyalties for granted, and must provide representation and visibility to these constituencies to earn their allegiance.  The Republican Party’s embrace of white supremacy may help Democrats, but more must be done to actually maintain these traditional political allies.

The re-orientation of the tribes leaves some groups without a clear political home.  Libertarians who are disgusted with authoritarian Trumpist policies are not therefore inclined to become Democrats.  Likewise, Salvation and Law & Order Republicans may be prepared to leave the Republican party due to the abuses of the NRA/Trumpist Bully tribe, but will not be willing to accept legal abortion, LGBTQ+ acceptance, or BLM organizers and support.  There may be more groups choosing political disengagement, until a major re-organization occurs. 

In an environment of political disengagement, there is a greater risk that the right-wing extremist faction which coalesced under President Trump will again attempt to take power by a combination of political gains, intimidation and force.  The next decade will prove whether the American democratic republic will long endure.

--

Democrats

Liberal Elites -- Generally white, college & post-graduate education, professional, sometimes wealthy.

Urban (especially university areas) and suburban.

Loyal mainstream Democratic supporters.

Policy wonk mentality, credentialists.

Major Issues:  Reproductive choice, Climate Change, gun control, wealth inequality, social justice (but less interested than Angry Progressives and BIPOC), mixed opinions on global trade, generally anti-military spending and involvement.

Angry Progressives

Mainly younger voters

Anti-corporate, anti-capitalism.  Want change now, or better, yesterday.

Major issues: Medicare for all, climate action, green new deal, wealth inequality, social justice (intersectionality, decolonization, de-funding police, internationally isolationist, anti-global trade.

Unhappy with mainstream Democrats.

            Sometimes low-engagement voters, often don’t see differences between the major parties

BIPOC – Black, Indigenous, and People of Color, and Immigrants

Minority, usually urban (Black and Hispanic) or rural (Indigenous) voters

Loyal Democratic supporters

Want representation; are sometimes unhappy if support for Democrats is not repaid with representation.

Major issues: Community support & development, BLM, judicial and policing reform, aid to families, anti-poverty programs.  Reparation for enslavement and colonization is a growing interest.  Climate Change is a major issue for Indigenous groups.

Some alignment with Salvation Republicans on religious issues, but this is generally out-weighed by racial and ethnic issues.  Noteworthy is the rejection of Latinx identification by many Hispanic voters, who differentiate themselves by national origin. 

Labor – Middle-class and working-class families, mostly urban to suburban.

Traditionally reliable Democratic voters, but taking direction from union leadership.  In recent years, unions have been willing to shift allegiance to individual Republican state office-holders in exchange for specific concessions. 

Labor voters have much in common with Law-and-Order Republicans, in terms of income, wealth, education and attitudes toward race.  Labor voters may be easily persuaded to shift allegiance to Republicans.

Major Issues:  Union power, rights, & representation in government, union governmental contracts for pay & benefits.

LGBTQ+ – Mostly urban constituency, cutting across many other social, economic and ethnic divisions. 

Loyal Democratic voters, activists and office-holders, disproportionately politically active.  Driven by political and religious opposition, and by success in achieving equal rights in recent decades. 

Major Issues:  Civil rights and representation.  The history of LGBTQ+ repression has promoted greater empathy for other marginalized groups.

Disengaged Young Urban Poor

This constituency leans Democratic, but turnout is lowest of major voting groups.  Turnout of young voters is about half of that of elder voters, greatly hurting their political influence and policies favoring their constituency.  Generally less educated than Angry Progressives, and less partisan.  Less informed than other major voting groups, and unmotivated to vote, due to feelings of futility.  Some overlap with BIPOC group.

 

Republican

Law-and-Order Republicans—This is the Republican mainstream.

Suburban to rural, generally middle-class to working-class white, thrifty homeowners.  Includes military and police families, and many older white citizens; mostly suburban to rural, somewhat more men than women. This group is centered around respect for official authority and national symbols – police, military, flag and anthem.  They give these things almost religious significance, such that criticism of them is considered sacrilege.  This group values conformity, obedience and self-reliance.  Patriotism and tradition are highly valued.  This group is generally Christian and white.  There is large overlap with Salvation Republicans, but with different weighting of religious and authoritarian values. 

These are loyal Republican voters and exclusive consumers of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and conventional right-wing media.

Major Issues:  Low taxes, Defense, tough police and judiciary, conservative social policies, anti-immigration, anti-science, anti-diversity, anti-Democratic Party.

Salvation Republicans—Evangelical Christians, often attending megachurches.

Mostly white, suburban middle-class families, ranging from young to old.

This is a sub-set of Law-and-Order Republicans, but with a distinct primacy of religious issues and outlook.   Other aspects of authoritarian outlook are the same as the Law-and-Order group, including police, military and nationalism.  Their top issues are abortion, LGBTQ+ discrimination, sexual constraints and other issues regarded as matters of religious liberty.

Monied Republicans – Urban and suburban White, wealthy.

White, wealthy, highly educated families with high-school & college-aged children, to middle-aged and elderly retirees.  Wealth ranges from a few million dollars to billionaires.  The wealthiest live near large urban financial center, while moderately wealthy may live near any urban center.  Primarily motivated by self-interest, Monied Republicans support low personal income taxes, low taxes on capital returns, low inheritance taxes and low business income taxes.  Also motivated by a relaxed business regulatory environment, and the concept of small government (and low taxes).  Monied Republicans have much in common with Liberal Elites, and less in common with other Republican tribes.  The main difference between Liberal Elites and Monied Republicans is a matter of personal values, rather than demographics.  As a consequence, many families in the white, wealthy world are sharply divided by political differences.

NRA/Trump Bullies – Mostly male, white rural gun owners.

White, young-to-middle aged, rural to suburban, lower-to-middle class working men.  NRA/Trump Bullies are united by a common culture with symbolic identification – pickup trucks, guns, other rural symbols.  The primary political orientation is simply hatred of liberals and Democrats.  Individualism is the primary value, and rejection of social responsibility and government.  Active on social media, and devoted followers of right-wing and alternative media ranging from Fox News, OAN, News Max, InfoWars and QAnon.  This group is the most likely to be influenced by conspiracy theories.  President Trump made significant progress in winning the exclusive loyalty to his person, rather than to the party as a whole.  This is clearly dangerous with a leader who is unconstrained by regard for rules, laws or tradition, and a group with an inclination toward threats and violence. 

Libertarians – Mostly white, male, well-educated iconoclasts and non-conformists.

Libertarians are mostly well-educated, young to middle-aged urban-to-suburban working men.  Generally well-informed but cynical about government and politics, they have a weak allegiance to the Republican party because of Republican individualistic values and rejection of social responsibility.  Generally not aligned with Republican religious values or authoritarian policies. 

 

Apolitical Disengaged

Apolitical  – Urban working poor to homeless; includes other poorly informed or cynically disengaged non-voters.  Unlikely to participate in elections without significant voter outreach. 

 

References:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-five-wings-of-the-republican-party/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-there-are-so-few-moderate-republicans-left/

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/16/21012672/bernie-sanders-2020-political-science-house

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/koch-network-and-republican-party-extremism/035F3D872B0CE930AF02D7706DF46EEE

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/state-capture-9780190870799?cc=us&lang=en&

https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/junejulyaugust-2017/tribalists-and-ideologues/

The Republican Dilemma

I posted this last night, 10/23/2017, around midnight Alaska time.  This morning, Senator Jeff Flake, R - Arizona, announced he "would not be complicit", and that he would not seek re-election.

Senator Bob Corker and Donald Trump

Republicans have a problem.  For two decades, Republicans have relied on inflammatory populist themes to motivate their base, to encourage donations, and to win elections.  These themes, taken together, define what it means to be a modern American conservative: ever-lower taxes; cuts to government programs for the poor; authoritarian nationalism, with support for military and police; opposition to immigrants, Latinos, Muslims and blacks; opposition to gay rights; opposition to abortion; adoption of Religious-Right Christian principles in government; aggressive foreign policy; opposition to any restrictions on guns; denial of climate change and any remedial policies; and uncompromising opposition to any program favored by Democrats.

Those themes resonated strongly with conservative voters.  The message, particularly uncompromising opposition to Democrats, was reinforced by a relentless propaganda campaign by right-wing media, notably Fox News and Breitbart.  That campaign put every story through a political lens, and produced a seriously distorted world-view that was accepted as fact by conservative voters.  The range of stories lost any sense of being grounded in truth; rather, the only measure of news was how well it confirmed conservative biases.  Confirmation bias is extremely powerful at strengthening existing beliefs.  Social media played a part, too, producing an echo-chamber feedback that pushed conservatives to ever-more extreme positions.  Conservatives also became more extreme in their opposition to Democrats.

The problem is that voters elected a President who will actually do the things they promised.

The Republican Dilemma. 

Here is the Republican Dilemma in a nutshell.  The issues that Republicans used to rile and galvanize their base are largely nonsense, and thoughtful Republicans knew that these policies would be destructive, bad government.  There are a number of thoughtful and prominent Republicans – John McCain, Ben Sasse, Jeb and George W. Bush, and media commentators like Joe Scarborough and David Frum, who have disavowed major parts of the Trump administration’s program.  Moderate Republicans Pat Tiberi, Dave Reichert, Charlie Dent, and Bob Corker have all announced plans to leave Congress, citing frustration with current policies.  These thoughtful Republicans sat silent while right-wing media ballyhooed far-right issues because it brought in votes, and helped the party win elections.  But the Republican Party has now elected high officials, including the president, who actually believe the nonsense spouted daily on Fox News, and are intent on enacting these policies as the law of the land.  Thoughtful Republicans are frightened. 

During the Obama administration, Republicans could easily disparage the five-nation treaty with Iran which dismantled that country’s nuclear program.  They knew that their criticism would not endanger the deal.  The alternatives – to either allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon within 18 months, or to start World War III – did not have to be taken seriously.  Now, with a bellicose and erratic president, they have to seriously consider the possibility that the aggressive actions they’ve recommended for years will actually result in a major war, possibly a nuclear war or World War, involving North Korea, China, Russia, as well as Iran.  I consider it likely that any first strike by the United States on North Korea or Iran will be met with aggressive actions by China and Russia, although not necessarily in the same theater.  China may invade Taiwan; Russia may invade Ukraine and the Baltic republics.  Both will almost certainly support and arm America’s enemies around the globe: Iran, North Korea, possibly Venezuela, the Taliban and terrorist organizations. 

The same thing holds for less crucial issues.  Republicans, while publicly denying Climate Change, ensured that NASA’s climate-monitoring programs were funded through the Congressional budget process.  But they are now faced with a President who is unlikely to perform those programs.  Republican fiscal conservatives are faced with a President who is demanding major tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations, cuts that will drastically increase the nation’s debt.  The have a President who is determined to build a wall on the border with Mexico, that is vehemently opposed by Mexicans and most Americans.  They have a President who is determined to sever international trade deals, which will cripple the international supply chains of America’s major manufacturing companies. 

We have a sitting Secretary of State who has openly called the President a “f**king moron”, and a leading Senator who says that the White House is “adult day care”, and only a handful of officials “separate the country from chaos”.   A former Republican President and a former Republican Presidential candidate have sharply repudiated the administration’s policies.  Republicans have a President and a political base that are ready for the Party to do all of the things it has promised for many years.  And I believe that serious, thoughtful Republicans in the party must be terrified.  

-------------------------------------

References:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-governs-by-disruption--and-overloads-all-the-circuits/2017/10/14/d28df604-b100-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html?utm_term=.bc6a4c15143a

Trump governs by disruption.  Takes actions promised during campaign, regardless of impacts.  Acts like a tyrant, pushing criticism and pain to all who oppose him.
Promised to dismantle government, and is doing it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/10/14/its-not-my-war-this-is-our-war-bannon-threatens-mcconnell-corker-and-gop-incumbents/

Bannon declares war on establishment GOP

https://theintercept.com/2017/10/18/is-there-a-more-dangerous-member-of-congress-than-tom-cotton/

Trump listens to the most extreme views; whatever gives him confirmation bias to his populist preconceptions.  Tom Cotton epitomizes conservative trolls on the Internet, who cherry-pick bits and pieces of information to refute sound arguments based on deeper fundamental analyses.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/19/full-text-george-w-bush-speech-trump-243947

Text of George W. Bush’s speech at the Spirit of Liberty event in New York.  Bush’s speech rebuked the populist “America First” theme of the Trump administration, and the inflammatory anti-immigrant rhetoric the president has used to rally his base.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/us/politics/tiberi-republican-resign-ohio.html

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/356194-ohio-republican-announces-plans-to-leave-congress

Moderate Republicans Pat Tiberi, Dave Reichert, Charlie Dent, and Bob Corker have announced plans to leave Congress, in what is seen as a sign of frustration with the administration and far-right wing of the party. 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/15/politics/bob-corker-donald-trump-timeline-relationship/index.html

Timeline of deteriorating relationship between Bob Corker and Donald Trump.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/10/what_we_know_about_russia_s_use_of_american_facebook_twitter_and_google.html

Up to 10 million Americans saw paid Russian ads on Facebook.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/technology/ct-russian-twitter-account-tennessee-gop-20171018-story.html

Russian Twitter accounts received wide distribution and exposure through traditional media. 

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-congress-tax-cuts-20171011-story.html

Republican tax plans already face opposition.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/10/16447276/bob-corker-trump-world-war-iii

Retiring Senator Corker is voicing doubts about Trump that are held by other Republicans, but only spoken in private. 

Hard Lessons for Democrats

You have to win elections.

Resistance is (mostly) futile.  Winners set policy, nominate judges, direct agencies, define our government and set the direction for the country.  Losers march in the streets.  For the progressive agenda to succeed, it is necessary to win elections.  The time and energy being put into marches and protests would be better spent in organizing campaigns for the next election.

The Progressive Agenda

The progressive agenda is more important than any individual candidate.

The political agenda of the progressive movement is more important than any individual candidate.  The Democratic National Committee became enamored with the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, then risked – and lost – the progressive agenda in the attempt to elect her.

Corruption

Don’t run corrupt candidates.

It is not acceptable to run a corrupt candidate, or a candidate with a reputation of being corrupt.

Hillary Clinton developed a well-deserved reputation for corruption in her earliest days as First Lady of Arkansas*.  Hillary and Bill Clinton accumulated over $150 million dollars in sixteen years after Bill Clinton left office from speaking fees alone.  Hillary Clinton collected over $20 million of this total in between the time she served as Secretary of State, and before she officially campaigned for President.  This pile of money places the Clintons in the 99.9^th percentile of American families by wealth.

To amass so much wealth as a consequence of holding public office is simply not acceptable.  Holding high public office in America should not be a springboard to immense wealth.  It invites corruption, and carries the appearance of corruption.  The Clintons and their supporters may feel that these earnings are justified, but to the American public, “Speaking Fee” is just another term that means “bribe”.

*  See my previous blog post, “Why Hillary Lost”.  http://debatablypolitical.blogspot.com/2016/12/willful-self-destruction-democratic.html

Popularity

Don’t run disliked candidates.  Didn’t anyone run a focus group on Hillary Clinton?

Especially, don’t run a candidate disliked among your own party members.  I do not understand why Hillary Clinton was the Democratic candidate for President.  I don’t understand why she was given development posts of Senator and Secretary of State.  Didn’t anybody in the party run a focus group?   From the 1990s, Hillary Clinton was extraordinarily disliked by Republicans, and generally disliked by men of her own party.  The party should have realized that she was a weak candidate very, very early.  Her development assignments as a candidate blocked the potential development of other, more electable candidates.  I fault the party, Barack Obama, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and Hillary Clinton herself for advancing a failing candidacy, and losing the progressive agenda.

Losing Issues

Don’t run on losing issues.

Gun control is a losing political issue.  You should realize that every time you talk about gun control, you lose elections.  When you lose elections, you set your entire agenda back by decades.  In the 1990s, the country appeared to be approaching a consensus on gun control.   A distinct majority favored some restrictions on guns.  But there existed (and exists) a fervent minority which opposes any restrictions on guns.  That minority contributed substantially to the Republican Party in donations, energy and volunteer hours, and defeated the Democrats in the 1996 Congressional elections.  Republicans overturned 40 years of unbroken Democratic control of the House of Representatives on this single issue.  And as any single issue could have turned the 2016 election, the gun control issue lost again for the Democrats in the 2016 presidential election. 

Look – you hate guns.  I hate guns.  Guns kill about 30,000 Americans every year, with about 2/3 due to suicide.  There are many, many preventable deaths due to guns.  But Democrats do not win elections when they campaign for gun control.  The next time there is another atrocity due to guns, the Democratic leadership should simply say, “We are waiting for the Republicans to propose safeguards to prevent a recurrence of this tragedy.”  Put it on the Republicans, and leave it.

Competitiveness

Compete in Every Race

It is necessary for the Democratic Party to have a national presence in every race, and in every domain – in government, in culture, and in information.  The Party (or the Progressive movement) must compete on message everywhere, and cannot cede territory anywhere.

You have to have candidates running in every race at every level, if you are to compete on message everywhere.  And the message must be the moral rightness of progressive policies – towards ourselves, our neighbors, around the world and to generations yet unborn.

It is necessary to have a strategy for rural states.  Our system is biased to give sparsely populated states disproportionate power.  That’s the way the system works, and you have to win the Electoral College.   You have to convince voters in those states of the rightness of your cause.

Candidate Development

You must develop promising young candidates.

Early in the 2016 campaign, I made a list of prominent Democrats with national name recognition, looking for an alternative to Hillary Clinton.   I was surprised to find that there are very few young, prominent Democrats.  Here’s my list.

Dianne Feinstein	81
Jerry Brown	77
Patrick Leahy	75
Harry Reid	75
Nancy Pelosi	75
Michael Bloomberg	74
Barbara Boxer	74
Bernie Sanders	73
Joe Biden	72
Edward Markey	68
Tom Udall	66
Elizabeth Warren	65
Charles Schumer	64
Al Franken	63
Andrew Cuomo	57
Corey Booker	45

The list of nationally prominent Democrats younger than 55 should be longer than one name.  You have to organize to produce, develop and fund those candidates.  I am convinced that the Republican Party has been grooming candidates for the US Senate for at least two decades, starting with bright students at ivy-league universities.  Senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska is one product of the system, as is author J.D. Vance, future Senator from Ohio.  Democrats have been woefully inadequate in vetting, grooming, or funding potential candidates. 

Winning Opposition Voters

1.        Break the Republican Block

Republicans have a solid hold on their voting base.  The loyalty is almost tribal or religious.  This tribal loyalty is aligned to a political paradigm of beliefs, which are so deeply entrenched that they defy fact-checking.  Disdain of Democrats is firmly entrenched in the paradigm and reinforced by conservative media.  As long as the Republican block is intact, it will be very difficult for Democrats to govern, even when they are elected to the highest offices, as we learned from Barack Obama’s tenure as president.  I don’t know how to break the Republican voter block, but it is necessary to win elections and govern with a progressive agenda.

It is difficult to reconcile some progressive values with the values of conservative voters.  The difficult issues are abortion, guns, religion, and sexual identity.  The progressive movement must lead, but not be so far ahead that voters do not follow.  The progressive movement successfully led the country to acceptance of gay marriage.  The acceptance of transgender bathroom access may have been a bridge too far.  You don’t lead anybody if you don’t win elections.  Democrats must think very carefully about the policy compromises which are necessary to reconstruct a winning, dominant coalition.

2.       Break the Republican Paradigm

Republican voters hold a set of beliefs as a self-evident set of truths with almost religious devotion.  [So do Democrats, but that is a different discussion.]  These beliefs are enshrined as conservative principles, repeated frequently and given a revered, unquestioned status.  Here is an incomplete list:

Taxes are too high.

The taxpayer shouldn’t have to pay for anything that doesn’t directly benefit him.

The free market is the answer to everything.

Government is the source of our problems.

Government doesn’t do anything well.

Welfare recipients (blacks & Latinos) are just lazy, and welfare keeps them dependent on assistance.

Welfare is the reason our government runs deficits.

Blacks and Latinos are violent people and account for most of our crime.

We should lock up anyone who breaks laws, and keep immigrants out to keep our country pure.

Muslims are very violent people who have no place in our country.

Christianity is the true religion of our country, and Christianity should be the foundation of our laws, our courts, and our schools.

Abortion should be banned.

Gun ownership is the foundation of our freedom.

Sexual conduct outside of marriage is sinful; birth control is a woman’s problem.

Unorthodox sexuality is deviant and should be repressed.

Women should play a traditional role in society, raising children and keeping the home.

There is not enough discipline among young people.

The military and the police should be honored and glorified.

A strong military response is the answer to all of our problems of foreign relations.

Science is not to be trusted; scientists are just after money.

Democrats (aka liberals, feminists, libtards, warmies, snowflakes, etc.) are misguided and evil.

The news media is liberal and lying to us.

The lands, oceans and environment exist to be used, and to be exploited for profit.

We don’t need foreign trade; foreigners are just stealing from us.

These views, whether spoken or unspoken, exist as a monolithic paradigm in the minds of conservatives.  To win elections, it is necessary to get votes, and to get votes, it is necessary to change the hearts and minds of the people who hold these beliefs.  It may be an impossible task, when they reject the bases for changing beliefs – news and evidence-based truth.  But changing hearts and minds is the core challenge for Democrats. 

It is necessary to portray Democrats in a positive light to conservative voters.  It is necessary to project a message that appeals to both a higher morality and self-interest.  Teddy Roosevelt did this in portraying conservation as protecting the environment as the inheritance of our children.  Bill Clinton successfully crafted a message of improving the economy through business/government partnership.

It may be necessary to rename, rebrand, or redefine the mission of the Democratic party to gain a clear national majority.  It will be necessary to get rid of the older leadership of the party (Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders, step down!).  Every older leader without future potential, from "safe" Democratic districts, is blocking the development of a future Democratic leader.

Fight Propaganda

Find a way to discredit FOX News, Breitbart, OAN, Rush Limbaugh and right-wing radio

There has been a frightening change in society in the past 20 years.  News media and politicians have abandoned any pretense of objectivity and freely spout falsehoods for political gain.  Credulous partisans unquestioningly accept the pronouncements of their chosen oracles.  Conservative television and radio outlets spew lies by distortion, innuendo, omission, misdirection, and outright falsehood.  Liberal media cover only those stories supportive of their political orientation.  Conservative voters discredit genuine news organizations (“the mainstream media”) as liberal and partisan.  Likewise, the Trump administration has labeled the most responsible news organization in the country as fake news, in the way that authoritarian regimes have always discredited the news media.  And voters of both sides develop distorted world views through confirmation bias. 

Perhaps the most difficult tasks for the progressive movement is to find a way to combat conservative propaganda.  Conservatives have “weaponized” propaganda a key part of their political campaign, and liberals have found no answer for this tactic.   The claims by conservative media are objectively, demonstrably false, but it doesn’t matter.  Democrats need to find an compelling way to drive a wedge between conservatives and their propaganda, but I don’t know how to do that.  Fact-checking (Snopes) is ineffective; alternatively-biased media (MSNBC) isn’t helpful; and truthful media (NYT) are ignored.  Somehow, Democrats need to find a way to better fight the misinformation war.

Conclusion

The Failed Enlightenment of the Obama presidency

History lurches from periods of enlightenment to dark ages.  From 500 BC to 400 BC, ancient Athens produced more science, philosophy, governmental theory, art, and literature than the rest of the western world for the next 1000 years.  But every period of enlightenment has eventually ended, and our period of enlightenment, the longest in history, will also someday end. 

In a smaller sense, the country goes through periods of enlightenment and dark ages.  Teddy Roosevelt’s presidency was a time of enlightenment, when workers’ rights were recognized, consumer protections established, and national forests and parks were created to preserve the environment.  The Taft administration that followed rolled back many of those gains.

The Obama administration was a failed enlightenment due to a combination of political opposition, misplaced priorities, errors in foreign policy, and failure to establish a winning succession.  Democrats are now facing their weakest political position in two generations, and the Trump presidency threatens to be a dark age of at least four years, and possibly something considerably worse.

The work in front of us is to correct the problems and reverse the political winds that led to this defeat.  It will not be an easy task.  We need to do more than simply build a narrow winning electoral margin.  A reformation of the party is needed.  Democrats need to win the respect and votes of a completely dominant majority to govern well and lead to the next enlightenment.