|
 |
If you enjoy this preview, I hope you’ll consider upgrading to a paid subscription, for access to everything we do.
Alternatively, if you don’t have or want a Substack account, you can keep Off Message going with a donation. All support is appreciated, but donations of $75 or larger come with a comped annual subscription—all content unlocked and emailed to the address provided.
You make Off Message possible. Thanks again.
 |
Apologies to subscribers. The week more or less got away from me, starting with mild jet lag, then in seeing Mrs. Off Message through minor surgery, and finally a chest cold I picked up in Santiago or on the journey home.
Regular programming should resume next week—just in time to wind down for the holidays again.
Now to questions.
Michael: It’s really hard to have conversations about the flaws in the Democratic Party without talking about the “Democratic Party” or “the Democrats” as though they are a uniform entity with agency and decision-making power. But that is often not the case. Did “the Democrats” (through some sort of no doubt shady and rigged process) nominate Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020, or did Democratic primary voters nominate them via a free and fair primary election? Did “the Democrats” cave in the shutdown fight or did 8 Democratic Senators cave in the shutdown fight?
When does it make sense to attribute agency to the Democratic Party as a whole and when does it not make sense?
Good question. There are of course times when dissident or maverick actors in a party go rogue in ways that affect the whole party, but don’t really represent it. John McCain thumbs-downing ACA repeal is a canonical example: There may have been a handful of deluded or dishonest right-wing malcontents who blamed “Republicans” for not repealing Obamacare, but really it was one guy who happened to be the deciding vote.
Collective blame becomes more and more apt, at least in the legislative context, when seemingly rogue actors are actually fall-guys for others in their party.
In 2021 and 2022, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema aligned first against abolishing the filibuster, then again to scale Joe Biden’s Build Back Better plan way back. In the latter case, I think the obstinacy was mostly contained to the two of them, and more to Manchin than to Sinema. But when they killed filibuster reform, they were providing cover for a larger group of Senate Democrats who didn’t want to be caught betraying the base.
That’s around where it becomes reasonable to say “Democrats” failed. Was it a large group of legislators? Did the leadership have their back? That’s “the party,” not a small group of rogue Dems. The recent government shutdown cave belongs in this category. Yes, a mere eight members took the hit. But Chuck Schumer knew what was up. He didn’t try to stop it. He faced no leadership challenge. Most nominally pro-shutdown members seemed relieved rather than angry. Again, that’s “the party.”
Primary election outcomes are fuzzier still, because the ultimate responsibility lies with voters. But “the party” really does still decide to a large degree. Voters generally take cues from political leaders. They’re not quite as pliant as, say, grand jurors, so we can’t chalk their decisions up entirely to party elites the way we can blame Trump prosecutors for indicting James Comey. But elite impact is often clear.
Joe Biden was on his way to losing the 2020 primary badly, until party elites consolidated around him in South Carolina to block Bernie Sanders. I don’t think they did anything particularly nefarious—what else are parties for?—but I do think it’s fair to say (and quite obviously true) that “the Democrats” preferred Biden to Sanders and went to great lengths to help him win. By contrast, “the Democrats” really wanted Conor Lamb to be their 2022 Senate candidate in Pennsylvania, but Democratic primary voters told them to pound sand and nominated John Fetterman instead. Oops.
2016 is a bit less clear cut, because there was never a huge, open field, and few Dem elites saw Sanders’s insurgency coming. The hidden hand of “the Democrats” there was in flocking to Clinton early in the hope of avoiding a competitive primary altogether. It’s again quite clear that she was “the party’s” choice. If leaders from Barack Obama on down had taken a more laissez-faire approach from the outset, the world might look very different today.
So that’s how I see it: Were party leaders or their proxies on board with what happened? Then it’s fair to lay it at the feet of “the Democrats.” Were party leaders and their proxies upset by what happened? Then someone else or some other group seized the initiative.
Ellis Weiner: Everyone, from Trump on down, seems to hate Vance. When Trump goes (whatever “goes” means), what do you think will happen? If Trump is still in office, Vance will have to assume the presidency, but then what? He’ll be the lamest of ducks, I guess. But will the GOP even pretend to rally behind him--him, and Thiel and the oligarch bros? With their attitude of not-even-pretending-to-respect-democracy? Am I wrong to think they keep painting themselves further and further into a corner?
Trump’s omnipresence is the thing holding the GOP together, which is why, as he becomes more unpopular, everything starts to creak. A few MAGA loyalists turn on him. Then they start turning on each other. More still vent their frustrations with Trump by attacking people like Mike Johnson or Kristi Noem or whoever happens to be the fall guy de jour.
This dynamic arises because Republican voter loyalty is overwhelmingly to Trump, rather than to the institutions of the Republican Party (whatever those are now). When Trump becomes less popular, that’s reflected in him dipping from like 95 percent GOP support to 85 percent GOP support. Corporate elites might kowtow to him out of greed or fear of reprisal, but they only walk with him to the extent that they view him as the face of the broader culture. They go where money is, and the money is increasingly with us.
Republican voters, by contrast