Look, Connolly is one of the few old white men in the party who actually does try to fight the MAGAs, but he's old, he's sick and it's time for him to move on. No matter what Pelosi, Cummings, Schumer and others think, AOC is the future if the Democrats want to have a future. She understands both the threat the MAGAs pose and how to communicate to real, not imaginary voters. This fiasco shows us all why the Democrats lost, and may never regain, power in DC. Even f'king Gallego who saw first hand the destruction that Sinema brought with phony bipartisanship knows better but spouts the old line from the before days - not before MAGA, not before the Tea Party, before Gingrich - that the parties can work together. They can't the Republicans have seen to that. The assignment is clear - fight them at every turn and tell the f'king country why they are so damn destructive. Give Trump voters real buyers remorse, hard, strong and every damn day.
But we’re never going to a get a different response from someone who is similarly older(elderly , let’s just say it, elderly) white, and in power for a long time. Similarly - im fatigued of seeing the Clintons and the Obamas trotted out all the time. Yes, it’s good to have done occasion speaking engagements - B Clinton still has great insights - for example. They all do- but let’s move on. Really move on. And it seems we’re not going to be allowed to do that but the same people who have their claw like grip on power.
Even L Cheney wants to have her say about GOP let her do it, but she doesn’t need to have the full on embrace of the Dem party. Let her do what never trumpers do- they need to save THEIR brand and we don’t necessarily want them doing that at the expense of our brand.
Really really ready to move on from the Old Guard - and I’m a 60 yo white woman. Can only imagine how those younger than me feel when they watch this crap. If someone is elderly - they better be speaking like sanders , not some milquetoast actor no one knows and will never remember .
“Democrats, on the other hand, are terrified of what they believe the prototypical persuadable voter is. In their minds, that voter is someone who watches Fox News, has right-leaning social values, loathes the government, and thinks Democrats are a bunch of snooty anti-American elitists. Essentially, it’s a heartland conservative.”
And yet, while being terrified by that imagined voter, they play right into the hands of the right wing information infrastructure. Rather than offer messaging and policy that works, they try to avoid stepping in whatever pile is in front of them. It never works. Far better to aggressively react to every critique than fail to act or apologize immediately. Imagine if Obama had said, “yes, they are clinging to guns and religion. Here’s how we will protect both responsible gun ownership and religious freedom. You don’t have to be afraid.”
Leadership, at least, seems to be doing a pretty good job of proving the point of labor reporter, Hamilton Nolan, that while the members of the Republican party are absolutely the enemy, we can think of (many) members of the Democratic party as essentially cowards. 🫤
Wow -- that is a really powerful column, one to pull out and re-read when one's focus feels like it's slipping away a bit. Three bits jumped out at me:
"The onus is on us to give the cowards a soft path to the moral choice."
"...think of even the politicians on your own side ... as basically disreputable figures who are necessary to deal with but who should always be looked down upon and forced to prove, through action, that they are not pieces of shit."
"Our job is to get so strong and organized that the cowards will have no choice but to come along with us. The real action in politics is not in Washington. It is right where you are."
Excellently presented. The Democrats need to stop bringing ballpoint pens to a knife fight. They look ridiculous. The rules have changed. When Trump and the GOP fail, and they will, we need to point out the failure. This is where we say, “Look who destroyed the economy. Trump. And the GOP.” Don’t say to people who voted for Trump, “this is what you voted for.” People don’t like to be made wrong. Say “you put your trust in them and they betrayed you. Because that’s what they do. They betray people.”
The sooner Democrat lawmakers understand that AOC is the future of the party, then the sooner the voters will be ready to return the Democrat party to power.
I agree with some of this. But everyone ignores the obvious issue: promises bipartisanship and bill passing are what won so many Democrats a trip to Washington in the first place. In other words, it’s what voters wanted in 2018 and 2020 - otherwise we’d have more Squad members in the House. Not less.
You want to create better communicators? You have to convince Dem voters to pick candidates who place “fuck Republicans” at the top of their message. And that doesn’t really happen- even AOC still talks about policy accomplishments. So maybe the citizens should stop picking the old people they don’t want anymore for more terms in 2026.
"If perception is reality, than the House Democratic Caucus’ decision to elevate Congressman Gerry Connelly (VA-11) is further proof that the old guard is unwilling to release their reins on the party that desperately needs new direction, leadership, and spirit. ... Rep. Don Beyer’s assertion that Connelly is a “young 74” continues the sort of gaslighting that depressed and dispirited so many Democratic voters and activists earlier this year.
Don’t tell us we’re not seeing what we’re seeing."
"To put another old white guy atop a key post at the behest of a bunch of other old white Establishment types, puts paid to the idea that Democratic leadership really cares more about the type of voters in AOC’s district (which they need) and those in Connelly’s lily-white, suburban, affluent Northern Viriginia district (which they have, but maybe not for long.) ...
"The perception of the party’s distance, philosophically and economically, from the party’s base (and many swing voters) is only exacerbated by Ocasio-Cortez’s relegation. ... The longer they [the old white party establishment] endure, the harder it will become for rising stars like AOC and Minority Leader Hakeem Jefferies to truly establish themselves."
Y'all listening up there on Capitol Hill? We folks down here in the grass roots are PISSED. Long since time for y'all to GTFOOTW.
AOC’s working class views don’t sit well with multimillionaires Congress critters like Pelosi. Universal Healthcare? Antitrust enforcement? Unions? The horror!!
Failing over and over again and eventually emerging victorious only happens in fiction. The Dem leadership is living in a reality that only they inhabit. The rest of us are on our own.
nothing here left for me to add except this: one might assume the Dems understand politics. If that is the case, we must consider whose side they are really on. Schumer and apparently all the Den senators just voted for a measure that will cause the Social Security Trust Fund to run out of money six months sooner than has been predicted for years and years. Worse, the measure' called The Fairness Act, is inened to give relatively well off people extra money from SS, that they did not pay taxes for, that was designed to be an insurance supplement to the very poor. Since, unusually, there are voices out there who understand this, and it gets reported. But apparently either ALL Democratic Senators are completely ignorant of how SS works, or they are complicit in the plot to destroy it.
Amazon has it. But also here: https://billmitchell.org/blog/?p=749 or The Deficit Myth chapter 6 on SS your library should have it. Money is a legal instrument of the state and the state is the monopoly issuer. Good luck with taking it from there. Lots of talented people want us to understand how the macro economy works (we have a fiat currency so yes, its created by fiat).
Congress can always add money to the Trust Fund. Running out of money is an idealogical stance. I recommend Macroeconomics by William Mitchell, Martin Watts and Randall Wray to understand this. Page 543 is specific to SS and Medicare. The good news is there is no financial constraint unless you want to invent one.
it is very unlikely i would be able to find a copy of the book you mention. worse, it is very likely i would not agree with it.
it is hard for me to tell if you are making a serous mistake here: congress COULD add money to the Trust Fund. But that sounds like you are expecting "someone else" to pay for your groceries when you can no longer work. If you are an MMT-er you may think the money can just be created out of thin air. it can't. money is supposed to represent someting..a product or a service.. It is true that a bank or the government can create money in advance in order to faciitate the creation of goods and services not yet in existence. this only works as long a reasonable amount of such goods and services are in fact created in time for the created money to be taken up as the medium of exchange for such goods and services.
or you may be thinking the government can just tax the rich...or use the general taxes to provide the money. It could, but Social Security was designed to avoid that...because "the rich" don't want to pay for your groceries, and they have the power to keep "the government" from making them pay for you. They would pay for a lmited amount of "welfare," but always be looking for a way to cut it.
Social Security was designed to avoid all that by making it worker paid. you pay for your future groceries in the normal way..by saving your own money at interest so that you will have enough when you can no longer work to pay for your own needs.
The advantage of SS over private savings is that it can be made very secure against inflation or losses...as from bad days on the market, or even personal bad luck or lack of prudent saving. It is also a very large insurance pool so that those who for some reason are unable to save enough, even with the help of Social Security, can collect an "insurance benefit" that comes from the premiums paid by all the workers. This is where the rich can be seen to be collecting their fair share; they don't get the insurance benefit because they don't need it...they did not have the fire . But they did not know they would not have the fire, so they are willing to pay for the insurance...up to a point. The insane right would rather you gave them your moey to manage for you. That way they get the gains while you bear the risks. The insane Left wants to "make" the rich pay for your groceries. They cannot make the rich pay, and it would turn SS into welfare if they could.
If you think I am wrong, please try to expalin why...maybe tell me what your book says in a few words, so i know what you are talking about.
Paying for your own needs in advance is not an ideological stance. It is a practical way out of an ideological trap. It is not welfare, but neither does it allow the poor to just starve if they don't win the capitalist money game.
I thought I'd give it a try thinking about it from the MMT point of view. So far it looks favorable to your position. It will be a while before I think I understand it, but the most promising line right now appears to be that just prjnting the money would be much like just giving the workers a pay raise...which is fine because I had thought that increasing worker pay might be an answer to the projected Trust Fund depletion. I suggest you give it a try and see wht you come up with. Try to keep track of goods and services instead of "money"... and the effect on "inflation" (which is about money) and the effects of that on people in different circumstances. good luck and thanks for encouraging me to look beyond what i think i know.
increases in worker pay should be an automatic consequence of the "labor shortage" the enemies of SS always claim an increaseing elderly population demanding more than a smaller ratio of workers to retirees can produce "and therefore we must cut benefits or eat the old people." the enemies of SS never think beyond the first answer they get tht justifies reducing benefits.
looked up bill mitchill current blog. showed interview with him by something called "bad news..." liked him. agreed with him about everything...was not about mmt per se but history of us politics since about 1970. i still don't think mmt can be made to work in america as it is.... congress gets too much benefit by hysteria about deficit/debt. i think raising the payroll tax one tenth of one percent would be a lot easier for people to uderstand. anyway thank you for calling my attention to him.
The Dems are mostly a bunch of neoliberal fucktards. Part of the problem, not the solution.
New, new deal; Strong immigration laws and border control; Lose the identitarian BS; Highlight every screwing by the Repubs; Lose the insider trading; Stop glorifying wars of empire.
At a time when the United States is under attack by foreign and domestic enemies waging a 21st century information war to install a criminal fascist regime, Democrats are trotting out the equivalent of General Winfield Scott. It’s time to deploy 21st century leaders, not old warhorses.
Look, Connolly is one of the few old white men in the party who actually does try to fight the MAGAs, but he's old, he's sick and it's time for him to move on. No matter what Pelosi, Cummings, Schumer and others think, AOC is the future if the Democrats want to have a future. She understands both the threat the MAGAs pose and how to communicate to real, not imaginary voters. This fiasco shows us all why the Democrats lost, and may never regain, power in DC. Even f'king Gallego who saw first hand the destruction that Sinema brought with phony bipartisanship knows better but spouts the old line from the before days - not before MAGA, not before the Tea Party, before Gingrich - that the parties can work together. They can't the Republicans have seen to that. The assignment is clear - fight them at every turn and tell the f'king country why they are so damn destructive. Give Trump voters real buyers remorse, hard, strong and every damn day.
But we’re never going to a get a different response from someone who is similarly older(elderly , let’s just say it, elderly) white, and in power for a long time. Similarly - im fatigued of seeing the Clintons and the Obamas trotted out all the time. Yes, it’s good to have done occasion speaking engagements - B Clinton still has great insights - for example. They all do- but let’s move on. Really move on. And it seems we’re not going to be allowed to do that but the same people who have their claw like grip on power.
Even L Cheney wants to have her say about GOP let her do it, but she doesn’t need to have the full on embrace of the Dem party. Let her do what never trumpers do- they need to save THEIR brand and we don’t necessarily want them doing that at the expense of our brand.
Really really ready to move on from the Old Guard - and I’m a 60 yo white woman. Can only imagine how those younger than me feel when they watch this crap. If someone is elderly - they better be speaking like sanders , not some milquetoast actor no one knows and will never remember .
Yessiree!!
“Democrats, on the other hand, are terrified of what they believe the prototypical persuadable voter is. In their minds, that voter is someone who watches Fox News, has right-leaning social values, loathes the government, and thinks Democrats are a bunch of snooty anti-American elitists. Essentially, it’s a heartland conservative.”
And yet, while being terrified by that imagined voter, they play right into the hands of the right wing information infrastructure. Rather than offer messaging and policy that works, they try to avoid stepping in whatever pile is in front of them. It never works. Far better to aggressively react to every critique than fail to act or apologize immediately. Imagine if Obama had said, “yes, they are clinging to guns and religion. Here’s how we will protect both responsible gun ownership and religious freedom. You don’t have to be afraid.”
Leadership, at least, seems to be doing a pretty good job of proving the point of labor reporter, Hamilton Nolan, that while the members of the Republican party are absolutely the enemy, we can think of (many) members of the Democratic party as essentially cowards. 🫤
https://open.substack.com/pub/howthingswork/p/how-to-think-about-politics-without
Wow -- that is a really powerful column, one to pull out and re-read when one's focus feels like it's slipping away a bit. Three bits jumped out at me:
"The onus is on us to give the cowards a soft path to the moral choice."
"...think of even the politicians on your own side ... as basically disreputable figures who are necessary to deal with but who should always be looked down upon and forced to prove, through action, that they are not pieces of shit."
"Our job is to get so strong and organized that the cowards will have no choice but to come along with us. The real action in politics is not in Washington. It is right where you are."
Excellently presented. The Democrats need to stop bringing ballpoint pens to a knife fight. They look ridiculous. The rules have changed. When Trump and the GOP fail, and they will, we need to point out the failure. This is where we say, “Look who destroyed the economy. Trump. And the GOP.” Don’t say to people who voted for Trump, “this is what you voted for.” People don’t like to be made wrong. Say “you put your trust in them and they betrayed you. Because that’s what they do. They betray people.”
Waldman nails it.
The sooner Democrat lawmakers understand that AOC is the future of the party, then the sooner the voters will be ready to return the Democrat party to power.
I agree with some of this. But everyone ignores the obvious issue: promises bipartisanship and bill passing are what won so many Democrats a trip to Washington in the first place. In other words, it’s what voters wanted in 2018 and 2020 - otherwise we’d have more Squad members in the House. Not less.
You want to create better communicators? You have to convince Dem voters to pick candidates who place “fuck Republicans” at the top of their message. And that doesn’t really happen- even AOC still talks about policy accomplishments. So maybe the citizens should stop picking the old people they don’t want anymore for more terms in 2026.
Paul's on it here. As a complement, see Reed Galen's Substack yesterday: "Democrats (Still) Don't Understand the Nature of Power" (https://reedgalen.substack.com/p/democrats-still-dont-understand-the)
A few snippets:
"If perception is reality, than the House Democratic Caucus’ decision to elevate Congressman Gerry Connelly (VA-11) is further proof that the old guard is unwilling to release their reins on the party that desperately needs new direction, leadership, and spirit. ... Rep. Don Beyer’s assertion that Connelly is a “young 74” continues the sort of gaslighting that depressed and dispirited so many Democratic voters and activists earlier this year.
Don’t tell us we’re not seeing what we’re seeing."
"To put another old white guy atop a key post at the behest of a bunch of other old white Establishment types, puts paid to the idea that Democratic leadership really cares more about the type of voters in AOC’s district (which they need) and those in Connelly’s lily-white, suburban, affluent Northern Viriginia district (which they have, but maybe not for long.) ...
"The perception of the party’s distance, philosophically and economically, from the party’s base (and many swing voters) is only exacerbated by Ocasio-Cortez’s relegation. ... The longer they [the old white party establishment] endure, the harder it will become for rising stars like AOC and Minority Leader Hakeem Jefferies to truly establish themselves."
Y'all listening up there on Capitol Hill? We folks down here in the grass roots are PISSED. Long since time for y'all to GTFOOTW.
AOC’s working class views don’t sit well with multimillionaires Congress critters like Pelosi. Universal Healthcare? Antitrust enforcement? Unions? The horror!!
Failing over and over again and eventually emerging victorious only happens in fiction. The Dem leadership is living in a reality that only they inhabit. The rest of us are on our own.
And yet we love fictional characters who fail over and over again but stay in the game. Just look at Charlie Brown.
There's a sucker born every minute. ;)
nothing here left for me to add except this: one might assume the Dems understand politics. If that is the case, we must consider whose side they are really on. Schumer and apparently all the Den senators just voted for a measure that will cause the Social Security Trust Fund to run out of money six months sooner than has been predicted for years and years. Worse, the measure' called The Fairness Act, is inened to give relatively well off people extra money from SS, that they did not pay taxes for, that was designed to be an insurance supplement to the very poor. Since, unusually, there are voices out there who understand this, and it gets reported. But apparently either ALL Democratic Senators are completely ignorant of how SS works, or they are complicit in the plot to destroy it.
Amazon has it. But also here: https://billmitchell.org/blog/?p=749 or The Deficit Myth chapter 6 on SS your library should have it. Money is a legal instrument of the state and the state is the monopoly issuer. Good luck with taking it from there. Lots of talented people want us to understand how the macro economy works (we have a fiat currency so yes, its created by fiat).
Congress can always add money to the Trust Fund. Running out of money is an idealogical stance. I recommend Macroeconomics by William Mitchell, Martin Watts and Randall Wray to understand this. Page 543 is specific to SS and Medicare. The good news is there is no financial constraint unless you want to invent one.
dear Sue,
it is very unlikely i would be able to find a copy of the book you mention. worse, it is very likely i would not agree with it.
it is hard for me to tell if you are making a serous mistake here: congress COULD add money to the Trust Fund. But that sounds like you are expecting "someone else" to pay for your groceries when you can no longer work. If you are an MMT-er you may think the money can just be created out of thin air. it can't. money is supposed to represent someting..a product or a service.. It is true that a bank or the government can create money in advance in order to faciitate the creation of goods and services not yet in existence. this only works as long a reasonable amount of such goods and services are in fact created in time for the created money to be taken up as the medium of exchange for such goods and services.
or you may be thinking the government can just tax the rich...or use the general taxes to provide the money. It could, but Social Security was designed to avoid that...because "the rich" don't want to pay for your groceries, and they have the power to keep "the government" from making them pay for you. They would pay for a lmited amount of "welfare," but always be looking for a way to cut it.
Social Security was designed to avoid all that by making it worker paid. you pay for your future groceries in the normal way..by saving your own money at interest so that you will have enough when you can no longer work to pay for your own needs.
The advantage of SS over private savings is that it can be made very secure against inflation or losses...as from bad days on the market, or even personal bad luck or lack of prudent saving. It is also a very large insurance pool so that those who for some reason are unable to save enough, even with the help of Social Security, can collect an "insurance benefit" that comes from the premiums paid by all the workers. This is where the rich can be seen to be collecting their fair share; they don't get the insurance benefit because they don't need it...they did not have the fire . But they did not know they would not have the fire, so they are willing to pay for the insurance...up to a point. The insane right would rather you gave them your moey to manage for you. That way they get the gains while you bear the risks. The insane Left wants to "make" the rich pay for your groceries. They cannot make the rich pay, and it would turn SS into welfare if they could.
If you think I am wrong, please try to expalin why...maybe tell me what your book says in a few words, so i know what you are talking about.
Paying for your own needs in advance is not an ideological stance. It is a practical way out of an ideological trap. It is not welfare, but neither does it allow the poor to just starve if they don't win the capitalist money game.
sue in CO
if you are still here
I thought I'd give it a try thinking about it from the MMT point of view. So far it looks favorable to your position. It will be a while before I think I understand it, but the most promising line right now appears to be that just prjnting the money would be much like just giving the workers a pay raise...which is fine because I had thought that increasing worker pay might be an answer to the projected Trust Fund depletion. I suggest you give it a try and see wht you come up with. Try to keep track of goods and services instead of "money"... and the effect on "inflation" (which is about money) and the effects of that on people in different circumstances. good luck and thanks for encouraging me to look beyond what i think i know.
btw
increases in worker pay should be an automatic consequence of the "labor shortage" the enemies of SS always claim an increaseing elderly population demanding more than a smaller ratio of workers to retirees can produce "and therefore we must cut benefits or eat the old people." the enemies of SS never think beyond the first answer they get tht justifies reducing benefits.
looked up bill mitchill current blog. showed interview with him by something called "bad news..." liked him. agreed with him about everything...was not about mmt per se but history of us politics since about 1970. i still don't think mmt can be made to work in america as it is.... congress gets too much benefit by hysteria about deficit/debt. i think raising the payroll tax one tenth of one percent would be a lot easier for people to uderstand. anyway thank you for calling my attention to him.
Anyone waiting for any rethugliklan to make their lives better, is pissing up a rope.
The Dems are mostly a bunch of neoliberal fucktards. Part of the problem, not the solution.
New, new deal; Strong immigration laws and border control; Lose the identitarian BS; Highlight every screwing by the Repubs; Lose the insider trading; Stop glorifying wars of empire.
It ain't complicated.
As Republicans say, with a smile and a chuckle, "Democrats always bring a knife to a gunfight."
I think this is correct. The majority of voters are ignorant racists. Trying to treat them as if they were decent people will get you nowhere.
At a time when the United States is under attack by foreign and domestic enemies waging a 21st century information war to install a criminal fascist regime, Democrats are trotting out the equivalent of General Winfield Scott. It’s time to deploy 21st century leaders, not old warhorses.
Democrats have an uncanny ability to ignore