Noting a shift in some of the rhetoric we are hearing from both parties, I tried to explain it at New York:
Earlier this week, I got an unusual communication from a member of the White House press corps who wondered if I had inspired Joe Biden’s use of the term ultra-MAGA for Rick Scott’s wildly right-wing 2022 agenda for Republicans. I owned up to contriving the term in an effort to describe Scott’s combination of Trumpian rhetoric with Goldwater-era policy extremism. But I had no idea if Biden or someone in his circle read my piece and decided to borrow the neologism or (more likely) came up with it independently for parallel reasons.
Biden hasn’t just hit Scott with “ultra-MAGA”; in the same speech, he also referred to Trump himself as “the great MAGA king.” And Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has taken to railing against “MAGA Republicans” as well.
So Democratic leaders are now saying “MAGA” (Make America Great Again) where they would have once used “right wing” or “ultraconservative” or even “wingnut.” This appeared to be a strategic decision, not just a verbal tic or a tossed-off insult. And indeed, on Friday, the Washington Post reported that the rhetorical shift is the result of a six-month research project led by Biden adviser Anita Dunn and the Center for American Progress Action Fund:
“The polling and focus group research by Hart Research and the Global Strategy Group found that “MAGA” was already viewed negatively by voters — more negatively than other phrases like ‘Trump Republicans.’
“In battleground areas, more than twice as many voters said they would be less likely to vote for someone called a ‘MAGA Republican’ than would be more likely. The research also found that the description tapped into the broad agreement among voters that the Republican Party had become more extreme and power-hungry in recent years.”
Despite the potential liabilities, usage of “MAGA” and its variants has been spreading in Republican ranks as well — and the trend began even before Trump decided he liked Biden’s insult and started posting MAGA King memes on Truth Social. For example, Steve Bannon referred to Pennsylvania Senate candidate Kathy Barnette’s rivalry with the Trump-endorsed Mehmet Oz as “MAGA vs. ULTRA-MAGA.” The former Trump adviser was using “ULTRA-MAGA” as a compliment; in his eyes, Barnette is deeply devoted to The Cause, while the TV doctor is most palpably devoted to self-promotion.
So why is this happening now? And is the greater embrace of the term on both the right and the left just a coincidence? I don’t think so.
Democrats really need to make the 2022 midterm elections comparative rather than the usual referendum on the current occupant of the White House, who is held responsible for whatever unhappiness afflicts the electorate, which is reflected in Biden’s chronically low job-approval ratings. They also need to find a way to motivate elements of the Democratic base to vote in November, which isn’t easy because (a) Democratic constituencies (particularly young people) rarely vote in proportional numbers in non-presidential elections without extreme provocation, and (b) many base voters are “unenthusiastic” about voting thanks to disappointment over the limited accomplishments Biden and his congressional allies have chalked up since taking control of Washington.
The tried-and-true bogeyman who could help make 2022 comparative because he continues to meddle in politics and threaten a comeback is, of course, Trump. The specter of his return could be especially scary to young voters, whose unusually high 2018 turnout was attributable to their loathing for the 45th president. So it behooves Democrats to remind voters as often as possible that the Republican candidates who are on the ballot this November are surrogates for the Great Orange Tyrant. And invoking the red-hat symbolism of MAGA is an efficient way to do that. “Ultra-MAGA” suggests there are Republicans who are Trumpier than Trump, like Scott. The whole GOP, we can expect Biden to regularly suggest between now and November, is crazier than a sack of rats and getting crazier by the minute. That’s more important than the price of gasoline at any given moment.
For similar reasons, in intra-Republican politics, the MAGA brand is legal tender among the majority of GOP voters who turn to Mar-a-Lago for direction the way that flowers turn toward the sun. Wearing the red hat or referring to themselves as “MAGA warriors” is a way for Republican politicians to show a particular attachment to Trump. And ultra-MAGA is essential for candidates like Barnette who follow the Trump agenda slavishly but don’t have the Boss’s actual endorsement for whatever reason. It’s also a handy way for ambitious right-wing politicians to suggest there is a cause that will survive Trump’s own career and will indeed flourish under their own leadership. MAGA works a lot better as a symbol of Trumpism Without Trump than such debatable and obscure terms as national conservatism or conservative populism. When he goes after Mickey Mouse with a claw hammer, Ron DeSantis is definitely ultra-MAGA, especially compared to such damaged goods as Mike Pence, who is merely MAGA or even ex-MAGA.
So get used to it. Until we get a better fix on how to describe the ideology of the followers of Donald Trump, both they and their political opponents are likely to keep relying on the MAGA brand, which now means more than the nostalgia for the white patriarchy of yore that Team Trump probably had in mind when it came up with the slogan to begin with. If Trump runs for president in 2024, he’ll have to decide whether his slogan will be “Make America Great Again, Again” (as he has already redubbed his super-PAC) or something else. But for now, everybody pretty much knows it means one person’s dream and another’s nightmare.
Well, barring an Al Quaida sideshow, then Kerry has it pretty much sown up..
However, I tend to think that even if the Bin Ladin clan staged an event, the Kerry crew still has a hope. I personally believe that desparate times, require desparate action and as such, any event by Al Quaida should drive the DEMs into stating in no uncertain terms that the ability of Al Quaida to successfully stage an event 2 -3 years after Bush was given a mandate to secure the nation, is living proof of his inability to get the job done. As such, he is leaving all of america and he people vulnerable and open to further humiliation, global embarrasment, open fear and general suffering.
This is the tact that would have to be used in order the right side up the cart. Any other apporach would be too weak and would lead to a Bush victory. The DEMS need to prepare for this eventuality and dont put it past the GOP to latch onto such an event for political gains.
> He can’t
> count on the economy because its heading down
> hill at a rapid rate.
Well, at *best*, the record will be mixed — but I think Kerry already has enough fuel to keep the economic fire burning through Nov. 2 even if “Shrub” gets lucky from now on. There is supposedly an old rule saying an incumbent needs half a year of good news on the economy to convince voters they’ve turned the corner. I don’t think a temporary upswing in new jobs created this fall will do the trick — particularly since fuel prices are expected to remain high for the rest of the year.
> He cant count on being a war president because
> that was is yet to produce results.
Maybe the Afghani elections will turn out to be smashing success, but I would not exactly count on that either. As you say, Iraq will remain bad for the foreseeable future.
—
I think the Administration’s best bet might be in the “lost and found” category. Found! WMD evidence, at last. Found! bin Laden and Al-Zarqawi(sp). The latter isn’t such a big stretch, but even Saddam’s capture didn’t cause a lasting bounce.
> It seems to me that his only hope is to smear
> kerry to the ground and role him in the dirt,
Won’t work… Kerry/Edwards and their base (which is angry as hell, as am I) have made a conscious effort to put on a positive face. Their message is patriotic, positive in tone and generally upbeat — the 527s are doing the Dems’ dirty work for Kerry. It will be pretty hard for “Shrub” and “Right Wing Dick” to launch a smearing campaign after the Boston convention. Incumbent presidents have rarely done that at such a late stage in the campaign.
> along with getting his rank and file to rally
> around the waggon and get every possible
> republican and wannabe republicans to vote.
Probably their best bet, I agree about that. However, this means pandering to the extreme religious right at every opportunity. Doesn’t seem like a workable strategy as Kerry/Edwards are working very hard at wooing centrist voters abandoned by the GOP!
> ofcourse, miraculous PR and advertising is
> always there and the GOPs would use it…
No. Emotional spin about Willie Horton, gay marriage, flag burning, liberal flip-flopping etc. work only if the playing field is essentially level and if the GOP candidate has no negative baggage from the past. This is why the Bushes won in 1988 and 2000. Kerry would have been toast if he had tried to run as well. But 2004 is different since most voters really are only interested in the incumbent president’s track record. And that track record looks pretty bad right now, in so many areas.
—
Apart from Kerry self-destructing in the debates, there is one major wild-card though. Al Qaeda might want to keep its “useful idiot” good-enemy American president in power, by staging another major attack killing thousands of Americans. Unless it turns out the Administration really screwed up homeland defense before 9/11 pt.II (a distinct possibility, alas), it’s bound to deflect negative attention away from “Shrub”. Don’t forget he *was* quite effective as a cheerleader in late 2001, when his approval ratings were in the 80-90% range (a boost of 40-50%). It could conceivably happen again — especially since Kerry would have little choice but to suspect campaigning and voice his unconditional support of the Admininstration’s policies.
MARCU$
I hope someone with status will get the courage really soon to declare that Bush’s terror announements are 80 percent politricks and 20 percent concern about American safety.
Someone mentioned that if Al Quaida pulls off an event before the elections that it will play directly into Bush’s hand and the country will rally behind him. Personally I tend to agree with that but only if the DEMS allow it to be this way.
Actually, well marketed and laced with good PR, any event of such a nature can be billed as a catastrophic failure of Bush to secure the country after 2 – 3 years of skirting and politicising the issue.
Truth be told, it would be the absolute truth because he had the time and pretty much the budgets to get the job done. So, if this event does happen, I hope that the opposition, who ever they are, is ready to clad the media with this kind of message on every front.
And by the way…. it is possible that not every event of a negative nature in the world might not be the Bin Ladin clan? Is it possible that there are other terrorist groups not linked to Bin Ladin? Is it possible that there are terrorist groups deep with in the US who are ready and waiting to do just as much devasatation as the purported Al Quaida before Nov 2?
Why do we blame every single event on Al Quaida? The reasons why I ask is because no one seems to be doing the research to refute the GOPs constant claims on the subject and the worse fear of all is that this two eyed approach to Al Quaida certainly leaves room for other groups to creep up on our blind side and do just as much damage.
Sometimes I wonder how much free PR Al Quaida gets from this administration and the world… Sometimes I think that these guys have gone pretty dormand and are hibernating… but then some event pops up and its Al Quaida again. hmmm..
If these events are truly always the Bin Ladin clan, then they are super organised and much more sophisticated than any army in the entire universe and then it makes me wonder why spend so many trillions on US military power and these guys are carrying out warfare on donkeys and motor bikes. Strange.. but we find out exactly whats going on here.. it doesnt make sense to me.
cheers
Leslie, Leslie…. you sound nervous. If you are this nervous now, can you imagine the butterflies on elections night? LOL.. LOL…
There comes a point when you simply have to let go and let the system do its work. Before that time, you can make sure to mobilise people in the area who are willing to ensure that the right systems are in place. Beyond that, there is not much more that can be done and you will have to sit quietly and wait for the results.
I would like to think that the DEMs have people on the inside looking after these issues. If they dont, then you have plenty reason for concern as this current admin doesnt allow for much trust.
Start talking to the powers that be, in the party.
Cheers
I’d feel a whole lot better if Florida (and some other states) weren’t using electronic voting machines without paper trails. It wouldn’t be so bad if Jebbie wasn’t the governor there and if the executives of the companies that count the electronic votes weren’t best buddies with Dubya et familia. I hate to sound like I don’t trust the Bushes; it’s just that I don’t trust the Bushes.
The more desperate things become for the Republican Party, the more nervous I get. Karl Rove and his band of meany men are ruthless, and I don’t even want to think what they have up their sleeves for October.
I agree that it’s way, way, beyond Bush’s control by now. He’s a passenger.
The only conceivable way he could win would be an event which causes people to abandon reason and react emotionally. But it’s getting late even for that. Once people have made up their mind against him, a catastrophic event would be less likely to cause a change in their thinking than it would have in 2001, when all but the most partisan voters were keeping an open mind about him, and everybody knew he’d be President for three more years no matter what.
I think that time has run out for Bush. I am sure that he was banking on a much better economical report at this time so the he could have a somewhat solid platform on which to launch his economical policies at the convention. Unfortunately, nothing of the sort happened and now he has to find something on which to run his campaign.
He cannot run it on his record because it has nothing within it by which he can stand. He cant count on the economy because its heading down hill at a rapid rate.
He cant count on being a war president because that was is yet to produce results.
It seems to me that his only hope is to smear kerry to the ground and role him in the dirt, along with getting his rank and file to rally around the waggon and get every possible republican and wannabe republicans to vote.
Beyond this, his days are numbered… The whitehouse is Kerry’s to lose and not Bush’s to win. He has already lost it, so kerry now needs to do what he needs to, to collect the keys.
I am pretty sure that his time has run out. I cant think of any possible report that can show the economy in some radical upswing, I cant think of anythiing that can be done to suddenly create peace in Iraq, I cant think of anything that can change his foreign policy instantly, I cant think of anything that can retract those fleeting truths which he has been laying on the american people in the past two years, I cant think of anything that cause his to get his first elected term in the whitehouse…
ofcourse, miraculous PR and advertising is always there and the GOPs would use it… and I am sure they are about to unleash it..
Cheers
I am particularly encouraged by the way the dreaded “outside events” have gone so far in August. Remember: this month will belong to “Shrub”. He will get lots of media coverage once the GOP convention starts in late August. Kerry won’t get as many good opportunities to make his case e.g. due to the Olympics. So the Republicans are planning a big media blitz. But the first week of this month has been dominated by unexpectedly bad news about the economy, and additional violence in Iraq. This is deadly stuff, since it re-focuses voter attention on this Administration’s track record in 2000-04 while rendering Kerry’s negative “intangibles” (=aloof French-lookin’ Taxachusetts aristocrat out of sync with All-American values etc.) increasingly irrelevant.
Time is running out for “Shrub”. He is the incumbent trying to defend his 1st term achievements. He cannot change the subject to Kerry’s shortcomings as a candidate, unless he has good news to report about the economy or the War on Terror. Right now it seems he needs to place his bets on Pakistan managing to catch bin Laden shortly before Nov.2.
MARCU$