I read a Thomas Friedman column this week that really required a smackdown. So I supplied one at New York:
How much political capital should Democrats invest in a probably doomed effort to save the political career of Liz Cheney? Earlier this week, Never Trump Republican Linda Chavez penned a column urging Wyoming Democrats to take a dive this November in order to give the incumbent a chance to survive as an independent, assuming (as it safe) that Cheney will be purged in her own party’s primary. And now, in an apparent coincidence, in comes New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman suggesting a far more radical step by Democrats to align themselves with the small slice of Republicans who follow Cheney’s example in repudiating Donald Trump. He wrote:
“Is that what America needs in 2024 — a ticket of Joe Biden and Liz Cheney? Or Joe Biden and Lisa Murkowski, or Kamala Harris and Mitt Romney, or Stacey Abrams and Liz Cheney, or Amy Klobuchar and Liz Cheney? Or any other such combination.”
Friedman phrases this as a question, but clearly he thinks it’s a good idea given the “existential moment” America would face if Trump is allowed to regain the presidency in 2024. It’s a bit of a loaded question, too, since it postulates that nothing short of a previously unimaginable “sacrifice” by Democrats and Never Trump Republicans alike can stop Trump — and that it would, in fact, succeed in stopping Trump.
I certainly agree that Democrats dumping Kamala Harris to give their vice-presidential nomination to a conservative Republican who opposes legalized abortion and is a militarist by conviction and heredity would be a “sacrifice,” to put it very mildly. It would also be very, very weird. Friedman cites the recent establishment of a mind-bending coalition government in Israel to thwart Bibi Netanyahu as a development comparable to what he is suggesting. But as he acknowledges, Israel has a parliamentary system in which multiparty coalitions are the rule rather than the exception. A presidential system in which parties invariably run separate tickets for the top job is another thing altogether.
The U.S. has had exactly one example of multiparty fusionism in a presidential election. In 1864, in the midst of the Civil War, Republicans nominated Democrat Andrew Johnson of Tennessee — then serving as U.S. military governor of Tennessee — to run with Lincoln on a “Union” ticket. The experiment did not turn out well, beginning with Johnson’s drunken inaugural address in 1865 and continuing with the racist solidarity he exhibited toward ex-Confederates after Lincoln’s assassination, culminating in his impeachment and near removal from office. There are important reasons politicians sort themselves out into major parties, which should be apparent in an era of polarization over issues other than the scofflaw behavior of Donald Trump.
Is the threat of Trump’s return to the White House the equivalent of the U.S. Civil War? Not in itself, I would contend, though that horrific development could lead eventually to grave conditions comparable if not equal to a civil war. The premise that a Biden-Cheney fusion ticket would uniquely doom Trump to failure is even more dubious. There has never been much evidence of a mass following for Never Trump Republicans, and such as it is, it is mostly composed of people who would (and did in 2020) gladly vote for Biden and Harris. The baleful effect that replacing Harris with Cheney on the ticket would have on Democratic turnout could easily offset or exceed the alleged benefits of bipartisan and trans-ideological fusion.
So Democrats should say thanks, but no thanks, to Friedman for the idea of submitting their party to some sort of unwieldy and unnatural coalition of national salvation, so long as there is the slightest possibility of beating Trump the old-fashioned way. Liz Cheney deserves great respect for the courage she has shown in defying Trump at the expense of her own career, and if Biden is reelected with her support, perhaps she deserves an ambassadorship, a minor Cabinet post, or a major sub-Cabinet position. But she has no business being at the top of the line of succession to a Democratic president.
I think having one video for the party was good and probably long enough. It felt a bit safe and incomplete though, with some preaching to the choir in there.
I’d like to see informative specific topic videos added to this. It wouldn’t hurt to go outside of the usual way of communicating these things. There are more options for political messaging than just playing it safe or being crude.
a couple suggestions: with reproductive health, rather than only mention abortion, that topic should include programs Democrats support for women who choose to have a child but also can’t afford it – like low or no cost prenatal (and pediatric) care. Other programs democrats support for kids would be good too add too. (WIC, SNAP and free lunches…etc) Make sure you have some white people in there.
There should be something about how democrats are supportive of dads too. Whether with education or job placement programs or any kinds of assistance for themselves and their family. That could be about the economy but also in general supporting the existence of a strong safety net is being for the health and welfare of all families. Restricting and or removing it makes the country less safe by creating desperation on many fronts.
And Democrats, the American dream or dreamers could include a visual of kids in classrooms or adults wanting to go to school and trying to figure out how to pay for it.
You could go a long way with that theme. You arent separating DACA youre including it.
“no matter who they are or who they love” should add a visual of a traditional relationship or family set up too.
With health care, choosing between food and treatments wasnt entirely accurate because food is much cheaper.
George Entenman makes goods points about greater inclusion of images of people. I would add a photo of President John Kennedy, something on unions, and making progress on past accomplishments.
The themes are strong but there isn’t a central theme to bring them all together, it’s a collage of stories rather than a focused theme. Having seen Pete Buttigieg speak, he draws freedom into the equation of everyday life.
It requires freedom to get a fair shot without being discriminated against based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference.
It requires freedom to enjoy an environment of natural beauty not bound by corporate greed and eminent domain.
It requires freedom for a woman to decide how she handles her reproductive health.
It requires freedom to be able to have a health care system where you feel comfortable going to see a doctor and not to decide whether or not to see them based on cost.
It requires freedom to not have your entire adult years burdened by student loan debts.
It requires freedom to have a labor/supply chain based on the premise that labor is driving force in the economy and not corporate greed.
It requires freedom for a person who works full-time to have a wage that is able to provide proper resources to them and their family.
It requires freedom for students to be able to enter a school and feel safe.
Etc., etc., etc.
Of course, a follow-up video should be based on the premise on how we intend to provide those freedoms to our society (which it currently lacks).
“What’s your take?”
Move it to the fing top.
Given how badly the party has done lately maybe a better approach would be compare and contrast with Republicans on the issues that Democrats are actually good at. This would also reflect the reality that a lot of people are voting Democrat just because Republicans are terrible.
This ad actually captures pretty well what a lot of people think about the party nowadays
Summary Translation of the “We are Democrats” ad
We are the NYC party (Statue of Liberty opening)
We think we have done very well for the American people for a very long time (For decades opening)
A very specific and limited proposal like the Dream Act is as important as the American Dream as a national value
Pandering to individual demographic groups
Pandering to individual one issue constituencies
One minute in before talking about economic issues
Mention of LBJ?
Affordable Care Act as non-plus ultra of healthcare
The New Deal is not self-explanatory
The economic recovery was no universal recovery and has very little in common with the policy program of the New Deal
Platitudes about wages
Platitudes about social change
Empty overpromising
I’m all for everything shown in the ad, but I think it makes a terrible mistake in not having more white people in it. Is this supposed to make white working people feel included? Is that one old photo of a woman holding a Social Security check supposed to appeal to the residents of retirement communities? Where is a small business owner, male or female? Where is a young tattooed person hard at work on a computer? Where are scientists who are losing the gov’t support they need for basic research? Where is a sense of optimism, of possibility? We need to fight the forces of evil, but we need to have hope and opportunity too.