Mike the Mad Biologist

And this is not about America’s fascist internal security forces. We will prevail, and then we will have to rebuild.

One problem with the Democratic Party–and I write this as a Democratic primary voter myself–is, well, Democratic primary voters. We need to do a better job of choosing candidates–and for the love of Gritty, we must stop engaging in parasocial fanboi relationships with Democrats; they are just means to ends, nothing more.

First, Senate candidates must commit to ending the filibuster. Second, both House and Senate candidates must commit to significant reform of the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court. Without these policies, Republicans–who are a collection of fascists and fascist appeasers–will have a de facto veto over all sorts of policy. Rebuilding America will require Democrats who are not afraid of governing, and these are two very good litmus tests for which candidates actually are willing to do the work.

Last week, I wrote this about Democrats and their voters:

Rank-and-file Democrats have good reason to not trust professional Democrats, so they insist on what are called “purity tests”, rather than being willing to trust professional Democrats to do the right thing. That’s why many Democratic supporters want elected Democrats to “do something”–push for impeachment of various officials (including Trump), hard lines on budget negotiations, and so on. Somehow, and this is the professionals’ job, they need to convince the rank-and-file that they “know the real score.”

Brian Beutler points out that this lack of trust leads to an ever-worsening cycle when it comes to immigration policy (boldface mine):

How does a party win back the respect of its own voters who’ve come to believe it’s led by a bunch of empty suits? Electing new leaders would be one way. Picking fights with the opposition and seeing them through to the end, without pulling punches, is another (though the latter may not be possible without the former).

Liberals were offered a small taste of what a fighting party might act like in October, when Democrats withheld their votes to fund the government for several weeks, before a surrender caucus of eight Senate Democrats, with quiet permission from Chuck Schumer, threw in the towel.

The shutdown walloped Trump’s approval rating, and (for once) got Americans talking about the horrors of Republican health-care policy. The decision to quit while ahead helped Trump regain some of his lost support and served as a reminder that the Democratic Party is not currently constituted to fight fascism in any durable way.

Episodes like these, mounting ceaselessly over the past year, have left the party with little running room. They have ironically made activists more inclined to impose litmus tests and speak in uncompromising language, because they believe that’s the only way to hold them to what should be shared goals.

If they want to interrupt this dynamic, they need to turn it on its head. If they want to disempower party activists, they need to resolve the severe crisis of trust that’s opened between tens of millions of people of conscience, and elected Democrats.

How might they accomplish that?

They need to first prove that they can be counted on to fight, and then, with a modicum of trust restored, they can begin to speak to voters’ fears and concerns in more politic language—without fostering the impression that they’re going to chicken out when it comes time to wield power….

If frontline Democrats want to avoid charged rhetoric for their narrow electoral purposes, they need the party’s voters to trust that they’re not simply ducking all tough issues. The problem that needs to be solved is that, at the moment, vanishingly few Americans trust that Democrats will do anything risky to defeat fascism and prevent its resurgence.

A better-led party, less fearful of partisan fighting, would be able to promise accountability for ICE in many different terms, without triggering anyone’s “abolish” PTSD, and the message would be clear to everyone, activists and ICE agents alike. The party would be staffed by people who’d try to find politically viable ways to address big challenges, rather than by people who decide what constitutes a problem based on whether solving it polls well.

At some point, professional Democrats need to work on improving their relationship with a significant fraction of their base. I agree with Beutler, in that the current crop of Democrats will be fine in 2026 and likely take back the House, maybe even the Senate, barring massive, violent voter suppression or other similar chicanery. But if they’re not careful, they will face a storm of primary challenges in 2028. In our political system, there will be a party called the Democratic Party, but it does not need to populated with these particular Democrats.

People that I know who are reliable Democrats, but who really don’t pay much attention, are getting really pissed off. Then again, that might be what the Democratic Party needs. If they like their jobs, they need to rebuild trust, and soon.

Also, if they want ordinary people to protest and oppose Republicans “the right way”, they must be able to convince those same people that they share their goals, and, importantly, act on them.