Glad I was not the only one that took umbrage at these comments this week particularly the ones that tried to do gotcha in the first White House press conferences. Your statement set it all for me“There is nothing the political class likes more than to view idealism as naïveté in order to validate their engrained cynicism. The “unity” conversation is going to be constantly distorted with unfair expectations, bad faith arguments, and general stupidity.”
As I watched reporters this week it came home to me just how much the media is part of the problem with the divisiveness in our country. I unfollowed most of my reporters that I follow and I am now dedicated to getting the news directly from the horses mouth via C-SPAN. If I want an opinion I’ll ask myself what I think... if I want somebody else’s opinion I may listen to certain reporters. But I’ll have to say it will be a select few! It will be those who have studied history, It will be those who understand the congressional and legislative processes and how they work and it will be those who do not ask STUPID questions!
Right. Thank you. Keep it going. I find myself wondering if Schumer has so much personal history in his relationship with Mitch that he's stuck in a set of behaviors that hold him. (Which podcast guest on which podcast says we fight with cotton candy and the Republicans fight with knives?) Would we be better off if say.. Klobucher were majority leader? She knows how to fight. I'm not blaming Schumer, I'm just thinking about how hard it is to adopt a new relationship when you've been in a different one for 11 years?
This GOP anti-unity messaging is driving me crazy. Unity requires movement by all parties in a direction towards each other. There has been zero movement from most Republicans.
On a separate, but related note, I would love to see us strengthen the messaging about Dems position of strength and who we represent. Per Heather Cox Richardson, this morning..."While the new Senate is split evenly—50 Democrats, 50 Republicans—the 50 Democrats in the Senate represent over 41.5 million more people than the 50 Republicans represent. The filibuster means that no legislation can pass Congress without the support of 10 Republicans. Essentially, then, the fight over the filibuster is a fight not just about the ability of the Democrats to get laws passed, but about whether McConnell and the Republicans, who represent a minority of the American people, can kill legislation endorsed by lawmakers who represent quite a large majority."
While I know there is no chance to change our rather undemocratic Senate structure...there is no reason we can't talk about it.
I would like to tie back to one of Dan’s earlier messages about finding the right way to respond to Republican messaging about economic and social policy.
In response to Republicans saying that they are about protecting jobs and personal freedom, call them out for what really motivates the Republican elite—greed for as much money for themselves as possible.
Privatize social security to “free” people to make their own investments?--- Owners of corporations simply want to get out of paying their half of Medicare and Social Security.
Repeal Obamacare to give people “freedom” to choose their own health care insurance or not buy insurance? ---Owners of corporations really don’t want to contribute to the taxes that subsidize poor and working people’s health insurance premiums so they can afford insurance in the first place.
Don’t give people the “public option” to buy into Medicare because its “socialized medicine” that will restrict people’s health care choices? ---Again, owners of corporations simply don’t want to pay their share of Medicare taxes and want to preserve the lucrative monopoly private insurance companies have to provide coverage to these people.
Don’t have a $15 dollar (or other reasonable amount) minimum wage because it will kill jobs? ---Owners of corporations simply want the cheapest labor pool possible to maximize their own profits, regardless of the havoc it wreaks on families.
Don’t have a reasonable livable minimum wage because it will kill small business? ---Again, owners of corporations simply want the cheapest possible labor pool. A livable minimum wage simply means that small businesses play on a level playing field—small businesses who would otherwise be willing to pay a living wage cannot do so because they will be driven out of business by competitors happy to pay starvation wages.
And on the last point, yes higher wages would push prices up for some small business goods and (mainly) services, but if we wanted we could have an bigger earned income tax credit that would allow a lower minimum wage for small businesses. (More complicated but doable if you want to.) ---But owners of corporations simply want the cheapest labor pool to maximize their cut of the economic pie.
And, oh yes, the politicians who willingly aid and abet this deception on behalf of corporate owners, their motivation? ---Power.
Today's NYT The Daily embodies this stupidity. What if - cRaZY idea - calls for unity in an inaugural were rhetorical gestures to calm a democracy threatened by insurrectionists and not promises to keep Trump's most egregious executive orders? Hmmm, we could overturn the Muslim ban or rejoin Paris, but....Unity. Good God, Michael Barbaro. The tan suit-class of political reporters is going to do everything in their power to "But His Unity" us into a Josh Hawley/[insert your own white grievance candidate] presidency in 2024.
A critical task for the coming days is to frame the behaviour of the Republican media and the likes of Hawley, Paul and Cruz. This is the third Democratic presidency in a row where they are refusing to demonstrate any goodwill, rushing within minutes to attack. "There they go again, and we will not allow them to yet again use these tactics to try and stop the agenda the people have voted for".
That polling shows the up to 1/3rd of Repubs who might be open to leaving behind the sero-sum, scorched-earth politics of the past. Aim for them and try to separate them from the bad faith actors
Well I for am not surprised. Mildly disappointed perhaps but certainly not surprised. R's have no plans to govern, only plans to retain power and obstructionism has worked well for them in the past to that end. Why more people don't grasp that is one of the Dem's biggest messaging problems, I believe. Any hopes that Manchin will finally agree to removing filibuster?
It seems to me the easiest way to message to the population that doesn't pay attention to what's happening in DC is to do positive things that affect their lives.
I think Biden hit some good chords when defining what "unity" means. One group can't "unify" without a real effort from the other. My take is that without effort on both sides, it is not called "unity" it is called "abusiveness".
I saw the George Will smear about Biden asking us to change. If JFK can say "Ask Not What your country can do for you...." But they ridiculed Carter for turning the heat down in the White House and wearing a sweater and the photo voltaics. Now we have global warming and it is killing us. Now Biden is saying we have to stop believing lies and deal with each other. We can't do this if 70 Million Americans believe the president is not legitimate or support a man who lied about it. It is about moving the needle off hate to science, best practices and getting better for all. It's about believing in the Golden Rule damit. In 2016 my 7 year old grandson said He can't be president, he doesn't believe in the Golden Rule. And on inauguration day GW Bush said the same thing.
I'd love if you had Molly McKew on your podcast. She's talking/writing about unity as it pertains to national+cyber security in a way that I find so fascinating and I think crooked media folks would like. https://www.greatpower.us/ she testified in congress about russian hacking.
It is so frustrating that McConnell can still stand in the way of Democrats exercising their majority. Can you explain more fully what Democrats can do to overcome this obstacle so that they can get to work? I hope that they will not agree to protect the filibuster. Also, does VP Harris have any authority to help the Democrats other than tie breaker? Thank you Dan for sharing your thoughts.
I dropped my subscription to the NYT for exactly crap like that quote you put out there. Who wrote that? Ken Vogel? Hugh Hewitt. Yes, I know he's WaPo but hearing him on Capehart's show right now and I am reminded how much I cannot bear him. I am taking a serious look at which reporters and pundits I will be following now. I continue to think about the filibuster and how if there were no filibuster the ACA would now be gone.
I'm hoping you don't mind if I ask a somewhat unrelated question here.
I strongly believe in a $15 federal minimum wage. I understand how critical it is, and I get that any argument from large corporations about how they are unable to pay workers is complete bs. But I still struggle to argue my side against friends who own small businesses, who genuinely will not be able to keep their employees if required to raise wages so significantly.
Glad I was not the only one that took umbrage at these comments this week particularly the ones that tried to do gotcha in the first White House press conferences. Your statement set it all for me“There is nothing the political class likes more than to view idealism as naïveté in order to validate their engrained cynicism. The “unity” conversation is going to be constantly distorted with unfair expectations, bad faith arguments, and general stupidity.”
As I watched reporters this week it came home to me just how much the media is part of the problem with the divisiveness in our country. I unfollowed most of my reporters that I follow and I am now dedicated to getting the news directly from the horses mouth via C-SPAN. If I want an opinion I’ll ask myself what I think... if I want somebody else’s opinion I may listen to certain reporters. But I’ll have to say it will be a select few! It will be those who have studied history, It will be those who understand the congressional and legislative processes and how they work and it will be those who do not ask STUPID questions!
Right. Thank you. Keep it going. I find myself wondering if Schumer has so much personal history in his relationship with Mitch that he's stuck in a set of behaviors that hold him. (Which podcast guest on which podcast says we fight with cotton candy and the Republicans fight with knives?) Would we be better off if say.. Klobucher were majority leader? She knows how to fight. I'm not blaming Schumer, I'm just thinking about how hard it is to adopt a new relationship when you've been in a different one for 11 years?
This GOP anti-unity messaging is driving me crazy. Unity requires movement by all parties in a direction towards each other. There has been zero movement from most Republicans.
On a separate, but related note, I would love to see us strengthen the messaging about Dems position of strength and who we represent. Per Heather Cox Richardson, this morning..."While the new Senate is split evenly—50 Democrats, 50 Republicans—the 50 Democrats in the Senate represent over 41.5 million more people than the 50 Republicans represent. The filibuster means that no legislation can pass Congress without the support of 10 Republicans. Essentially, then, the fight over the filibuster is a fight not just about the ability of the Democrats to get laws passed, but about whether McConnell and the Republicans, who represent a minority of the American people, can kill legislation endorsed by lawmakers who represent quite a large majority."
While I know there is no chance to change our rather undemocratic Senate structure...there is no reason we can't talk about it.
I would like to tie back to one of Dan’s earlier messages about finding the right way to respond to Republican messaging about economic and social policy.
In response to Republicans saying that they are about protecting jobs and personal freedom, call them out for what really motivates the Republican elite—greed for as much money for themselves as possible.
Privatize social security to “free” people to make their own investments?--- Owners of corporations simply want to get out of paying their half of Medicare and Social Security.
Repeal Obamacare to give people “freedom” to choose their own health care insurance or not buy insurance? ---Owners of corporations really don’t want to contribute to the taxes that subsidize poor and working people’s health insurance premiums so they can afford insurance in the first place.
Don’t give people the “public option” to buy into Medicare because its “socialized medicine” that will restrict people’s health care choices? ---Again, owners of corporations simply don’t want to pay their share of Medicare taxes and want to preserve the lucrative monopoly private insurance companies have to provide coverage to these people.
Don’t have a $15 dollar (or other reasonable amount) minimum wage because it will kill jobs? ---Owners of corporations simply want the cheapest labor pool possible to maximize their own profits, regardless of the havoc it wreaks on families.
Don’t have a reasonable livable minimum wage because it will kill small business? ---Again, owners of corporations simply want the cheapest possible labor pool. A livable minimum wage simply means that small businesses play on a level playing field—small businesses who would otherwise be willing to pay a living wage cannot do so because they will be driven out of business by competitors happy to pay starvation wages.
And on the last point, yes higher wages would push prices up for some small business goods and (mainly) services, but if we wanted we could have an bigger earned income tax credit that would allow a lower minimum wage for small businesses. (More complicated but doable if you want to.) ---But owners of corporations simply want the cheapest labor pool to maximize their cut of the economic pie.
And, oh yes, the politicians who willingly aid and abet this deception on behalf of corporate owners, their motivation? ---Power.
Jim R, Piedmont CA
Today's NYT The Daily embodies this stupidity. What if - cRaZY idea - calls for unity in an inaugural were rhetorical gestures to calm a democracy threatened by insurrectionists and not promises to keep Trump's most egregious executive orders? Hmmm, we could overturn the Muslim ban or rejoin Paris, but....Unity. Good God, Michael Barbaro. The tan suit-class of political reporters is going to do everything in their power to "But His Unity" us into a Josh Hawley/[insert your own white grievance candidate] presidency in 2024.
A critical task for the coming days is to frame the behaviour of the Republican media and the likes of Hawley, Paul and Cruz. This is the third Democratic presidency in a row where they are refusing to demonstrate any goodwill, rushing within minutes to attack. "There they go again, and we will not allow them to yet again use these tactics to try and stop the agenda the people have voted for".
That polling shows the up to 1/3rd of Repubs who might be open to leaving behind the sero-sum, scorched-earth politics of the past. Aim for them and try to separate them from the bad faith actors
Well I for am not surprised. Mildly disappointed perhaps but certainly not surprised. R's have no plans to govern, only plans to retain power and obstructionism has worked well for them in the past to that end. Why more people don't grasp that is one of the Dem's biggest messaging problems, I believe. Any hopes that Manchin will finally agree to removing filibuster?
It seems to me the easiest way to message to the population that doesn't pay attention to what's happening in DC is to do positive things that affect their lives.
I think Biden hit some good chords when defining what "unity" means. One group can't "unify" without a real effort from the other. My take is that without effort on both sides, it is not called "unity" it is called "abusiveness".
I saw the George Will smear about Biden asking us to change. If JFK can say "Ask Not What your country can do for you...." But they ridiculed Carter for turning the heat down in the White House and wearing a sweater and the photo voltaics. Now we have global warming and it is killing us. Now Biden is saying we have to stop believing lies and deal with each other. We can't do this if 70 Million Americans believe the president is not legitimate or support a man who lied about it. It is about moving the needle off hate to science, best practices and getting better for all. It's about believing in the Golden Rule damit. In 2016 my 7 year old grandson said He can't be president, he doesn't believe in the Golden Rule. And on inauguration day GW Bush said the same thing.
I'd love if you had Molly McKew on your podcast. She's talking/writing about unity as it pertains to national+cyber security in a way that I find so fascinating and I think crooked media folks would like. https://www.greatpower.us/ she testified in congress about russian hacking.
Thank you for this analysis. It is very good to see in words what I have been thinking but not trying to word. Clear and useful and many thanks.
Dan, any thoughts on picking Zients to head Covid response? Seems like an odd pick given no experience in pharma, logistics, etc.
FYI...I like to so much your quote, l Had to share it on my Facebook story! Giving full credit of course thank you
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/kareem-abdul-jabbar-why-i-took-part-in-the-biden-harris-inauguration Excellent analysis and point of view of how to reframe the issue to move forward
It is so frustrating that McConnell can still stand in the way of Democrats exercising their majority. Can you explain more fully what Democrats can do to overcome this obstacle so that they can get to work? I hope that they will not agree to protect the filibuster. Also, does VP Harris have any authority to help the Democrats other than tie breaker? Thank you Dan for sharing your thoughts.
I dropped my subscription to the NYT for exactly crap like that quote you put out there. Who wrote that? Ken Vogel? Hugh Hewitt. Yes, I know he's WaPo but hearing him on Capehart's show right now and I am reminded how much I cannot bear him. I am taking a serious look at which reporters and pundits I will be following now. I continue to think about the filibuster and how if there were no filibuster the ACA would now be gone.
I'm hoping you don't mind if I ask a somewhat unrelated question here.
I strongly believe in a $15 federal minimum wage. I understand how critical it is, and I get that any argument from large corporations about how they are unable to pay workers is complete bs. But I still struggle to argue my side against friends who own small businesses, who genuinely will not be able to keep their employees if required to raise wages so significantly.
How do I make that case?