Face it folks: we’ve lost our credibility! The incremental elites, the policy-minded liberals (in the political sense, not the cultural sense), the products of the elite American-dominated intelligentsia: we have completely and totally lost face. Nothing said it to me quite like this Axios story.
I say we because I have been a byproduct of this intellectual ecosystem. I went to an Ivy League university, I am the son of two professionals, and I am a fortunate beneficiary to the liberal immigration policy that America has had for the last 50 years.
At the same time, it’s now clear to me that every assumption that underpins that status quo has been proven disastrously wrong recently.
The new rules are being written
- Policy doesn’t matter; ideas and culture do.
- Doing obviously bad, irrational things can be good.
- Markets don’t matter; market behavior does.
- There is no alpha in consensus; focus on winning and kill your enemies.
- Disagreement is the key test here.
- The best example of this is the absolutely feckless abundance policy. Who the fuck disagrees with abundance? It means nothing and inspires absolutely no one.
- There are winners and losers; a policy designed to split the difference is doomed to fail.
- The “countryside” is always where revolutions are born.
- The Democrats should embrace a radical agenda; one that Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, cautious, feckless leaders of the kind that prospered in the last 20 years, would be horrified by.
- Democrats should go “down to the countryside”, much like Mao forced young Chinese like Xi to do.
- Clearly, this agenda is being developed starting with the Israel issue; it is the first new litmus test amongst the “new” Democrats that will fuel the next chapter of their ideological evolution. In many ways, given the overlap with right-wing elements who are uncomfortable with Israel, this issue could be the first wedge that portends a realignment in how we draw the lines of American politics.
- Much like MAGA, this agenda will have to be “nasty”; it will draw hard lines, confront sacred cows like the Israel lobby with guns blazing (much like MAGA took on diversity), and “eat its own” in an effort to ensure purity. Similar to Eric Cantor, Jeffries or Schumer could be the big “kill” that
- The “big tent” is a total fallacy. Nobody likes a party where everyone is invited. Nobody wins in today’s attention-addled world by watering down their position and “pivoting to the center” in the traditional sense.
- More extreme positions should be taken. One of the worst things to happen to moderate politics is the belief that “polls of Americans” are representative of what should happen (e.g. the poll that most Americans support abortion). These kinds of useless data points distort the reality: most people don’t want to think about abortion, they don’t want to have to confront change, abortion had been the status quo for 50 years, and that’s what they were in favor of. A polling majority means “I don’t give a shit about this issue”, not “I believe that we should do this”. Whatever wins in the polls is the opposite of what we should do!
- Extremism is the point. It breeds disagreement, amps up the drama, and draws clear battle lines. You cannot win a war without defining your enemies; once you have, prosecuting it with total certainty is the only way to build loyalty. Loyalty isn’t built in half measures.
- A good example of a controversial position I think Democrats should take (even if I totally disagree with the policy) is nationalization of the healthcare system. It is the perfect issue for Dems. It continues to be the single most incoherent point of Trump-era GOP policy. It is a throw back to the Teddy Roosevelt/Truman roots of Democratic economic policy. It is such an obviously bad idea to the experts that it is appealing to voters and the populace. The reality is that no country has become “great” through the careful management of experts; they have done so through the broad strokes and inchoate convictions of “great” men. Doing what must be done often involves doing something that shouldn’t be done; experts are unable to wrap their minds around this reality.
- This policy position is so perfect for Dems for more reasons. It has real, raw rage at the roots of its political power; think of the senseless, horrific murder of Brian Thompson. Channeling rage is at the root of real political victories. Trump is the purest representation of this in our politics this century. Furthermore, it has iconic villains (companies like UnitedHealth Group) right at the core of its story. One of the challenges with the Democrats anti-Big Tech pivot between 2016 and 2024 is that it involved attacking companies and products Americans admired; you may not like Google or Facebook’s positions, but you use their products and admire their innovation. In some sense, these companies represent what is best about America! All of this is a stark contrast to health insurers; no one likes them. Not a single voter would defend UHG or health insurers. The total destruction of the system, even at the expense of their own wellbeing, would appeal to the American voter’s rage at the systems, much like Trump’s victory on immigration (obviously spiteful to our tech sector and economic prowess) and on tariffs (obviously spiteful to our position in the value chain).
- Once Democrats realize their job is not to build, but to destroy, they will recognize how to channel the frothing rage in the hearts of American voter.
- My coda here: if the next Democrat would run a bold campaign based purely on destroying private health insurance, banning algorithmic gambling (there is a place for Polymarket/DraftKings, just not a big one), and taxing AI companies as labor (I thought Bernie’s position of breaking up OpenAI was wonderfully inventive; there’s a reason he is the touchstone of true grassroots Democratic politics), they would win 55-45 against the sludge that is JD Vance (who no one likes, but everyone tolerates due to his incredible personal story).
What are the implications and upshots?