Now Is Not the Time for Surrender
New York Times
Opinion by Jamelle Bouie
December 18, 2024
Democrats may be in the minority, but they are not yet an opposition.
What's the difference?
An opposition would use every opportunity it had to demonstrate its resolute stance against the incoming administration.
It would do everything in its power to try to seize the public's attention and make hay of the president-elect's efforts to put lawlessness at the center of American government.
An opposition would highlight the extent to which Donald Trump has no intention of fulfilling his pledge of lower prices and greater economic prosperity for ordinary people and is openly scheming with the billionaire oligarchs who paid for and ran his campaign to gut the social safety net and bring something like Hooverism back from the ash heap of history.
An opposition would treat the proposed nomination of figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Kash Patel and Pete Hegseth as an early chance to define a second Trump administration as dangerous to the lives and livelihoods of ordinary Americans.
It would prioritize nimble, aggressive leadership over an unbending commitment to seniority and the elevation of whoever is next in line.
Above all, an opposition would see that politics is about conflict -- or, as Henry Adams famously put it, "the systematic organization of hatreds" -- and reject the risk-averse strategies of the past in favor of new blood and new ideas.
[snip]
If Democrats want voters to blame Trump for any potential foreign policy failures, they must work now to highlight and emphasize the extent to which the president-elect wants a more or less inexperienced set of hacks and dilettantes to lead the nation's national security establishment.
Even something as obvious as the connection between Trump's billionaire allies and his support for large, upper-income tax cuts has to be dramatized and made apparent to the voting electorate.
More:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/18/opinion/democrats-trump-opposition.html
Dennis Donovan
(27,377 posts)red dog 1
(29,535 posts)we can do it
(12,789 posts)RussBLib
(9,709 posts)...if you want the rank-and-file to follow.
And it would help if some liberal billionaires would get in the fray and build up more lefty-media.
lees1975
(6,100 posts)The point was driven home for four years now. And post election, poof.
Is it surrender, or is it protecting self-interest? I honestly don't know. But we are once again wasting time like we did when we could have prosecuted the buffoon and labelled him as an insurrectionist before the Supreme Court could have said "immunity." We're letting the clock run out while the best opportunities to resist and set up our opposition are going to waste.
mopinko
(71,950 posts)too little too late. gfy.
OldBaldy1701E
(6,601 posts)Never gonna happen. None of the Democratic hierarchy would ever give up one drop of their power. Or, as Smaug would say...
https://i.postimg.cc/VsTmZswg/temp-Image-OEt-Us8.avif
So, why be a Democrat? (I got asked that recently.) Because there is way more chance of changing those 'risk-averse strategies' and implement more 'good ideas' with them than with a party that prefers serfs to citizens.
I am more committed to trying to get David Hogg the VC position. That would be a great offset to the 'seasoned' leaders we have now. He may not be able to handle the 'courtier' action at that level of political power, but I would love to give him the chance.
Dynasties are my concern as well. As someone who is very into term limits to stop this entrenched political warfare, I really do not like it when an election turns out to be a family affair (meaning that family members 'piggyback' a government position due to their relation to someone who is also there). That is where grift and social negligence due to greed comes from. It corrupts the process that we agreed to do, mainly that this is supposed to be a country of, by and for the people. They became lazy. Once special interests took over, we lost that representation. But, there is one inescapable thing.
Time stops for no mortal. No exceptions. If we start making inroads into the hierarchy, we can make changes sooner. Waiting has its own problems, so just waiting for change to magically appear may be a mistake. Better to start now. Sadly, baby steps are what seems to work right now.
red dog 1
(29,535 posts)Democratic Party leadership needs more David Hoggs and fewer high-paid "consultants."