Discussion about this post

User's avatar
John J’onzz's avatar

Good piece as usual.

I should amend it with the fact that one of Mark Cuban's recent attacks on Trump is that he's a "socialist," more "socialist than Bernie Sanders" even! (https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/25/politics/video/mark-cuban-trump-is-more-socialist-than-bernie-sanders)

A billionaire Democratic Party loyalist, attacking Trump for being a socialist for putting forth worker-supporting trade deals is all that really needs to be said on this situation. It's done. The Republicans are now the party of the working class, as messy as that is. Biden, who had a few pro-union policies and at least paid the unions lip service (but was certainly not the "most pro-union president ever," as 22-year-old Brooklyn laptoppers like to claim), was probably the last non-laptop class leader the Democrats will ever see (although it seemed that the laptop class bureaucrats were ultimately calling the shots). He had the old Democratic Party in the back of his brain, but his time, and his brain, are nearly gone.

Trump is boorish, loud, incoherent, unable to stay on message, and lacks the smooth speaking style that we've come to expect from politicians. I'd argue that this is a feature, not a bug, in his popularity. Normie voters were sick of smooth-talking, do-nothing politicians, and love Trump's seeming inability to even play the game. Trump arguably single-handedly decimated the neoconservative movement within the Republican Party. Note that the Bill Kristols, David Frums, Lincoln Projects, Joe Scarbroughs, Bushes, Cheneys and other neocon scum are the people most mad at Trump, and will do literally anything to get their party back—but they'll settle for co-ruling the Democratic Party. Trump's support by working class, middle class and middle American normies caused the Democratic blue-bloods and the laptop class to reflexively hate the working class and the middle class, making the Democrats the home of the neoconservatives and the neoliberals, who are more interested in holding power than good governance. (The over-educated Brooklyn "laptop left" has tried, hysterically, to rebrand themselves as the working class.)

Kamala's refusal to take a position on anything is because she's going to take whatever position the Democratic Party does, which will change constantly, depending on the day, or the need. She has no ethics or principals or ideas. She's a party hardliner, a candidate and party that's only position is "we must win (to 'save democracy' from the non-interventionist, pro-worker, anti-globalist rabble-rousing TV star)." Her slogan might as well be "Vote for My Suit."

That JD Vance doc that Ken Klippenstein leaked (and was unceremoniously and unfairly removed from X for) seemed to mostly paint Vance as having Bernie Sanders-style economic policy. No wonder Dem-friendly media didn't want to leak it! They then get to claim they're "being ethical" by refusing to release "hacked materials" (though does anyone believe that if it had salacious details about affairs it wouldn't have been released?).

I'm still put off by some of the cultural conservatism, and some of the idiotic commentary, of this "new right," and I question how well they'll be able to govern. But this marriage of left-leaning economic policy with more traditional cultural ideas has southern black guys and southwestern Hispanics and many Asians moving into the Republican Party, and is honestly more representative of the makeup of the working and middle classes than the Dems' "luxury beliefs." The south for years voted for the parties along strict racial lines, and this marriage of left-leaning economic policy and more conservative cultural issues has done what no one thought possible: unite white and black rednecks, who culturally really aren't very different, in the same party. It's messy, but it's happening, and I don't see it changing now.

(The real dealbreaker for this old leftie is what most of the "new progressive" media—and often, unfortunately the ACLU—ignores: the encroaching censorship, the horribly one-sided propagandist reporting, and the insane turn against free speech, and all civil liberties really, among nearly every single Democratic Party leader. Everyone from Hillary Clinton to John Kerry, to the editors of the New York Times and the New Yorker, are calling for the end of the First Amendment. That was always a key part of being on the left, as far as I'm concerned. There seems to be a push to forcibly manufacture total consensus, and guarantee permanent single-party rule, and punish those who disagree, digress or rebel, and it's frankly terrifying.)

Expand full comment
5 more comments...

No posts