In this moment, Trump & Trump Republicans have flooded the basement and first floor of the home we call America. But hey, the second floor bedroom paint colors are lovely.
That doesn't work for me.
I think the best response strategy to the current reality (which is a likely implosion of democracy across the globe) that I have heard so far has come from the publisher of The.Ink here on Substack. It goes:
#1. Make clear what is not normal, what is a lie, and what will hurt America and Americans.
#2. Offer the compelling alternative.
That's it.
Applauding Trump, in this scheme, becomes irrelevant.
Applauding Trump is not our ticket outta hell.
It seems to me that the average Joe&Jane in resistance mode could do a whole lot of #1.
And meeting the goal of #2, PP and other thinkers could get going on that whiteboarding and rewrite Project 2025.
Trump is cutting cancer research at the same time praising a cancer survivor.
Trump announced that Tik Tok was bad. He told you it could be shut down. It was shut down on a Sunday before Trump got in office and then was brought back a day or two later. In that time, that entire system could have been transferred to different servers now controlled by some other billionaire. My husband does system upgrades on a Sunday morning because that is when a down time will least affect people.
I think there needs to be bunch of new people that can translate what is going on to Republicans, and it does not necessarily need to be just Democrats. These people are totally in the dark. The prior stance was not to engage with these people. I think we need to now.
I really appreciate how you framed this. I am so hesitant to cede that ANY of Trump’s actions could be positive because of my view of him as a despicable human being. But that’s not helpful to anyone. I really hope that Democratic leaders are listening to you and Beth and your ideas.
I was reluctant to read this as I've been firmly in the "will never, ever have anything positive to say about Trump" camp for a long time, for what I think is a valid reason. And at the same time, after reading this, I think I can articulate why I and others like me default to that position *AND* how this article offers a framework people like me can pick up and use.
I've been in the "never say anything positive" camp because Trump's rhetoric and behavior is identical to that of multiple men in my personal and professional life who would be classified as narcissistic abusers. One of their most effective tactics is to use objectively good actions to build shields of trust that protect them from exposure and accountability for their evil. That works doubly so when it's we, the victims, who are coerced into saying those affirming things. It doesn't just make justice less likely - it endangers us. And so, the instinct to not participate in the "agree when Trump does good things" runs very deep.
That being said, the approach you recommend ihere offers a way to affirm the good in actions Trump takes, without that goodness being an apologetic for Trump as a good person, that we can then trust to do good in the future. E.g. "Operation Warp Speed saved thousands of lives because that's what vaccines do; we should continue to support vaccine mandates to promote public safety (hello measles outbreaks in Texas). "
Good actions don't make the man making them good. Affirming good actions exposes the one who turns around and stops taking those good actions because they're no longer personally beneficial; it confirms the fact that that person is, in fact, not a good person at all.
TLDR - this was really, really helpful to me. Thank you.
AI and my proof (PhD) that social equity measures the substance of procedural due process implies that constitutional due process will be put on software. This will almost remove abuses of discretion by judges, prosecutors and law enforcement. I already proved that judicial review is not an implied power (Chief Justice John Marshall assumed what he was trying to prove).
The result is that POTUS Immunity ruling will be vacated. Only the legal questions that are tautologies can be decided by SCOTUS. Trump cannot do whatever he wants.
1. 10th Amendment implies a partition of the domain: public (9th Amendment), state, or federal.
2. Double Jeopardy clause and 10th Amendment implies that the alleged motive cannot determine geographic jurisdiction, only domain.
3. Therefore, no state statute can have jurisdiction over an alleged federal motive.
The result is only a NY federal district court has venue over alleged hush money payments for the alleged (bogus) motive of trying to affect the federal election.
The entire proceeding with Judge Juan Merchan was fake trial, trying to get Trump to take a plea bargain and drop out of the race. It is supposed to be an automatic jurisdictional defect, but the legal system is so corrupt that the appellate courts play games. There is no rule of law, only the whims of judges.
Similar for the Georgia case: the alleged motive implies federal district count in Georgia, which means that Judge McAfee and Fani Willis can face civil rights suit, because Stump v Sparkman 1978 doesn't protect judges who lack personal jurisdiction, and therefore Connick v Thompson 2011 can't protect prosecutors who lack personal jurisdiction.
My millennial son gave me a good perspective on this today - we need to think of our relationships with our leaders and systems as personal relationships...and the current president and admin are cruel abusers. So it seems simply a matter of when to draw the line and set up a strong boundary to not engage any more. Seems like that was the Dems approach at SOTU - however not everyone stayed aligned when 10 folks voted to censure Rep Al Green. Of course the question of how to find common ground and stay in relationships with those who voted differently is I think, what Sarah's working at and calling us to do which is a good and important thing. But it can also feel co-dependant to try to twist myself in knots to find a connecting points with those who found a way to justify putting a racist, convicted felon+ sexual offender in the highest office.
Hmm I'm not sure I agree with the idea of viewing our leaders and systems like they're personal relationships. We can disengage from (most) personal relationships pretty easily and remove ourselves from their influence. But no matter how we view our politicians and our government, and whether or not we choose to engage with them, we are still going to be affected by them, and so I think we have a duty to engage and work on persuading others.
before harkeen jefferies came into WH Congress $40,000.00 in debt.$40,000.00. since he's been in congress, amazed with $36,000,000.00 in stock. Yeah his salutes , "we will take it to the streets & fight" Biggot!!
No. I really can’t join on this as much as I honestly want to want. First, I see the damage done by his policies too close and too often on real people, not numbers or reports. That colors everything, so bias admitted. Second, that the voting public agrees with his diagnose of a problem and/or its solution doesn’t make it right. Third, in the same breath that the column mentions something Trump did, it mentions how he undid it (not all things). Finally, I deeply feel more like Senator Schatz “The stock market is down but at least everything is more expensive and services are getting shittier. On the other hand we have more measles. To be fair, they are finally delivering the reductions in FAA and National Parks staff that people have been demanding.”
So, for you in your work, Federal Employees, people whose rights are on the chopping block (I don’t even have to ask if Sarah agrees with me, she does) you need care and support in. But those of us who are less directly impacted, who are more-or-less going about our daily lives, we need to be doing this work. You more?
I felt similarly during the Trump administration, it doesn’t cost me much (personally) to keep lines of communication and care open to my family members and longtime acquaintances who are “on the other side.” But I can be in conversation with them, acknowledge their reality, disagree about the solution, and disrupt the caricature in their mind of “the democrats.” That’s my work, and I think it was a lot of the core of what got Sarah and Beth started in the first place. I think, for a number of people in this audience, the most impactful thing we can do is not necessarily calling our reps (though I think that work MATTERS), I think it’s turning the temperature down and helping depolarize our friends and neighbors so we vote for better options. You know?
Thank you. All I know is that the Depakote, Zoloft, and Trazadone are doing some heavy lifting. I appreciate this community very much, and you specifically.
I appreciate this perspective a lot. I’m getting tired of all the finger pointing and yelling on all sides.
How do we actually engage in good persuasion when we are just yelling? How do we communicate where ideas are the same, and compromise where they are not?
We have to somehow parse through the BS that is Donald Trump, because right now all we are fighting is him. Dems aren’t fighting for the people. They are fighting him. Which yes, you could argue is the same thing, but I think it might not be.
This is an awful take. Would you say, "here's what Hitler got right?" Would you say that we should complement the Füeher as a means to stop his fascistic impulses? We can't use these ridiculous strategies. NOTHING fascists or authoritarians do are right.
I don't think Sarah was saying any of this is about changing Trump; it's about persuading the people who support him. And every time someone compare him to Hitler, the people who voted for Trump roll their eyes and tune out.
Thank you so much for this!!! I feel like we've been so boxed in by our own morality and performing of opinions and values. It is hard when the guy doing it is (as you point out) using that same issue of attention-getting and deep polarization to his advantage (and exacerbating it) AND being deeply hypocritical in a lot of his comments vs actions. BUT in this and especially in other contexts, it's like we're afraid to give even an inch of acquiescence for fear we'll be attacked. "So and so sided with the Republicans on X issue. They're turning against the party. They must not believe in science anymore! They must hate transgender people!! They must be a DINO!!!"
We want Republicans to be capable of agreeing with us when we're making good points and talking about something that is common sense, but Democrats are just as incapable of this. Because we (as the public) do too much lumping together of every d*mn thing. Every issue has only two sides. And each side aligns 100% on THEIR side of that issue. Surely! So if you support a Republican's opinion on one issue, you must think all these other things, too.
I’m right there with you on this one. I don’t think the ends justify the means in many of the situations but Dems have to at least acknowledge when there are positive outcomes and listen to voters
I understand we need a pragmatic approach. And personally, I really, desperately want Trump to fail, and fail big, because I am tired of living in a world where being a misogynistic rapist who belittles and insults people is a path to success. I want some karmic payback.
I guess I’ll get over it and grit my teeth to do what we have to in order to win back voters, but (go ahead and judge my moral failings here, whatever) at the end of the day I want him to suffer for everything he’s done.
On another note, I’d love to see democrats step up in the districts where republicans are no longer holding town halls and say “hey, I’ll run for office and I’ll start holding town halls right now.”
The most important thing Democrats need to do right now is get attention. Boring sentences in the style of Walz's sad little debate performance - "while I agree that my opponent is right about X, we disagree strongly over Y" - aren't gonna cut it. This is a dangerous and abnormal situation, not the time for old school come-together politics. Democrats need to meet the moment with radical ideas for grabbing attention and use those moments to drive down the popularity of their opponents. They need to be ruthless, remorseless and relentlessly on message that the opposition party is full of dumb evildoers who are making life worse for every living American.
I think you’re going to really like Tuesday’s episode with Tyler Austin Harper. The way he said it was (I’m paraphrasing): democrats don’t need to be ‘Diet Coke Republicans.’ They can stand for ideas and principles without being weird about it.
As always, Pantsuit Politics provides a nuanced perspective. Thank you!
In this moment, Trump & Trump Republicans have flooded the basement and first floor of the home we call America. But hey, the second floor bedroom paint colors are lovely.
That doesn't work for me.
I think the best response strategy to the current reality (which is a likely implosion of democracy across the globe) that I have heard so far has come from the publisher of The.Ink here on Substack. It goes:
#1. Make clear what is not normal, what is a lie, and what will hurt America and Americans.
#2. Offer the compelling alternative.
That's it.
Applauding Trump, in this scheme, becomes irrelevant.
Applauding Trump is not our ticket outta hell.
It seems to me that the average Joe&Jane in resistance mode could do a whole lot of #1.
And meeting the goal of #2, PP and other thinkers could get going on that whiteboarding and rewrite Project 2025.
Trump is cutting cancer research at the same time praising a cancer survivor.
Trump announced that Tik Tok was bad. He told you it could be shut down. It was shut down on a Sunday before Trump got in office and then was brought back a day or two later. In that time, that entire system could have been transferred to different servers now controlled by some other billionaire. My husband does system upgrades on a Sunday morning because that is when a down time will least affect people.
I think there needs to be bunch of new people that can translate what is going on to Republicans, and it does not necessarily need to be just Democrats. These people are totally in the dark. The prior stance was not to engage with these people. I think we need to now.
I really appreciate how you framed this. I am so hesitant to cede that ANY of Trump’s actions could be positive because of my view of him as a despicable human being. But that’s not helpful to anyone. I really hope that Democratic leaders are listening to you and Beth and your ideas.
I was reluctant to read this as I've been firmly in the "will never, ever have anything positive to say about Trump" camp for a long time, for what I think is a valid reason. And at the same time, after reading this, I think I can articulate why I and others like me default to that position *AND* how this article offers a framework people like me can pick up and use.
I've been in the "never say anything positive" camp because Trump's rhetoric and behavior is identical to that of multiple men in my personal and professional life who would be classified as narcissistic abusers. One of their most effective tactics is to use objectively good actions to build shields of trust that protect them from exposure and accountability for their evil. That works doubly so when it's we, the victims, who are coerced into saying those affirming things. It doesn't just make justice less likely - it endangers us. And so, the instinct to not participate in the "agree when Trump does good things" runs very deep.
That being said, the approach you recommend ihere offers a way to affirm the good in actions Trump takes, without that goodness being an apologetic for Trump as a good person, that we can then trust to do good in the future. E.g. "Operation Warp Speed saved thousands of lives because that's what vaccines do; we should continue to support vaccine mandates to promote public safety (hello measles outbreaks in Texas). "
Good actions don't make the man making them good. Affirming good actions exposes the one who turns around and stops taking those good actions because they're no longer personally beneficial; it confirms the fact that that person is, in fact, not a good person at all.
TLDR - this was really, really helpful to me. Thank you.
AI and my proof (PhD) that social equity measures the substance of procedural due process implies that constitutional due process will be put on software. This will almost remove abuses of discretion by judges, prosecutors and law enforcement. I already proved that judicial review is not an implied power (Chief Justice John Marshall assumed what he was trying to prove).
The result is that POTUS Immunity ruling will be vacated. Only the legal questions that are tautologies can be decided by SCOTUS. Trump cannot do whatever he wants.
1. 10th Amendment implies a partition of the domain: public (9th Amendment), state, or federal.
2. Double Jeopardy clause and 10th Amendment implies that the alleged motive cannot determine geographic jurisdiction, only domain.
3. Therefore, no state statute can have jurisdiction over an alleged federal motive.
The result is only a NY federal district court has venue over alleged hush money payments for the alleged (bogus) motive of trying to affect the federal election.
The entire proceeding with Judge Juan Merchan was fake trial, trying to get Trump to take a plea bargain and drop out of the race. It is supposed to be an automatic jurisdictional defect, but the legal system is so corrupt that the appellate courts play games. There is no rule of law, only the whims of judges.
Similar for the Georgia case: the alleged motive implies federal district count in Georgia, which means that Judge McAfee and Fani Willis can face civil rights suit, because Stump v Sparkman 1978 doesn't protect judges who lack personal jurisdiction, and therefore Connick v Thompson 2011 can't protect prosecutors who lack personal jurisdiction.
My millennial son gave me a good perspective on this today - we need to think of our relationships with our leaders and systems as personal relationships...and the current president and admin are cruel abusers. So it seems simply a matter of when to draw the line and set up a strong boundary to not engage any more. Seems like that was the Dems approach at SOTU - however not everyone stayed aligned when 10 folks voted to censure Rep Al Green. Of course the question of how to find common ground and stay in relationships with those who voted differently is I think, what Sarah's working at and calling us to do which is a good and important thing. But it can also feel co-dependant to try to twist myself in knots to find a connecting points with those who found a way to justify putting a racist, convicted felon+ sexual offender in the highest office.
Hmm I'm not sure I agree with the idea of viewing our leaders and systems like they're personal relationships. We can disengage from (most) personal relationships pretty easily and remove ourselves from their influence. But no matter how we view our politicians and our government, and whether or not we choose to engage with them, we are still going to be affected by them, and so I think we have a duty to engage and work on persuading others.
before harkeen jefferies came into WH Congress $40,000.00 in debt.$40,000.00. since he's been in congress, amazed with $36,000,000.00 in stock. Yeah his salutes , "we will take it to the streets & fight" Biggot!!
CongressInvestigation needed 👇👇👇 https://gettr.com/post/p3ieh8a174f
No. I really can’t join on this as much as I honestly want to want. First, I see the damage done by his policies too close and too often on real people, not numbers or reports. That colors everything, so bias admitted. Second, that the voting public agrees with his diagnose of a problem and/or its solution doesn’t make it right. Third, in the same breath that the column mentions something Trump did, it mentions how he undid it (not all things). Finally, I deeply feel more like Senator Schatz “The stock market is down but at least everything is more expensive and services are getting shittier. On the other hand we have more measles. To be fair, they are finally delivering the reductions in FAA and National Parks staff that people have been demanding.”
I wonder if this is a situation where Ring Theory is applicable and maybe we should spend more time naming where we are in the ring.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/promoting-hope-preventing-suicide/201705/ring-theory-helps-us-bring-comfort-in
So, for you in your work, Federal Employees, people whose rights are on the chopping block (I don’t even have to ask if Sarah agrees with me, she does) you need care and support in. But those of us who are less directly impacted, who are more-or-less going about our daily lives, we need to be doing this work. You more?
I felt similarly during the Trump administration, it doesn’t cost me much (personally) to keep lines of communication and care open to my family members and longtime acquaintances who are “on the other side.” But I can be in conversation with them, acknowledge their reality, disagree about the solution, and disrupt the caricature in their mind of “the democrats.” That’s my work, and I think it was a lot of the core of what got Sarah and Beth started in the first place. I think, for a number of people in this audience, the most impactful thing we can do is not necessarily calling our reps (though I think that work MATTERS), I think it’s turning the temperature down and helping depolarize our friends and neighbors so we vote for better options. You know?
Thank you. All I know is that the Depakote, Zoloft, and Trazadone are doing some heavy lifting. I appreciate this community very much, and you specifically.
I also very specifically appreciate you and am so glad you’re here!
I appreciate this perspective a lot. I’m getting tired of all the finger pointing and yelling on all sides.
How do we actually engage in good persuasion when we are just yelling? How do we communicate where ideas are the same, and compromise where they are not?
We have to somehow parse through the BS that is Donald Trump, because right now all we are fighting is him. Dems aren’t fighting for the people. They are fighting him. Which yes, you could argue is the same thing, but I think it might not be.
I’m so thankful you posted this.
Important in making it possible to discuss with
This is an awful take. Would you say, "here's what Hitler got right?" Would you say that we should complement the Füeher as a means to stop his fascistic impulses? We can't use these ridiculous strategies. NOTHING fascists or authoritarians do are right.
I don't think Sarah was saying any of this is about changing Trump; it's about persuading the people who support him. And every time someone compare him to Hitler, the people who voted for Trump roll their eyes and tune out.
Thank you so much for this!!! I feel like we've been so boxed in by our own morality and performing of opinions and values. It is hard when the guy doing it is (as you point out) using that same issue of attention-getting and deep polarization to his advantage (and exacerbating it) AND being deeply hypocritical in a lot of his comments vs actions. BUT in this and especially in other contexts, it's like we're afraid to give even an inch of acquiescence for fear we'll be attacked. "So and so sided with the Republicans on X issue. They're turning against the party. They must not believe in science anymore! They must hate transgender people!! They must be a DINO!!!"
We want Republicans to be capable of agreeing with us when we're making good points and talking about something that is common sense, but Democrats are just as incapable of this. Because we (as the public) do too much lumping together of every d*mn thing. Every issue has only two sides. And each side aligns 100% on THEIR side of that issue. Surely! So if you support a Republican's opinion on one issue, you must think all these other things, too.
I’m right there with you on this one. I don’t think the ends justify the means in many of the situations but Dems have to at least acknowledge when there are positive outcomes and listen to voters
I understand we need a pragmatic approach. And personally, I really, desperately want Trump to fail, and fail big, because I am tired of living in a world where being a misogynistic rapist who belittles and insults people is a path to success. I want some karmic payback.
I guess I’ll get over it and grit my teeth to do what we have to in order to win back voters, but (go ahead and judge my moral failings here, whatever) at the end of the day I want him to suffer for everything he’s done.
On another note, I’d love to see democrats step up in the districts where republicans are no longer holding town halls and say “hey, I’ll run for office and I’ll start holding town halls right now.”
I share your wish for karmic justice.
The most important thing Democrats need to do right now is get attention. Boring sentences in the style of Walz's sad little debate performance - "while I agree that my opponent is right about X, we disagree strongly over Y" - aren't gonna cut it. This is a dangerous and abnormal situation, not the time for old school come-together politics. Democrats need to meet the moment with radical ideas for grabbing attention and use those moments to drive down the popularity of their opponents. They need to be ruthless, remorseless and relentlessly on message that the opposition party is full of dumb evildoers who are making life worse for every living American.
I think you’re going to really like Tuesday’s episode with Tyler Austin Harper. The way he said it was (I’m paraphrasing): democrats don’t need to be ‘Diet Coke Republicans.’ They can stand for ideas and principles without being weird about it.