An Anxious Man’s Advice to Dems: Don’t Psych Yourself Out

Adam Bass

Adam Bass is an aspiring reporter and broadcaster from Massachusetts. He graduated from Wheaton College in Norton MA. Bass was general manager, and head of the political news coverage department of WCCS Wheaton College, where he did extensive coverage of the Massachusetts Senate Primary Race and The Massachusetts 4th congressional district primary race, as well as reporting on other National and local news. He now works as an intern for Newton News at NewTV where he has covered the 2021 municipal elections, hosts and produces The Cod Cabin where he and three of his colleagues podcast about Massachusetts politics and news, and has been working part time at WCRN 830 AM in Worcester Mass.

Related Post Roulette

62 Responses

  1. Jen
    Ignored
    says:

    Thanks for sharing and using it in a way that connect to our current situation. Great piece. I relate to the anxiety/doom loop as well. I am also a Dem, though don’t have an issue with Biden or his age – just wish his team were a little better at singing his accomplishments. I am also gobsmacked that there are so many people who see morally bankrupt politicians like (Trump, Putin, anyone MAGA )as good – so I do continue to freak out about the twisted logic so many have embraced in this country.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Jen
      Ignored
      says:

      I think the administration is collectively telling its good news story – legacy media aren’t picking it up and running with it because of their misplaced fear of being called biased.Report

  2. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Is this somewhere between “denial” and “bargaining”?

    Already?Report

  3. North
    Ignored
    says:

    Good article. I also read this on Kevin Drums’ site a little while back. I really don’t think looking at polls this far out is likely to be predictive.
    https://jabberwocking.com/joe-biden-is-as-popular-as-any-former-president/Report

  4. InMD
    Ignored
    says:

    I’m going to throw it out there that I don’t think feeling this kind of anxiety over politics generally is healthy. My hope is of course when Trump is inevitably re-nominated that he suffers defeat. It’s important to establish that there is, somewhere, deep in the abyss of American politics a line of bad faith, post truth nonsense beyond which we as a society will not cross.

    However a Biden loss shouldn’t scare anyone from a policy perspective. We would be worse governed of course, and I would imagine the absolute worst forces in the media will be re-unleashed to profit off of exactly this kind of paranoia. But the reality is we have gone through bad presidents before and survived. It would also inevitably provoke the same kind of backlash/thermostatic forces that it did last time.

    On a larger point falling prey to hysteria is exactly what the Trumps of the world want and what empowers them. It’s clear to me that the broader left of which I count myself a part never really learned how to confront him. It isn’t histrionics or the same kind of overly emotional lashing out. It’s a responsible liberalism confident in its ability to set policy and run the country better than an obnoxious tv personality.Report

    • Philip H in reply to InMD
      Ignored
      says:

      Worse governed is an … interesting way to approach this intellectually. Given that his prior administration nearly got to my level of government with their aborted Schedule F employment redo, I am quite certain that in another Trump administration I’ll be asked to sign an oath of loyalty to him, or quit. You can guess what my personal decision will be, that’s going to hollow
      out the professional civil service and that will make things far worse.Report

      • InMD in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        You know as well as I do that any directive like that would be immediately challenged in the courts, almost certainly stayed, and ultimately held unconstitutional. From a policy perspective I do not favor gutting federal agencies but what their scope is and how they are staffed is a perfectly legitimate matter of public policy debate and disagreement.

        What I am saying here is that the kind of mass hysteria over Trump did not help us last time, and the last thing people should be doing is winding themselves up for that. Frankly I still think we got really lucky that he was so uniquely ill dispositioned to be the face of the federal government during covid. That helped Biden a lot but we aren’t going to get that boost again, though we might get others, like Trump going to prison, where he belongs.

        The real political challenge we are facing this cycle is that a small but electorally significant chunk of swing-ish working class voters experienced a better economy under Trump than they are experiencing now. Inflation has slowed down but prices are still very high and they are feeling it. This is frustrating given that the Biden admin is overall a much better fiscal steward but it is what it is and it needs to be dealt with. The focus should be on figuring out the message for them, not seeing who can most spectacularly self immolate in outrage over Trump’s deranged persona and obvious unfitness.Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          You know as well as I do that any directive like that would be immediately challenged in the courts, almost certainly stayed, and ultimately held unconstitutional.

          Are you really certain that there aren’t 5 SCOTUS votes supporting this, or something like it?
          From what I can see, this would be wildly popular among the GOP congress, and voting base.
          For that matter, do even the moderate Republicans here at OT oppose it?Report

        • Pinky in reply to InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          “We have never seen Trump getting what he says he wants” isn’t a reason we should be afraid of him.Report

          • InMD in reply to Pinky
            Ignored
            says:

            I guess I’m not following. Democrats should be anything but complacent about this election. There are a lot of factors working against Biden, but IMO the big one really is the impact rising prices have had on working class Americans. As I said, Biden needs a message for that.

            At the same time Koz here at OT said something that I thought was very prescient about 2020. I can’t find it, and I don’t want to misquote him, and I apologize if I totally misinterpreted it. However I believe it was to the effect that the election became much simpler for him when he realized that it was about Normie Americans being tired of the Trump show. I interpreted that not in the sense that the most breathless progressive takes about the threat of Trump and MAGA were being vindicated. Rather just that this guy, and his persona, and his tendency towards turning everything into a referendum on him personally had gotten old for most regular people.

            Now it’s still totally possible Trump could win. But I also think one of the intangibles working against him is the inevitable sense of deja vu that could kick in during the general election. Tiger King was wild and unexpected the first time around, but by the end you kind of hated everyone and no one was dying for the sequel.Report

            • Pinky in reply to InMD
              Ignored
              says:

              Oops. That was a reply to Philip.

              It looks to me like he’s panicking that our previous stupid, immoral, incompetent president could replace our current stupid, immoral, incompetent president. You can point to things either of them did that were bad, but I don’t see the value of pointing to things either of them said once but were incapable of realizing. Second terms are almost always similar but less focused and more corrupt. So we’re looking at *that*, or *that*, unless something changes. I think the right reaction is more sorrow than anxiety. So my analysis is pretty similar to yours.Report

              • rexknobus in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Biden = stupid?
                Biden = immoral?
                Biden = incompetent?

                I understand political differences, but what the heck are you talking about?Report

              • Pinky in reply to rexknobus
                Ignored
                says:

                Biden is renowned for being in the top 2/3 of his class and claiming to be at the top. He’d be recognized as a compulsive liar if it weren’t for several recent people in his job being worse. He smeared Bork and Thomas and a lot of other people because it was politically advantageous to do so. He’s all for segregation or gay rights or whatever the index card he’s holding says he’s for. And all this was before he started disconnecting with his surroundings due to age. He’s never had beliefs or aspirations for the country, only personal aspirations.Report

              • rexknobus in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Whew. Well, I’m probably going to skate a bit too close to BSDI territory, but, other than the last two sentences of your post, aren’t you simply describing normal politics? Exaggerating records. Following the party line. Taking out after those on the other side. Politicians are pretty much required to be an unholy mix of aggressive salesperson and governmental official. Has it ever been otherwise? When running for office, what the heck else are they supposed to do? We, the voters, are supposed to understand that and figure out what we want, even if it takes a bit of de-coding.

                Your last two sentences are just junk. All you have to do is pay a little attention to Biden to see that he isn’t “disconnected from his surroundings.” Maybe a bit a softer spoken because of age, but since when is that a detriment in a politician? And who are you to say he “never had beliefs or aspirations for the country?” You simply can’t make that call and should understand that.Report

              • Pinky in reply to rexknobus
                Ignored
                says:

                I’ve been following Biden’s career since the 1980’s. He’s had a reputation for a long time as a liar. I remember his positions on abortion and gay marriage, so I know he’s not principled. As for his decline, I don’t know what to say, it seems so obvious that I’d just ask you to watch more than just a clip.Report

              • rexknobus in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                If I could I’d like to switch this around a little bit. Over a long period of time, as a very active politician, Biden has changed his stated views? That adds up to his being a liar and unprincipled? A question for you: can you name any other politician, similarly long-lived, who hasn’t switched around a bit? Or even a lot? Who hasn’t at least reacted to the ongoing changes in society and their party? Heck, why stick with politicians? Have you (or I, for that matter) maintained the exact same principled views over the last (for me) 50 years as an adult? And if not, are we liars?

                And decline? If you’re referring to a decline from youth to old age, no kidding. He sure has declined on that scale. However, he’s in Israel now, in the public eye. Let’s see if how he functions in this relatively stressful situation.Report

        • Philip H in reply to InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          SO I’m guessing you view this as a work of fiction?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025Report

        • CJColucci in reply to InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          What part of the Constitution do you think requires a non-political, protected civil service? On the theory that Trump will do anything in the stupidest way possible, he may well try to gut the civil service in a way that violates various statutes, and, therefore, fails, but I see no general constitutional objection to returning to a spoils system and government by loyalists.Report

          • InMD in reply to CJColucci
            Ignored
            says:

            That is an entirely separate question from the hypothetical proposed. But to your question, I think the chances of SCOTUS holding the whole civil service structure unconstitutional are also very low. Maybe Thomas and Alito would support that, which I guess is 2 votes too many, but I’m not sure this swerve into speculative catastrophizing is the right way to approach the election. Which was my point to begin with.Report

            • CJColucci in reply to InMD
              Ignored
              says:

              Who is suggesting that the civil service is unconstitutional? Not me. A thing can be constitutionally required, constitutionally prohibited, or constitutionally optional. The civil service is constitutionally optional. We can have it or not, keep it or kill it. A smart version of Trump, with Congressional backing, could gut it entirely. Trump being Trump, however, and at least one house of Congress likely to be in Democratic hands, he could easily try something that falls afoul of existing statutory law.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
              Ignored
              says:

              This is why I connect the Hamas/ Israeli war with our domestic political situation.

              In both cases we have intolerant authoritarian movements loudly proclaiming their goals, and apologists telling us not to pay attention to them, or that they probably won’t be able to do what they say they want to do and hey look over there, its Ibram Kendi.

              Yes, Hamas really does want to exterminate or expel all the Jews and yes, the Republican Party really does want a permanent authoritarian minority rule.

              And yes in both cases there is the real possibility it could happen.Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Look, I can’t sit here and tell you there is no possible world where the United States falls into Trumpist dictatorship. I think the threat of that is small, but I can’t prove it’s small anymore than you can prove it is significant. So let’s take for granted the proposition that the threat is high.

                If that’s the case, the best way to circumvent it is for Biden to win re election, and the best way to do that is for him to get young, black, not particularly socially liberal men in places like Atlanta, and Philly and Detroit out to vote for him, the same for working class, also not particularly socially liberal hispanics in the southwest, and to hold on to as many working class whites in the upper midwest and western PA as he can. Few of these people are hardcore political junkies. All of them are hurting from the after effects of inflation. Are you spending whatever tiny bit of their attention you can scratch up talking about something called ‘Project 2025’? Because I am not.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m a citizen, not a political pundit or strategist.

                I have to speak what I see happening, regardless of whether it is a Savvy Political Strategery.

                And what I see is that whenever they have the power to do so, Republicans snuff out liberal democracy.Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Come on, man. From my perspective that suggests people don’t really believe the dire prognostications they’re making. If that is the threat then we should be willing to triangulate to Jupiter and back to prevent it.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                I have no idea what “triangulate to Jupiter and back” means.

                Why not just speak the truth plainly and clearly, that a vote for any Republican at any level of office risks ending democracy in America?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                “Be willing to compromise on the stuff that you say ‘why do they even care about this stuff that doesn’t even matter?’, probably.”

                Instead of “Why should I compromise! They’re the ones who are morally wrong!”

                If I had to guess.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                OK, sure.

                Does “compromise” mean I shouldn’t say that a vote for any Republican at any level of office risks ending democracy in America?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Yeah, maybe if we made voting for Republicans unfashionable enough, we could get the entire country to look like those cities that haven’t had a Republican elected for anything since the late 1800s.Report

              • InMD in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I’ve tried to be pretty clear about it since I don’t want to criticize others without putting my own thoughts out there. Which is basically that there’s a handful of voter types in a handful of swing states and that how (and maybe whether) they vote is going to be based on something approximating what their grocery and gas bills are in 2024 versus their vague recollection of what they were in 2019.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Yeah, I’ve long thought that California going 60%+ and New York going 55%+ means that it might be worth going for California ~55% and New York ~52% if that would shore up Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio.

                BUT WHY SHOULD WE CHANGE WHEN THEY’RE THE STATES THAT SUCK!!! NOBODY EVEN WANTS TO LIVE THERE!Report

              • LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                “When somebody tells you who they are believe them.”Report

    • LeeEsq in reply to InMD
      Ignored
      says:

      “It can’t happen here” is never a good way to approach things.Report

      • InMD in reply to LeeEsq
        Ignored
        says:

        What can’t happen here?Report

          • InMD in reply to Burt Likko
            Ignored
            says:

            I understand the reference, I am pressure testing its relevance.Report

            • Pinky in reply to InMD
              Ignored
              says:

              I assumed it was a reference to Stephen King’s IT, which I certainly hope can’t happen here.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
              Ignored
              says:

              For people like us, the idea of an authoritarian America seems like some science fiction, but we need to remind ourselves that an authoritarian America was the actual reality for many people until very recently.

              I keep having to say that in almost any repressive state from China to Cuba to the Saudi Kingdom, there is a privileged group of people (People like us here at OT) who never experience it and live lives not very much different than a Manhattan professional.Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                There are certainly sheltered people in our society. I think it’s probably fair to assume that the class of commenters at OT is among the less likely to run into the rougher edges of state power. It’s a fair point but not an all encompassing one.

                It also doesn’t relieve anyone from making their case on the merits, nor does it preclude separate life experiences, education, and insight. For me personally I started my law career doing criminal defense work and got a bit of perspective into the class and racial components of it, at least as they play out in DC-Bmore and the surrounding hinterlands. I feel comfortable saying that most of the progressive commentary at this site is orders of magnitude off from how this stuff works in real life, or what it might reasonably look like in a more authoritarian country. And to be clear, I don’t mean any of this personally, just that the whole privilege checking thing isn’t much of a trump (no pun intended) card in this debate.Report

        • LeeEsq in reply to InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          Fascism, theocracy. It should be obvious based on the current political conversations.Report

          • InMD in reply to LeeEsq
            Ignored
            says:

            These things are always theoretically possible. I’m asking people to explain the path. Philip and maybe CJ think Trump is going to try to disband and/or capture the federal bureaucracy and turn it into a tool of oppression personally loyal to Trump. While this cannot be totally ruled out it is very much at odds with the lived experience of Donald Trump as president. It isn’t like the guy showed himself to be some master of wielding the administrative state and I would bet on mass resignations or more likely just general chaos as a bunch of diligent, working stiff bureaucrats get lost in a morass of orders at odds with their statutory responsibilities and long standing protocols.

            Maybe next time will be worse.
            But recent history suggests if he does somehow win a second term he will be weaker, the Democrats will retake the House at minimum 2 years into his term, all of his most outrageous acts will be tied up in the courts, and his own party (you know, the one that can’t even elect a speaker) will be incapable of accomplishing anything save maybe a regressive tax cut. None of that will be good for the country but we will be better served to debate this and make the case against Trump without all knee jerk appeals to the apocalyptic.Report

            • Marchmaine in reply to InMD
              Ignored
              says:

              “While this cannot be totally ruled out it”

              Narrator: This can totally be ruled out.

              Wes Anderson Narrator: Even with six weeks of rations, a utility knife, three yards of corded nylon rope, and a Heritage White Paper, his plan could totally be ruled out.

              West Wing Narrator: The Pendleton, Hatch and Reform Acts totally rule out this plan; but what if he appoints bad people and they use the system to hire people legally to pursue policies that we disagree with? Well, that cannot be ruled out and must be classified as an existential threat over the next 30-40 years depending on actuarial tables.Report

            • Philip H in reply to InMD
              Ignored
              says:

              Philip and maybe CJ think Trump is going to try to disband and/or capture the federal bureaucracy and turn it into a tool of oppression personally loyal to Trump. While this cannot be totally ruled out it is very much at odds with the lived experience of Donald Trump as president.

              Schedule F was his first shot as redoing the civil service, and would have converted all the Senior Executive Service, GS15 and many GS 14s into political appointees, essentially gutting leadership in most agencies. The only reason it wasn’t implemented is he ran out of time. SO while you may see no danger, we inside have already experienced it.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
              Ignored
              says:

              You’re completely ignoring the actual lived experience of Republicans in states which they control like Florida and Wisconsin and North Carolina.

              If they hold the legislature and not the executive office, they strip the executive of power;
              If they hold the executive office, they devolve immense unchecked power to it.

              And they have shown themselves willing to bend every organ of state to be loyal to the cause.

              These aren’t allegations, its what they themselves brag about openly.Report

  5. Marchmaine
    Ignored
    says:

    “Biden’s age problem IS fixable.”

    I don’t think it’s ‘fixable’ it is perhaps manageable. I think the ‘fixable’ notion is a polling notion, like, how can we change the narrative around his age.

    The ‘manageable’ problem is the fact that he has to run for President and he’s lost more than a few steps… managing his public activities includes ‘Joe being Joe’ moments that he’s good at and minimizing Joe being grilled on facts and details without a long runway and limited scope. The occasional ‘set-piece’ with prep and choreography (as long as it doesn’t overstep a’la the Red Speech) is also something a good team can manage – especially with the Office of the President as both the throttle and stage.

    The ‘issue’ if there is one is that you can Manage Joe to the best of your ability, but Joe is Joe and he’s over 80 and his decline is evident. He makes mistakes in public owing to his age, and that’s something that increases with, well, age; and Joe being Joe also includes Joe being willing to go headlong into his weaknesses as well as his strengths. That’s what they are trying to manage, but it isn’t fixable… or, another way to put it is that it will be ‘fixed’ up until the moment it isn’t managed.

    This is the driver behind all the VP talk… a weak VP makes ‘managing’ the age problem a tighter rope to walk.Report

  6. Burt Likko
    Ignored
    says:

    Fox News polls released Thursday show Biden narrowly beating Trump and narrowly losing to any of the other Republicans, at the national level. All within the margin of error. State-by-state polling isn’t nearly good enough to take a 538-style forecast. And it’s twelve and a half months until the general election.

    But primary polling suggests Republicans are hellbent on re-nominating Trump despite this fact and Biden has beat Trump once already, and Trump is even less popular generally than Biden. Any Dem who is panicking right now is doing so without good reason.

    There’s work to do, that’s all.Report

  7. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    Who are all these nervous Democrats that the media somehow manages to find? Could Trump win in 2024? Sure but he has never won a popular vote and the swing states (Pennsylvania, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Nevada) had pretty to very good results for Democrats in a midterm year that was supposed to be a bloodbath. Yesterday, the Times reported that Biden’s most recent fundraising haul far outpaced Trump and every other Republican during the same quarter.

    Theory: The media wants a horse race and the media will have one because reporting on a horse race is easy and fun. Reporting on policy, ethics, morality, the survival of Democracy in the United States is very hard.

    In order get their horse race, the media will do anything and everything to help Trump overcome all of his natural disadvantages.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *