For sure and I could be convinced it's a 'bad take.' However if you take a look he actually includes a bunch of the primary resources.
It also made me squirm when I saw WaPo's headline this morning. Apparently the tower at DCA was understaffed when this happened with 2 trying to do the job of 4.
There's been an ongoing local debate about whether the local airports and DCA in particular are above capacity. I had a hell of an experience a little over a year ago with an aborted landing coming into Dulles from Frankfurt. This combined with the litigation paint it in a terrifying new light.
I don't think a lot or votes turn on this specific issue. What I think it does, along with a series of other issues around identity that fairly or unfairly have been associated with the Democratic party, is create a credibility problem. Or maybe a larger perception that Democrats are not focused on things regular people and/or the ones that turn elections care about. In aggregate it tends to muffle the more appealing parts of the Democrat's message and alienate people from the politicians themselves. Most people aren't sick political junkies like those of us that comment at OT. They hear very little and if what they hear is strange or confusing it will eventually show up in the polls.
Admittedly I lack the expertise to quantify that view but I think it explains a lot of whats going on. The Democrats aren't the only party impacted by this, and I think we can expect a lot of headscratching at things the GOP does over the next few years, as some of the more online parts of the administration lash out about faux controversies that no one that isn't highly engaged on TwitterX has ever heard of.
I think a lot of it is an Extremely Online phenomena. The DC burb I live in ain't San Fran or Brooklyn (or even DC itself) but it's in the same ballpark politically. I know that the public schools reinforce the bullsh*t but dammed if I can find anyone outside of a handful of whackadoo academic types or who work in the arts that seem to actually believe in any of it. And even among a lot of them I find that talking things through for 5 minutes walks them back to a much more reasonable position.
So it should be live and let live. People believe in a lot of weird stuff. I'm a practicing Catholic which plenty of people probably find pretty weird. But I don't think the schools or the state or whatever public services have some duty to endorse my spiritual beliefs.
All that has to happen is for people to stop walking on egg shells. Bostock v. Clayton confirmed people calling themselves trans have the same rights as everyone else, and they do. They just aren't due some special accommodation or endorsement of their gender metaphysics, not only because they're obviously silly, but because the state isn't supposed to be endorsing that sort of thing for anyone.
My dude, don't call me a 'cis' as if there's any such thing. It's just another nonsense word used to obscure and misdirect, and there's no call for insulting my intelligence with that.
Homelessness is a problem for social services. Murder is for the police and the courts. None of it is justification for schools being able to lie to parents or mislead them, nor frankly is it cause for incorporating bizarre nonsense about gender identity into the pedagogy for young children.
Anyway I understand some things may have slipped through over the years. It may surprise you but I still don't support all out bans on hormones or surgeries (serious medical gatekeeping on experimental treatments is another matter). But now that we've got record numbers of minors, many of whom clearly have a lot of other things going on, demanding major and at times irreversible medical interventions it's time to dump the gender identity stuff and revert back to sex, which has always been the objective and appropriate categorization of most of these matters to begin with.
And look, this is America. It's a free country and everyone is on their own journey. If William wants to change his name to Leah, have some cosmetic surgeries, and wear sun dresses on the boulevard well I'd say the first amendment means he can do just that. But he doesn't get to swim on the womens team or show his penis to a bunch of coeds in the locker room, nor does he get to be incarcerated in a womens' facility just because he feels more comfortable with the girls. This really isn't that difficult and never has been.
Yea, I mean, I'm still basically in alignment with where the Obama admin was but you really have to ask yourself how people like this are being convicted of serious crimes (presumably in American courts?) and being allowed to stay in the country. As long as that can be put on the front page of what Trump is doing I don't see how he pays a political price for it.
I don't think anyone should be curb stomped either. I've been trying to avoid delving back into this topic but I think it's worth remembering that adults were having surgeries and hormone treatments to try to resemble the opposite sex for decades without it being a serious political issue. I'm also not going to pretend that empathy is the strong suit of our species but all kinds of unusual and avante-garde appearances and self expressive behavior have been broadly tolerated in this country for a long time. No, not everyone is going to celebrate whatever any particular person is doing but that's just life in a big pluralistic society. When I was in high school in the 90s enforcement of rigid gender roles was already history. There were goth kids who would cross dress or gender bend and I can't imagine anyone ever denying that information to their parents, much less thinking it was part of some permanent identity in need of "validation."
The fight got picked by a certain brand of activist pushing hard for medical interventions in minors, introduction of some pretty questionable, metaphysical stuff and dangerous policies into public school curricula, and the sudden appearance of men in womens sports and a handful of other places where women are vulnerable, like prisons and rape shelters. That's what this is, and now predictably there is a backlash. I think it is a very open question as to whether pushing all of these things has shaken out to the benefit of those that identify themselves as trans. I for one am not sure that it has.
But if you really want to start somewhere it would be rejecting the kind of thing David is posting in the comment with all of the links. I read something like that and think I'd vote to abolish the public schools before I'd concede to them treating parents like criminals or telling lies to the tax payers they serve. It is not acceptable for reasons I think are quite clear, and it will never work.
Yea all fair points. IIRC Trump 1 didn't even reach Obama numbers.
I'm just trying to keep things clear eyed. We've been hearing for years now that he's going to self immolate. He may well and if he really goes through with the kinds of tariffs he's proposed and we get the results one would expect with prices and/or inflation that might do it.
But it's always worth remembering that he was just as outrageous and terrible last time and it took a once a century global pandemic to bring him down. I'm afraid wishful thinking won't result in much more than disappointment.
I predict any actual attempt at mass deportation to go somewhere between not great and totally disastrous but I think people who keep repeating 'people won't like it when they see it' don't have a clue. No one wants to see someone they care about on the wrong side of the law but too many pundits and journalists grossly over estimate the amount of sympathy the average person will have for individuals who at the end of the day broke the rules. I also don't think prices are closely connected with (illegal) immigration in the minds of the average person, econ101 or not.
Maybe I'll be proven wrong but I doubt it registers and think single issue polling is hugely misleading on most issues.
I have read some recent damming reporting from gift links at WSJ and NYT that the decline may in fact have come into play with Afghanistan. It's an issue where I am as generous as possible to the Biden Admin given that I think it was still the right decision but... yeesh.
In my time as a politically aware person I have seen it done successfully twice, once by Bill Clinton, and now again by Trump.
Part of the key is of course figuring out what does and doesn't have a popular constituency. Trump's big insights, whether intentionally identified or fallen into by total blind luck, was that (i) there is no serious constituency for neoconservative adventures overseas, and (ii) that there is no constituency and indeed the voting masses are downright hostile to SS and Medicare privatization schemes.
If I had to pick a constituency that the Democrats could do this with today it would probably be something like 'university professors and administrators and people who work for NPOs/NGOs.'
Again, what's strangest to me about this conversation is skepticism towards changing the game plan after a loss. If you can't run the ball maybe you need to try a new blocking scheme.
I agree with his point that things can change quickly, but the support he is using is Trump's loud and open rejection of a handful of important Bush II era GOP positions. In a 2 party system the Democrats will always be to some degree 'in it' and that's especially the case where the GOP and Trump in particular also regularly does and says crazy and alienating things.
The key to making things change quickly and in more decisive ways is to actually make some changes. Tell some people that annoy the larger electorate that they need to shut up because they're wrong. Pivot on a policy or two that's important and that mitigates a D weakness. I don't understand why those propositions are so highly controversial in left of center spaces when they're just basic sense, at least IMO.
i think one could quibble on various details. However the main thrust, namely that (i) Biden appears to have been seriously compromised by his age from a pretty early point in his presidency, (ii) his inner circle went to great lengths to camouflage this fact passed the point of no return for 2024, and (iii) that this has resulted in massive brand damage requiring a serious reboot for the national party, is all pretty self evident.
Matt Y had a separate piece in the last month or two directly addressing the issue of the groups and the way the dynamic has changed for the (much) worse. Unfortunately it is paywalled. I assume he didn't directly take that on in this piece is because he dedicated a full essay to it quite recently. Below is the link if you want to try and use some magic to read it.
I don't disagree but I also think part of re-establishing credibility is agreeing to put certain toys away for a time. I've been thoroughly browbeaten for this but my opinion remains that Impeachment 2 was undermined considerably by the arcane nature of Impeachment 1, both in the charges and the investigation.
Heh I don't think that's on the table. And unless Trump really does go out and shoot someone on 5th Avenue I think it's probably worth giving the impeachment power a rest for the time being. I don't like the outcome of this election one bit but the only way out to maybe something better is through.
Yea, like last time with Trump, the staying power of this stuff is pretty questionable. Let's assume for a minute there is a real interest in civil service reform (lol I know but bear with me). You'd be trying to do that through the legislative process where you have a majority, not sending out mass decrees to try to scatter shot scare people into resigning, totally agnostic to the fact that it's going to be caught up in the courts. I have gotten texts from a few people I know in government about this, one of whom is in the kind of auditing role even a conservative would theoretically see value in.
To the extent there's any silver lining for my personal politics it's that I do think these silly diversity and DEI bureaucracies that have sprung up in universities shouldn't have public money. And if Trump or the DOJ bully some of the more ridiculous offenders using the letter of civil rights statutes as they actually exist then, well, they had it coming. I also think rescinding the affirmative action EO was at this point the right thing to do and I think long term it will be good for our side. It's time for a debate on whether this is something that really makes sense anymore rather than simultaneously knee jerk defending the status quo while still trying to placate the activist minority insisting both that the old paradigm is actually a sham and that nothing will ever be enough.
No, it's just a fact. It's never happened. Maybe one day technology will be such that it does but as of today it can't.
Anyway I mentioned it because he literally says in the piece people have changed their sex. But you need to actually read it if you want to talk more about the larger point he is trying to make.
I think you're right about that and I'm curious to see how the more online people in the administration respond or if they can even survive contact with planet Normie. The Democrats aren't the only people capable of doing things that don't make sense to people that aren't on Twitter-X.
But that's kind of always been Trump's biggest underlying flaw. He is a meme but you can't master our institutions by being a meme, and he has no apparent talent for mastering them. Hence the default to 'things Republicans have wanted since 1992, maybe even 1982' whenever it comes to trying to create lasting reforms via legislation.
It was an interesting piece but he lost me a bit at the end on trying to draw a parallel between Israel/Palestine and related activism and the transgender topic. I very much understand the critique of New Atheism, and the concept of "reality" (or the "Science" or whatever) as opposed to reality itself being used as a political cudgel in tribalistic or highly partisan ways, and particularly in ways that paper over or distract from the actual important questions at issue.
But I wasn't convinced by the suggestion that odd political bedfellows is itself dispositive on substantive questions about Israel's military strategy and the civilian death involved, or who 'wins' in a debate about whether, IDK, Carole Hooven still gets to teach human biology courses despite the content being upsetting to those with strong commitments to a particular set of abstractions about (the mutability of) sex. He also says humans have changed sex before which technically speaking has never happened.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/27/2025”
For sure and I could be convinced it's a 'bad take.' However if you take a look he actually includes a bunch of the primary resources.
It also made me squirm when I saw WaPo's headline this morning. Apparently the tower at DCA was understaffed when this happened with 2 trying to do the job of 4.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/01/30/dc-plane-crash-helicopter-recovery-no-survivors-potomac-river/
There's been an ongoing local debate about whether the local airports and DCA in particular are above capacity. I had a hell of an experience a little over a year ago with an aborted landing coming into Dulles from Frankfurt. This combined with the litigation paint it in a terrifying new light.
"
I had never heard about this case and it's actually quite fascinating.
If the stuff in this summary is an accurate characterization it's really pretty damning.
https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-faas-hiring-scandal-a-quick-overview
"
I don't think a lot or votes turn on this specific issue. What I think it does, along with a series of other issues around identity that fairly or unfairly have been associated with the Democratic party, is create a credibility problem. Or maybe a larger perception that Democrats are not focused on things regular people and/or the ones that turn elections care about. In aggregate it tends to muffle the more appealing parts of the Democrat's message and alienate people from the politicians themselves. Most people aren't sick political junkies like those of us that comment at OT. They hear very little and if what they hear is strange or confusing it will eventually show up in the polls.
Admittedly I lack the expertise to quantify that view but I think it explains a lot of whats going on. The Democrats aren't the only party impacted by this, and I think we can expect a lot of headscratching at things the GOP does over the next few years, as some of the more online parts of the administration lash out about faux controversies that no one that isn't highly engaged on TwitterX has ever heard of.
"
I think a lot of it is an Extremely Online phenomena. The DC burb I live in ain't San Fran or Brooklyn (or even DC itself) but it's in the same ballpark politically. I know that the public schools reinforce the bullsh*t but dammed if I can find anyone outside of a handful of whackadoo academic types or who work in the arts that seem to actually believe in any of it. And even among a lot of them I find that talking things through for 5 minutes walks them back to a much more reasonable position.
So it should be live and let live. People believe in a lot of weird stuff. I'm a practicing Catholic which plenty of people probably find pretty weird. But I don't think the schools or the state or whatever public services have some duty to endorse my spiritual beliefs.
All that has to happen is for people to stop walking on egg shells. Bostock v. Clayton confirmed people calling themselves trans have the same rights as everyone else, and they do. They just aren't due some special accommodation or endorsement of their gender metaphysics, not only because they're obviously silly, but because the state isn't supposed to be endorsing that sort of thing for anyone.
"
My dude, don't call me a 'cis' as if there's any such thing. It's just another nonsense word used to obscure and misdirect, and there's no call for insulting my intelligence with that.
Homelessness is a problem for social services. Murder is for the police and the courts. None of it is justification for schools being able to lie to parents or mislead them, nor frankly is it cause for incorporating bizarre nonsense about gender identity into the pedagogy for young children.
Anyway I understand some things may have slipped through over the years. It may surprise you but I still don't support all out bans on hormones or surgeries (serious medical gatekeeping on experimental treatments is another matter). But now that we've got record numbers of minors, many of whom clearly have a lot of other things going on, demanding major and at times irreversible medical interventions it's time to dump the gender identity stuff and revert back to sex, which has always been the objective and appropriate categorization of most of these matters to begin with.
And look, this is America. It's a free country and everyone is on their own journey. If William wants to change his name to Leah, have some cosmetic surgeries, and wear sun dresses on the boulevard well I'd say the first amendment means he can do just that. But he doesn't get to swim on the womens team or show his penis to a bunch of coeds in the locker room, nor does he get to be incarcerated in a womens' facility just because he feels more comfortable with the girls. This really isn't that difficult and never has been.
On “Trump’s Unforced Error”
Yea, I mean, I'm still basically in alignment with where the Obama admin was but you really have to ask yourself how people like this are being convicted of serious crimes (presumably in American courts?) and being allowed to stay in the country. As long as that can be put on the front page of what Trump is doing I don't see how he pays a political price for it.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/27/2025”
I don't think anyone should be curb stomped either. I've been trying to avoid delving back into this topic but I think it's worth remembering that adults were having surgeries and hormone treatments to try to resemble the opposite sex for decades without it being a serious political issue. I'm also not going to pretend that empathy is the strong suit of our species but all kinds of unusual and avante-garde appearances and self expressive behavior have been broadly tolerated in this country for a long time. No, not everyone is going to celebrate whatever any particular person is doing but that's just life in a big pluralistic society. When I was in high school in the 90s enforcement of rigid gender roles was already history. There were goth kids who would cross dress or gender bend and I can't imagine anyone ever denying that information to their parents, much less thinking it was part of some permanent identity in need of "validation."
The fight got picked by a certain brand of activist pushing hard for medical interventions in minors, introduction of some pretty questionable, metaphysical stuff and dangerous policies into public school curricula, and the sudden appearance of men in womens sports and a handful of other places where women are vulnerable, like prisons and rape shelters. That's what this is, and now predictably there is a backlash. I think it is a very open question as to whether pushing all of these things has shaken out to the benefit of those that identify themselves as trans. I for one am not sure that it has.
But if you really want to start somewhere it would be rejecting the kind of thing David is posting in the comment with all of the links. I read something like that and think I'd vote to abolish the public schools before I'd concede to them treating parents like criminals or telling lies to the tax payers they serve. It is not acceptable for reasons I think are quite clear, and it will never work.
On “Trump’s Unforced Error”
Yea all fair points. IIRC Trump 1 didn't even reach Obama numbers.
I'm just trying to keep things clear eyed. We've been hearing for years now that he's going to self immolate. He may well and if he really goes through with the kinds of tariffs he's proposed and we get the results one would expect with prices and/or inflation that might do it.
But it's always worth remembering that he was just as outrageous and terrible last time and it took a once a century global pandemic to bring him down. I'm afraid wishful thinking won't result in much more than disappointment.
"
I predict any actual attempt at mass deportation to go somewhere between not great and totally disastrous but I think people who keep repeating 'people won't like it when they see it' don't have a clue. No one wants to see someone they care about on the wrong side of the law but too many pundits and journalists grossly over estimate the amount of sympathy the average person will have for individuals who at the end of the day broke the rules. I also don't think prices are closely connected with (illegal) immigration in the minds of the average person, econ101 or not.
Maybe I'll be proven wrong but I doubt it registers and think single issue polling is hugely misleading on most issues.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/27/2025”
I am in total agreement.
"
I have read some recent damming reporting from gift links at WSJ and NYT that the decline may in fact have come into play with Afghanistan. It's an issue where I am as generous as possible to the Biden Admin given that I think it was still the right decision but... yeesh.
"
In my time as a politically aware person I have seen it done successfully twice, once by Bill Clinton, and now again by Trump.
Part of the key is of course figuring out what does and doesn't have a popular constituency. Trump's big insights, whether intentionally identified or fallen into by total blind luck, was that (i) there is no serious constituency for neoconservative adventures overseas, and (ii) that there is no constituency and indeed the voting masses are downright hostile to SS and Medicare privatization schemes.
If I had to pick a constituency that the Democrats could do this with today it would probably be something like 'university professors and administrators and people who work for NPOs/NGOs.'
Again, what's strangest to me about this conversation is skepticism towards changing the game plan after a loss. If you can't run the ball maybe you need to try a new blocking scheme.
"
We also run a couple of really big insurance schemes and a huge military. But beyond that...
"
I agree with his point that things can change quickly, but the support he is using is Trump's loud and open rejection of a handful of important Bush II era GOP positions. In a 2 party system the Democrats will always be to some degree 'in it' and that's especially the case where the GOP and Trump in particular also regularly does and says crazy and alienating things.
The key to making things change quickly and in more decisive ways is to actually make some changes. Tell some people that annoy the larger electorate that they need to shut up because they're wrong. Pivot on a policy or two that's important and that mitigates a D weakness. I don't understand why those propositions are so highly controversial in left of center spaces when they're just basic sense, at least IMO.
"
You the man!
"
i think one could quibble on various details. However the main thrust, namely that (i) Biden appears to have been seriously compromised by his age from a pretty early point in his presidency, (ii) his inner circle went to great lengths to camouflage this fact passed the point of no return for 2024, and (iii) that this has resulted in massive brand damage requiring a serious reboot for the national party, is all pretty self evident.
"
Paywalled. :(
Matt Y had a separate piece in the last month or two directly addressing the issue of the groups and the way the dynamic has changed for the (much) worse. Unfortunately it is paywalled. I assume he didn't directly take that on in this piece is because he dedicated a full essay to it quite recently. Below is the link if you want to try and use some magic to read it.
https://www.slowboring.com/p/from-the-veal-pen-to-the-groups
"
I don't disagree but I also think part of re-establishing credibility is agreeing to put certain toys away for a time. I've been thoroughly browbeaten for this but my opinion remains that Impeachment 2 was undermined considerably by the arcane nature of Impeachment 1, both in the charges and the investigation.
"
Heh I don't think that's on the table. And unless Trump really does go out and shoot someone on 5th Avenue I think it's probably worth giving the impeachment power a rest for the time being. I don't like the outcome of this election one bit but the only way out to maybe something better is through.
"
Yglesias has a free post on where Democrats should go from here. Figured I'd share:
https://www.slowboring.com/p/throw-biden-under-the-bus
On “Memo: All Federal Grant, Loan, and Financial Assistance “Temporarily Paused””
Yea, like last time with Trump, the staying power of this stuff is pretty questionable. Let's assume for a minute there is a real interest in civil service reform (lol I know but bear with me). You'd be trying to do that through the legislative process where you have a majority, not sending out mass decrees to try to scatter shot scare people into resigning, totally agnostic to the fact that it's going to be caught up in the courts. I have gotten texts from a few people I know in government about this, one of whom is in the kind of auditing role even a conservative would theoretically see value in.
To the extent there's any silver lining for my personal politics it's that I do think these silly diversity and DEI bureaucracies that have sprung up in universities shouldn't have public money. And if Trump or the DOJ bully some of the more ridiculous offenders using the letter of civil rights statutes as they actually exist then, well, they had it coming. I also think rescinding the affirmative action EO was at this point the right thing to do and I think long term it will be good for our side. It's time for a debate on whether this is something that really makes sense anymore rather than simultaneously knee jerk defending the status quo while still trying to placate the activist minority insisting both that the old paradigm is actually a sham and that nothing will ever be enough.
"
No, it's just a fact. It's never happened. Maybe one day technology will be such that it does but as of today it can't.
Anyway I mentioned it because he literally says in the piece people have changed their sex. But you need to actually read it if you want to talk more about the larger point he is trying to make.
"
I think you're right about that and I'm curious to see how the more online people in the administration respond or if they can even survive contact with planet Normie. The Democrats aren't the only people capable of doing things that don't make sense to people that aren't on Twitter-X.
But that's kind of always been Trump's biggest underlying flaw. He is a meme but you can't master our institutions by being a meme, and he has no apparent talent for mastering them. Hence the default to 'things Republicans have wanted since 1992, maybe even 1982' whenever it comes to trying to create lasting reforms via legislation.
"
Did you read the essay in the link?
"
It was an interesting piece but he lost me a bit at the end on trying to draw a parallel between Israel/Palestine and related activism and the transgender topic. I very much understand the critique of New Atheism, and the concept of "reality" (or the "Science" or whatever) as opposed to reality itself being used as a political cudgel in tribalistic or highly partisan ways, and particularly in ways that paper over or distract from the actual important questions at issue.
But I wasn't convinced by the suggestion that odd political bedfellows is itself dispositive on substantive questions about Israel's military strategy and the civilian death involved, or who 'wins' in a debate about whether, IDK, Carole Hooven still gets to teach human biology courses despite the content being upsetting to those with strong commitments to a particular set of abstractions about (the mutability of) sex. He also says humans have changed sex before which technically speaking has never happened.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.