Feinstein

by liberal japonicus

I tend to think that the transactional nature of politics, particularly in the US House and Senate, makes it a certainty that the people who end up there never seem like the person they were when they started. Reading the Guardian's obit of Feinstein underlines that. Whether it reveals their true nature or changes them is the question.

In the decades after, her steady centrism left allies at times soothed, and sometimes seething. Feminist groups celebrated her political rise, and lamented that she refused to ally herself with women’s rights groups. She supported programs to fight the Aids epidemic, but as mayor vetoed domestic partnership legislation, confusing and frustrating LGBTQ+ rights activists. She was an ardent gun control advocate; she was booed at a state Democratic party convention for supporting the death penalty.

 A thread for anything related to this.

 

Comments

[JanieM]

Whether it reveals their true nature or changes them is the question.

I have asked myself this question about Susan Collins again and again. If, at the beginning of her political career, her "true nature" was anything like the self-righteous, whiny, dishonest, manipulative, cynical politico she seems to be now, she was hiding it very very well. (Don't ask me how I think I have a basis for this opinion.)

Pondering lj's passage that I quoted, though, I would say, from the vantage point of the "get off my lawn" phase of my life, that I'm not sure people, or at least all people, *have* an incorruptible, unchangeable "true" nature. Certainly some have an inner core of integrity (or the opposite) that never changes throughout their lives. But others, maybe most of us, are continually being shaped by our experiences and by the forces of the world around us.

I didn't read lj's link, but the passage he quoted doesn't seem to me to be describing a "true nature" that might have changed, it sounds more like someone who wasn't consistent in terms of certain values from an observer's point of view, but who was very consistent in terms of doing what seemed expedient (from her own point of view) at any given time.

[wj]

it sounds more like someone who wasn't consistent in terms of certain values from an observer's point of view, but who was very consistent in terms of doing what seemed expedient (from her own point of view) at any given time.

I'd say it sounds more like her values did evolve. But for the most part, she remained a center-left person. The criticisms seem to me to be about people unable to understand or accept that someone who supported some things that they did might not embrace everything.

• Feminist groups celebrated her political rise, and lamented that she refused to ally herself with women’s rights groups. Check.
• She supported programs to fight the Aids epidemic, but as mayor vetoed domestic partnership legislation, confusing and frustrating LGBTQ+ rights activists. Check.
• She was an ardent gun control advocate; she was booed at a state Democratic party convention for supporting the death penalty. Check.

In short, each group wanted, sometimes desperately wanted, to believe she was one of theirs, top to bottom. But she wasn't, and never had been.

[liberal japonicus]

Loomis from LG&M as a counter-point to wj.

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2023/09/feinstein-2

[wj]

lj, actually I think Loomis rather supports my point. Granted, he dislikes her record almost across the board. But he's not arguing that her positions were inconsistent, just that they were consistently way more conservative then he thinks they should have been.

[liberal japonicus]

My thought on the counterpoint was calling her center-left. Obviously, where we put center-left is not objective, but I don't think that 'center-left'= 'centrist'. Loomis is someone who hews to the original meaning of the word iconoclast, and so centrist is definitely not a term of endearment, but setting that aside, given that feminist, LGBTQ+ and gun control groups had problems with her, center-left seems a bit too generous.

On the other hand, she was had a high ranking with the League of Conservation Voters
https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/dianne-feinstein
but there was this
https://laist.com/news/climate-environment/dianne-feinstein-leaves-behind-a-complicated-legacy-on-climate-issues

I also think that center-left sort of requires an openness to youth and change. But I'm not planting any flags on this, it's just my thought du jour. That last link is interesting because it has this

“I’ve been doing this for 30 years. I know what I’ve been doing,” she said in a viral video. “You come in here and say it has to be my way or the highway.” Her office later released a statement on the incident that mistakenly referred to the protestors as part of the “Sunshine Movement.”

I imagine she, like any politician, surrounded herself with people who reflected her views, and I wonder if that kind of environment can stop people from changing.

[wj]

given that feminist, LGBTQ+ and gun control groups had problems with her, center-left seems a bit too generous.

They had problems with her on some issues. But not on all -- that's why they were lamenting, confused, frustrated, etc.

Certainly she wasn't a solid leftist, but "center-left" seems quite a reasonable label. (I'd note that it would also be a reasonable label for Obama. Which is why he also left many progressives, who thought he ought to automatically be with them all the way, out of sorts.)

[wj]

I imagine she, like any politician, surrounded herself with people who reflected her views, and I wonder if that kind of environment can stop people from changing.

It definitely can have that effect. But it clearly doesn't have to. I've seen a fair number of politicians whose views have evolved over time. Sometimes quite late in their careers.

And that evolution has often earned denunciations of "hypocracy" from those towards whose views they had moved. (The only people I find more irritating than ideological purists are those who insist on lifetime purity.)

[CharlesWT]

From a libertarian point of view Feinstein was consistently authoritarian.

[Pro Bono]

"center-left" seems quite a reasonable label. (I'd note that it would also be a reasonable label for Obama...)

I'm not disagreeing with that in a US context, but I can't think of an issue on which Obama wasn't to the right of David Cameron, a Conservative, who was UK prime minister for most of Obama's presidency.

[Hartmut]

CharlesWT, I think you'll find few US politicians of any importance that are not authoritarian from your libertarian POV, and that includes most self-styled libertarians who are usually quite selective about where "freedom should rule" and where the state should reach down into the most private aspects of life and regulate them in detail.

[liberal japonicus]

I'd note that it would also be a reasonable label for Obama. Which is why he also left many progressives, who thought he ought to automatically be with them all the way, out of sorts.

My own take on Obama was that he had to behave in a way that was a lot more centrist because he was black. I think this is more of a problem for him than it would be for a woman, I think that a female politician has more degrees of freedom.

This then goes back to the question about a person's 'true' nature, which I really can't answer. As Vonnegut wrote, 'We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be'

[Hartmut]

Obama was also honest enough to publicly say that he was someone who people projected (positive) things into, i.e. they saw their ideals reflected in him, even if they were not actually there. So, they would inevitably be disappointed later.
My estimate is that he is in essence a natural moderate and centrist in the classical sense (not in the distorted way that guys like e.g. Joe Manchin are described as centrist/moderate these days despite being nothing of the kind), not a revolutionary.
I think he still was one of the better presidents and could have been even more successful, if the opposition had not gotten bonkers (see the demonized public option in Obamacare and the "death panels" BS).

[hairshirthedonist]

And the blocking of his SCOTUS nominee for something like a year until he was out of office.

[Girl from the North Country]

My own take on Obama was that he had to behave in a way that was a lot more centrist because he was black. I think this is more of a problem for him than it would be for a woman, I think that a female politician has more degrees of freedom.

I think the first sentence is right. Whether the second is, in the theoretical sense of a female POTUS, we shall have to wait and see. I cannot comment on Feinstein, not having followed her career in any detail. But I do agree with this, from Janie:

But others, maybe most of us, are continually being shaped by our experiences and by the forces of the world around us.

Whether it explains Feinstein's changes, or whether they were, like those of Collins, more cynically motivated, I cannot judge.

[JanieM]

Had a covid shot yesterday and am pretty laid low by it, so this is even more speculative than usual.

GftNC wrote: Whether the second is, in the theoretical sense of a female POTUS, we shall have to wait and see.

I too reacted to lj's notion that a female president would have more degrees of freedom than Obama had (or any male black president; a female black president is, if we get one any time soon, going to be yet another variation). My reaction was: I'm not at all sure of that.

But as I think about it, it seems to me that at the very least, the dynamic would be different. A black president represents, to a wide swath of the country, a revolution and takeover by the underclass that is supposed to stay under. Everything will be taken away if we let them run things (the real fear being that black people in charge would treat white people like blacks have been treated for 400 years).

Whereas -- to the people who would mind, a woman doesn't represent a revolution such that "women in general" would be in charge, it's more like a fluke, and if we can only make sure that the right men are in the mix around her, we'll make sure she doesn't do anything really really bad. So I don't think she has more degrees of freedom than Obama (or any black president), the constraints just run along different axes and are applied in a different style. (Vague language, I know.)

[wj]

Am I the only one who is watching with great interest to see who Gov Newsom chooses to replace Feinstein? With his various statements about the required characteristics (black, female, not running for the seat next year) he has rather gotten himself into a box. See Rep. Lee's caustic comments.

California Democrats have a deep bench. But most of the people on it aren't all that anxious to take a 1 year appointment that doesn't leave them an obvious path forward beyond it.

[Michael Cain]

It strikes me that it's less long-term Senators changing than their state changing. I don't think Feinstein is that much different than when she was first elected, but California has changed a lot. I don't think McCain was that much different when he died than when he was first elected, but abruptly it was much harder for a Republican (w/o the "tradition" effect that McCain and Feinstein enjoyed) to win a Senate seat -- Arizona had changed.

I have said here before that one of the big political stories over the last 30 years has been the Midwest becoming much more Republican -- which the East Coast papers occasionally take note of -- and the West becoming much more Democratic. My impression is that the change in the West has gone unnoticed by the East Coast media. Specific example of the changes -- the eight Interior West states now have more Democratic Senators than the 12-state Midwest.

[nous]

I'm following the appointment saga closely as well, wj. It obviously has a lot more impact for me when Newsom's choice directly impacts my district.

Honestly, I wish that Newsom would go ahead and appoint Lee. She's well behind Schiff and Porter in the polls, so I don't think that she would receive all that big a boost in her primary chances with an appointment, and the other two could also declare themselves for the special election and make it easy for people to just vote for their preferred candidate for both of those elections.

And if he appointed Lee, we would not end up with a placeholder in that seat. Lee would have every motivation to make her time there count.

It would also give Porter a chance to decide that she was okay with the choice and was going to shift her attention back to her House seat. I'd love to see her move up, but I'd rather have her in DC than either of the Democratic hopefuls for her seat.

I don't think people have true natures. I think we have histories and habits that create momentum and inertia, and we have self-narratives that we use to make sense of the path we have taken, but that always overestimate our own ability to steer that direction.

I'd say that Feinstein was a federalist and a corporatist. I don't think she was authoritarian per se, so much as that she was fine with our political and business institutions as they stand and believed that they best served the public good. As such, she resisted any reformist impulses that came from outside that institutional culture.

Big, squishy-but-firm nanny state territory, with plenty of room for profit motives.

Blech.

[JanieM]

we have self-narratives that we use to make sense of the path we have taken, but that always overestimate our own ability to steer that direction.

Well stated, and I especially emphatically agree with the later part, both for individuals and for the great collective "we" that would surely solve all the problems of the world if only we would get off our asses and do what activists tell us to do.

I don't think we have a heck of a lot more ability to do that than we have to steer the path of a hurricane. It's not none, and for human affairs there's some kind of mysterious summing up of all our choices, in much the same way that a hurricane arises out of millions of lesser weather elements all blending somehow. (Chaos theory? Outmoded already? I dunno.) So our choices matter, all the more at the granular level, but they don't necessarily mean much at the global level. (Okay, back to bed. This shot has really laid me low. First time it's been this extreme.) (The usual disclaimers about "we" and "our" meaning anything in particular. ;-) )

[CaseyL]

Lee thinking she's entitled to the appointment when Newsom was clear he wouldn't appoint anyone already running for the seat irritates me. A lot.

Of course she would love to have "incumbency" for the special election - so would have Schiff or Porter - which is exactly why Newsom said what he did. No favoritism, no giving any of them a big boost.

[Hartmut]

Hm, Newsmon promised a black woman. By now adding the condition that she does not run for the seat afterwards, hasn't he in essence "burned" a black woman, so it becomes more likely that the seat will be taken by a more "traditional" politician?

[Hartmut]

No idea how I misspelled the governor's name there.

[wj]

Hm, Newsmon promised a black woman. By now adding the condition that she does not run for the seat afterwards, hasn't he in essence "burned" a black woman, so it becomes more likely that the seat will be taken by a more "traditional" politician?

There are lots of other black women available beside Lee. A couple already hold statewide office (the Secretary of State, for example), so lack of experienced black women isn't a problem either. At most, you can argue that he has burned *a* black woman. But hardly the only possible one.

Contra nous, Newsom already made a commitment to not appoint someone who was already running (which Lee is) -- explicitly so as not to seem to be "putting his thumb on the scale" for the primary next year. Otherwise, Lee would be the obvious choice. But he would seem have foreclosed that option.

I do agree with nous that even incumbency might not make Lee a lock for the position. At most it would give her a leg up to make the top two, and so the general election.

[Michael Cain]

There's always at least some room for chaos theory since there will always be chaotic dynamic systems. (Chaotic in the sense that small changes in the initial conditions lead to large changes in outcome.)

I occasionally look at the GFS forecast for 500 millibar height anomalies. (Tropical Tidbits is an internet gem.) Hurricanes stick out like a sore thumb. The forecast goes out 16 days. It's fun to look at the day 16 forecast at this time of year. One day it may show a hurricane whacking NYC. The next day it may show no hurricane developing. The third day it may show a tropical storm brushing by Florida.

[nous]

Newsom made the promise to appoint a black woman after he appointed Alex Padilla to replace Kamala Harris (when he absolutely could have appointed Lee to that spot and replaced one woman of color with another). The kink in that plan from a CA standpoint is that he was under pressure to pick someone from Southern California to even out the geographical representation a bit. It didn't hurt that it also put a Latino representative in the Senate.

So many competing demands for representation.

My gut feeling is that even with the appointment, Lee would be hard pressed to win a statewide election against either Schiff or Porter. Lee is currently polling at less than half of the other two's share, and the other two are close enough in the polling that it could go either way if Lee did not place top-two in the Senate primary.

I think an appointment is Lee's only real chance at getting a taste of the Senate.

[nous]

wj, Shirley Weber has already said that she has no interest in taking a Senate seat as a placeholder, so she's taken that choice away from Newsom. I imagine that a lot of other potential choices would also feel that way. It's a big hassle to try to move to DC for such a short tenure and give up whatever power base they have built for themself in the state.

[wj]

from a CA standpoint is that he was under pressure to pick someone from Southern California to even out the geographical representation a bit.

It was a bit odd that, for over a decade, both of California's senators were Jewish women from San Francisco. Not just Northern California, from the City** itself.

My gut feeling is that even with the appointment, Lee would be hard pressed to win a statewide election against either Schiff or Porter. Lee is currently polling at less than half of the other two's share, and the other two are close enough in the polling that it could go either way if Lee did not place top-two in the Senate primary.

That is my sense as well. If Lee gets to the general election, she will lose to whichever of the other two she is up against. If Schiff and Porter are the two getting to November, no idea which one wins.

** For those not from Northern California, when anyone here (including the mayors of, say, Oakland or San Jose) says "the City" they mean San Francisco.

[wj]

Shirley Weber has already said that she has no interest in taking a Senate seat as a placeholder, so she's taken that choice away from Newsom. I imagine that a lot of other potential choices would also feel that way. It's a big hassle to try to move to DC for such a short tenure and give up whatever power base they have built for themself in the state.

My take exactly. Like I say, Newsom has painted himself into a corner here, with no obvious exit. Doubtless he will appoint someone. But I can't see the whole thing being a triumph to boost his future political ambitions.

[novakant]

Bader-Ginsburg, Mitch McConnell, Trump, Pelosi, Feinstein and above all Biden - the US is starting to resemble the Soviet Union in the 80s ...

I think there should be a forced retirement age of, say, 75, both because it's statistcally likely to loose some of your mental agility around that age, but also because the generational gap between the leaders and the population is simply too big to justify.

[Marty]

I would just add that the generational change accounts for the complete lack of coming in Congress and the inability to govern.

Feinstein and her peers managed to govern with passion and comity for decades. It seems each one gets replaced by a firebrand idealist incapable of understanding the purpose of compromise in governing.

They may be too old, their replacements are a downgrade.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Mandatory retirement of congress-critters (and Supreme Court justices!) is good.

Need some sort of mechanism that is less cumbersome than "impeachment" or "expulsion" for the ones that can't perform their duties.

Much like how seniors have to do with driver licenses, to make sure they're still "with it".

[wj]

It seems each one gets replaced by a firebrand idealist incapable of understanding the purpose of compromise in governing.

They may be too old, their replacements are a downgrade.

Was Harris a downgrade from Boxer? Not sure I'm seeing that.

[Girl from the North Country]

Yup, the gerontocracy is pretty depressing. On the other hand, speaking of the situation in hand, and paraphrasing HunterST, Biden would be a better president than Trump, alive or dead.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

There are rabid badgers that would be a better president than Trump, but we don't need no stinkin' badgers.

[wj]

Biden would be a better president than Trump, alive or dead.

Let's face it, McCarthy would be a better president than TIFG. The bar is just that low.

[nous]

It's impossible to say if Harris was a downgrade from Boxer because Harris wasn't there long enough to give us an idea of what she brought to the Senate.

I will say that any one of Lee/Porter/Schiff would have been an upgrade for Feinstein in her last two terms.

And I think we'd have fewer firebrands making a splash in the House if we had a younger and less entrenched Senate. The House is too short-term in outlook and the Senate too plodding.

I also wonder how much of the Senate's trend towards gerontocracy comes from its seniority rules and hierarchies of power in the committees. I'm sure Feinstein must have told herself that if she were to retire, her replacement would wield a lot less power for Californians.

There has to be a better way to manage committee memberships while also respecting experience.

[Girl from the North Country]

And speaking of ancient presidents, happy 99th birthday, Jimmy Carter. A great man, by any measure I can think of.

[Michael Cain]

There has to be a better way to manage committee memberships while also respecting experience.

I don't remember all of the details of the House Republican conference rules, except that term limits are part of it. Four years as chair/ranking member, I think. That's why Paul Ryan went from chairing Budget to chairing Ways & Means to being ready to take on the Speaker's job.

It's also contributed to chasing out oldsters. After four years with the perks of being chair/ranking member, it's not attractive to return to being a back bencher with an office way the hell out in the boonies and a minimal staff.

[wj]

I don't remember all of the details of the House Republican conference rules, except that term limits are part of it.

I get leery any time term limits come up. I understand the desire for new blood and fresh ideas. But what we saw in California, when legislative term limits were implemented, was just what the loss of experience meant.

Before, there were the usual issues with lobbyists influencing legislation. But since term limits, the lobbyists are the ones in Sacramento who actually have experience with crafting legislation. So, in all too many cases, they aren't influencing legislation, they are writing it in the first place.

We are, I think, all familiar with the boilerplate crazy laws that the right wing has been promulgating and enacting around the country. But this is essentially the same thing -- just not about culture wars issues.

[JanieM]

Before, there were the usual issues with lobbyists influencing legislation. But since term limits, the lobbyists are the ones in Sacramento who actually have experience with crafting legislation. So, in all too many cases, they aren't influencing legislation, they are writing it in the first place.

Yes. Be careful what you ask for.....

[Snarki, child of Loki]

"Be careful what you ask for....."

You say that as if (a) there weren't warnings as to the effects of term limits, and (b) the proponents of the term limits didn't WANT lobbyists to have more influence.

[nous]

Michael Cain is not talking about term limits on being a representative, he’s talking about limits on how long one can sit on a particular committee or be the chair. That would encourage training for more leaders and more cross-competency while still allowing people with experience to use it in deliberations.

[wj]

You say that as if (a) there weren't warnings as to the effects of term limits, and (b) the proponents of the term limits didn't WANT lobbyists to have more influence.

No, I say it as someone who heard the arguments advanced during the campaign to enact term limits. They quite overwhelmed any warnings about the negative effects. So, IMHO, were a significant contributor to it passing the popular vote.

[Nigel Bates]

Gavin Newsom picks Laphonza Butler as Dianne Feinstein replacement

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/01/newsom-senate-pick-butler-00119360

[Nigel]

Regarding the header, it's an old theme.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43762/the-lost-leader

[Girl from the North Country]

Ha - I had no idea where Never glad confident morning again came from. Not surprising, because I have loathed Browning since my schooldays.

[JanieM]

@Nigel and GftNC -- I just got up and I'm as foggy as usual in the morning, but what header are you talking about?

[Girl from the North Country]

I assumed Nigel was tying it in some way to the death of Feinstein, and groups who were serially disappointed in her, although in all fairness I couldn't quite work out why. But the despised Browning was what grabbed my attention....

[hairshirthedonist]

I'm guessing "header" was a typo for "leader."

[JanieM]

I thought maybe Politico had changed the lead-in to the article ... the version I saw does mention that there had been an earlier version.

No biggie, I was just ... befuddled.

[CharlesWT]

So, Maryland becomes the first state to have three senators.

[Girl from the North Country]

I'm guessing "header" was a typo for "leader."

Oh, I assumed "header" meant lj's opening to the thread (I cannot now think, if I've ever even known it) of the proper term!

[hairshirthedonist]

You might be right, GftNC. I'm going with 75% your guess, 20% my guess, and 5% something neither of us has thought of.

[JanieM]

Hmmm. Well, the headline to the Guardian obit lj links to is this:

Dianne Feinstein’s historic career began in tragedy and ended in controversy

That would fit, no?

[Snarki, child of Loki]

"Maryland becomes the first state to have three senators."

When Biden was a Senator in DE, he was known as "PA's third Senator".

[JanieM]

"Maryland becomes the first state to have three senators."

Nope, even if you buy that Butler's intention to switch her residency to California is bogus.

Some interesting background:

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 3]

...[snip]

Inhabitancy: Although England repealed Parliament’s residency law in 1774, no delegates spoke against a residency requirement for members of Congress. The qualification first came under consideration on August 6 when the Committee of Detail reported its draft of the Constitution. Article 5, section 3 stated, “Every member of the Senate shall be . . . at the time of his election, a resident of the state from which he shall be chosen.”

On August 8, Roger Sherman moved to strike the word “resident” from the House version of the clause, and insert in its place “inhabitant,” a term he considered to be “less liable to misconstruction.” Madison seconded the motion, noting that “resident” might exclude people occasionally absent on public or private business. Delegates agreed to the term, “inhabitant,” and voted against adding a time period to the requirement. The following day, they amended the Senate qualification to include the word, “inhabitant,” prior to passing the clause by unanimous consent.

Nitpickily, I will point out that it only mentions elections, not appointments. They perhaps didn't think that far ahead, or didn't think it was important enough to worry about.

Also, surely no one imagines that this is really the first time someone in Congress hasn't actually lived in the district he or she represents. Not even a libertarian can be that innocent. ;-)

In fact, check out this bit of recent history: "At least 21 members of the House are registered to vote outside their districts." (WaPo article from 2017)

[wj]

From nous (way above):
I'd say that Feinstein was a federalist and a corporatist. I don't think she was authoritarian per se, so much as that she was fine with our political and business institutions as they stand and believed that they best served the public good. As such, she resisted any reformist impulses that came from outside that institutional culture.

Big, squishy-but-firm nanny state territory, with plenty of room for profit motives.

Not to pick on nous, because he doesn't really deserve it on this. But just to sort of set the stage for recommending this
https://digbysblog.net/2023/10/03/knock-it-off-already/
(Some passing comments on Newsom's appointment of Butler included.)

We are, I think, in one of those situations where a united front is necessary. Once we have beaten back the crazies, we can return (and doubtless will) to arguing about normal policy issues.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Before direct election of Senators, were they "elected, by State legislatures", or "appointed, by State legislatures"?

It's also instructive that "in-state college tuition" is based not on "residence" or "inhabitant" but "domiciled", which is more restrictive. Because $$$.

[nous]

lol, wj. If my assessment of Feinstein's politics registers as a call-out, then I don't know how anyone is supposed to express the mildest criticisms of our status-quo politics without prompting a round of bitter recriminations. I've never called for anyone to issue ultimatums to her, I've just complained that she never listened to or acknowledged the concerns of those outside of her Third Way bubble. She's been a shit listener her whole career and always felt secure enough in her position that she never felt the need to change.

Who are the people whose call-out habits are actually creating problems for the Democrats? What actual progress have they gotten in the way of? Hasan is just a mouth, and his snark has no real impact on how politics gets done. It's just catty influencer behavior and I don't see where any of that cattiness actually hooks into anything political except amongst the MAGA culture warriors who treat is as if his hot air typifies the politics of all Democrats.

Those people are mostly noise, just as Hasan is mostly noise. The noise can be safely ignored.

And if the actual criticism is that we need to do a better job of boosting the signal for the things that DO matter, then I suggest that maybe some listening and acknowledgement is in order for both centrists and progressives to find a signal that actually unifies and addresses the housing/climate/wages/civil rights issues that are being put off as too contentious.

[CharlesWT]

I have a small soft spot for Feinstein. :)

[wj]

And if the actual criticism is that we need to do a better job of boosting the signal for the things that DO matter, then I suggest that maybe some listening and acknowledgement is in order for both centrists and progressives to find a signal that actually unifies and addresses the housing/climate/wages/civil rights issues that are being put off as too contentious.

That would be the point that I was (clearly unsuccessfully) trying to make. The signal that I think unifies us all, for the moment, is shutting down the crazies. We can disagree about all of the other issues you mention. What we cannot do is spend (actually waste) significant time and energy focusing on those while the existential threat remains. That is, call out live people on issues; and try to bring them around. But not denounce them on those issues (if you see distinction) when there are more important fish to fry.

I'm guessing that I'm not getting more clear. Sorry.

[JanieM]

wj -- just spitballing here, and certainly not speaking for nous, but maybe it would work better the other way around. If it were clear enough to enough people that we're at a critical moment not only for the US but for the whole world, the tidal wave of movement on those issues might make kicking out the crazies just the first necessary step to addressomg those other critical issues.

IOW, enough people would be saying: This is the important stuff and you assholes are in the way of the rest of us dealing with it -- and then a swift kick in the pants to get the crazies off the road.

I really have no idea, and the world is so messy that I don't think anyone else does either.

[wj]

maybe it would work better the other way around. If it were clear enough to enough people that we're at a critical moment not only for the US but for the whole world, the tidal wave of movement on those issues might make kicking out the crazies just the first necessary step to addressing those other critical issues.

The challenge, as I see it anyway, is to get all those people to see, and focus on, the need for kicking out the crazies. Rather than on those other critical issues (and our disagreements about them) to the exclusion of kicking out the crazies. Which, I feel, is too often where political discussions go.

[Girl from the North Country]

I called the possibility of a Trump presidency, before the 2016 election, an existential threat to American democracy. So I can barely find the words to express how enormous a threat his victory in 2024 would be. It's absolutely clear that he and his followers would be perfectly happy to install either an authoritarian dictatorship, or in the case of some more squeamish supporters, a sham democracy with gerrymandering run even wilder, and if they couldn't find a way to end the two-presidency rule, then install Ivanka or DJT Jnr afterwards. The fact that McKinney's friends, while not liking Trump much (I can't remember the actual words) are still prepared to vote for him because of their fear and hatred of the "radical left democrats" shows a) how absolutely divorced from reality they are, and b) how completely unreachable by reason. And I am assuming they are reasonably educated and fairly intelligent, so clearly if January 6th and its associated stuff didn't convince them, nothing would. wj, I don't know if you would call people like them "the crazies"?

I don't know what the answer is. But I hope to God there is one.

[nous]

It's not just Rump that is an existential threat. The red Caesar that the extremists want could just as well be DeSantis or another Culture War Crusader as it could be Rump. It's not Rump who is currently fearmongering against the LGBTQ+ community, he's just the path of least resistance to get to that position of power.

None of the activists who normally get called out as the purity brigade have any doubts about the seriousness of the threat. They are the ones in the crosshairs (metaphorical and literal) for this Culture War that is itself in the process of trying to go from metaphorical to literal.

So the real question here that should matter is the question of who it is who would hold out on acting to stop the Culture Warriors because they have some other cause that they find more dear than the threat of a red Caesar?

It's not the activist left.

[wj]

So the real question here that should matter is the question of who it is who would hold out on acting to stop the Culture Warriors because they have some other cause that they find more dear than the threat of a red Caesar?

It's not the activist left.

Of course not. In general, the activist left (as I believe you use the phrase) is going to oppose Trump, DeSantis, etc. Some voters on the left will decide to go for some third party, on the seriously mistaken believe that there is no significant difference between, for example, Trump and Biden. Such people are, IMHO, no more reachable than the MAGAts. Whether they count as "activist left" is a matter of opinion.

Rather, it's the (often despised by both sides) moderates who are reachable. But not if we spend time arguing about the shortcomings of each other.

To take the current example, a lot of those people liked Senator Feinstein, and voted for her repeatedly. Does spending time on her shortcomings, especially after her death, do anything to persuade those people to vote for your preferred candidate? Or does it give them the feeling that you have no use for them period. At which point, not voting at all, or even voting against you (not for the other guys, just against you), starts to look attractive.

[Girl from the North Country]

Of course it's not just Trump, but he has empowered or even turbo-boosted a tendency (Newt->Rove->Palin etc etc) that was already there, and casting around for a vehicle. And what a vehicle they found: he trashed norms they would never have considered breakable, and demonstrated an impunity they could never have imagined in their wildest dreams. Almost everybody is in the crosshairs: not just women or LGBT people, but minorities, refugees, trade union members, academics, ethical civil servants and judges, and on and on.

And by the way, we have our own nascent bunch over here, ably represented at the moment by the appalling Suella Braverman. America is far from the only nation currently in danger from anti-democratic forces, it's just (one of) the most important.

[JanieM]

Not even knowing wtf "Red Caesar" refers to, I should have kept my metaphorical mouth shut. (I asked Google, and Google gave me enough of an idea to get by with.)

Good luck to all of us.

[nous]

wj - who are the people denigrating Feinstein? The Digby piece singles out Mehdi Hasan and Lee Fang as doing some of this problematic beefing about people's failings. Fair enough. I don't like either of them or find either of them particularly insightful. They are mostly just spectacle.

How is it that their occasionally thrown shade and truculent asides get transmuted into being representative of the entire "left?" And how is it that that transmutation gets scaled so that it can be stretched to tar not just The Squad, but even Biden?

What we have here is an unhealthy media environment where sensationalist clickbait framings from professional influencers become meat for the culture war sausage factory. It's all a product of that media ecology, and there really isn't much we can do to stop it.

No one is going to get Tucker or Mehdi to tone down their acts.

[liberal japonicus]

you may take the Loomis piece as denigration of Feinstein, but, as I tried to point out, Loomis is not one for sugarcoating of any kind.

I think that her running again was problematic in the same way Ruth Bader Ginsberg should have stepped down, but I, like nous, don't see any kind of denigrating. It is an unhealthy media environment, but (and I don't mean to be too harsh) it seems to be founded on a problem as seeing things that aren't really there to support a position.

[Pro Bono]

Any democratic politician (small 'd') is much preferable to the fascists. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss the choice of democrats: we need good candidates to stand against the fascists. Nor should the fascist menace stop us caring about regular politics.

"Red Caesar" is a new one for me too. In Europe, 'red' means socialist or communist.

[JanieM]

"Red Caesar" is a new one for me too. In Europe, 'red' means socialist or communist.

It used to mean that here, too -- we had the "red scare" era that I remember from my childhood. But apparently there's a long and winding history related to red and blue (n.b. the US flag....):

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

[Donald]

The red blue thing in America comes from television coverage of elections, where red and blue were arbitrarily selected to mean Republican and Democrat when showing which state went fir which candidate. It is stupid and ahistorical given that red means communist almost everywhere ( including the US until recent decades), but this is America.

I have a pet peeve about this, as is obvious. It is not an important topic, but it is annoyingly stupid to me.

Hadn’t heard of red Caesar until now.

[liberal japonicus]

This was the Grauniad article on it

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/01/red-caesar-authoritarianism-republicans-extreme-right

The article is out of the Claremont Institute. I would think that any institute touting policies like that should be beyond the pale, but the name sounds familiar enough to me to think that hasn't and probably won't happen.

[liberal japonicus]

Saw Donald's comment after I posted and he's right, the red/blue distinction came about because of news broadcasts wanted to take advantage of color TVs, I'm wondering if at some level, they avoided Dems=red because it would have the implicit relationship to communism. Maybe some of the UKians can comment, but I think the connection between Labour and Red=communism has popped up from time to time, though Labour happily owns the color red in a way that US Dems probably will never do (which seems to indicate that US culture is a lot more hung up about differences without distinctions)

I am also reminded, because we are talking about colors, of the snooker commentator's line "and for those of you who are watching in black and white, the pink is next to the green".

[Pro Bono]

'Socialism' isn't a dirty word in the UK ('Communism' might be). The Labour Party's Clause IV no longer speaks of "the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange" but it does start "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party..." And the Labour Party's annual conference still sings The Red Flag

The people's flag is deepest red
It's shrouded oft our martyred dead...

[Hartmut]

Iirc the red and blue for the parties switched at every election originally. But one day it was decided that this was silly and the current color distribution would be kept. In that year by coincidence the GOP was red and the Dems blue.
In the long run that was fitting since it is the GOP that now shows bolshevik tendencies (not in the political content but in the style and methods).

[JanieM]

Just to be quibbly, the wikipedia entry I linked a few comments above gives a much longer history than TV for these colors, e.g.:

The colors red and blue are also featured on the United States flag. Traditional political mapmakers, at least throughout the 20th century, had used blue to represent the modern-day Republicans, as well as the earlier Federalist Party. This may have been a holdover from the Civil War, during which the predominantly Republican north was considered "blue".[5] However, at that time, a maker of widely-sold maps accompanied them with blue pencils in order to mark Confederate force movements, while red was for the union.[6]

And a much longer series of shifts back and forth for various reasons.

[JanieM]

(not directed at Hartmut, just responding to all the comments that followed my 11:43 pm from last night)