I think the value of getting elite Democrats on board is that you might actually be able to have well-run blue states which can serve as an example to the country as a whole.
Ezra has made the point before that if a handful of states were able to make Medicare For All work well, you'd have success stories to point to at the national level, which might make the whole prospect seem less daunting and uncertain to the marginal voter.
I think the same thing is true with state capacity more broadly. If blue states were far and away the best run in the country, it would make a compelling case for electing Democrats in other places.
Some things that I can think of re: building the intellectual links across the partisan divide:
Encourage living amongst people from the other political tribe and not in a political enclave.
Participate in the development of universalizing (but not straightforwardly political) cultures, such as spirituality, patriotism, and pop culture.
Contribute to positive social movements that don't fit neatly into current political buckets (e.g. effective altruism).
When approaching politics, focus on local politics much more than nationalized politics, due to the latter being much more vulnerable to polarization, gridlock, etc.
Recent subscriber going back through your old posts. I like your sentiment, but I worry the structure of American electoral processes which incentivize polar partisan politics is too big a barrier. To return to a procedure solution, I suspect some level of restructuring away from a de facto two party system would be a healthy way to allow the necessary wiggle room for particular factions across the political spectrum to organize on narrow shared interests without being vetoed by other factions within their one-of-two parties. But achieving that too would first require building back a civic ethos that transcends current party identity and convincing a majority across the political spectrum all at once that the current system serves very few particularly well, since unilaterally fracturing just the Democratic Party would be disastrous (despite growing turmoil in the GOP, I still think they’re less likely to be the party to fracture first on their own).
While I agree that outright propositive messages, oriented at actually building things, would definitely be quickly caught up in partisanship, one could also argue that, by exposing and trying to fix state inefficiencies, Democrats could preemptively take some ammunition out of the right's arsenal.
It would be interesting to see Republican pundits, which wave the flag of government inefficiencies every time they can, bend over backwards to contradict one of their usual talking points.
But either way, there are a number of environmental laws which have been proven to be really bad (by the way finding and exposing these laws is a technical problem, actually). And I think that Democrats in blue states could and should do what they can to repeal such laws at the local level, where politics, being more about concrete objectives and results instead of values, can be somewhat less toxic.
This is a relatively low hanging fruit and it does not need to be subordinate to any grand project to restore a common national identity, (or even democracy). Indeed such local efforts could plant some seeds towards the latter identity-building goals. And it can be done regardless to who is or will be in the white house or senate. I would actually argue that since it's a given that we're going to lose at the federal level, we might just as well lose while trying to do the right thing.
This is crucial, the democrats should do this not because it will help them win (it will not) but because it's the right thing to do.
Also, I agree that trying to rebuild a national identity would be wonderful and needs to be tried. Is also necessary, as you say, but necessity does not imply feasibility. Especially in the short timeframes of a decade or so, and considering what this is up against. So subordinating anything to this greater goal might be a recipe for endlessly postponing everything.
So my personal conclusion is that yes, the left should go and find and address government inefficiencies at the local level, talk about them, and try to address them ASAP.
Round and round you go, Ryan. Your "if only's" matching in quantity to those of Ezra's in his plea to focus on, you know, getting something done. So, perhaps you could speak to one another and decide on a Thing that would help and pursue it, come hell or high water. Then, we'll see, won't we, whether it is at all possible to accomplish even the most simple stuff when one side of the political divide in inhabited by people who do not care to accomplish anything...that would help.
I think the value of getting elite Democrats on board is that you might actually be able to have well-run blue states which can serve as an example to the country as a whole.
Ezra has made the point before that if a handful of states were able to make Medicare For All work well, you'd have success stories to point to at the national level, which might make the whole prospect seem less daunting and uncertain to the marginal voter.
I think the same thing is true with state capacity more broadly. If blue states were far and away the best run in the country, it would make a compelling case for electing Democrats in other places.
a note sent to a few buddies on reading this -
We can build well with most public participation programs. What we cannot
build with is interminable lawsuits. There has to be a way to put a time limit
on the resolution (or the filing) of lawsuits. As I recall, in my expert legal opinion (not),
judges are permitted to put limits on argument. Where is that in the
built environment lawsuit business? "In October (of this year), I am issuing a ruling, one way or
another." Or greater limits on standing to file. Or, we elect officials. Make them lead. And,
yeah, yeah, yeah. We designed the systems for governance to be hard and slow. Ok.
Now what?
For the record, I was writing about this in 1975 ....
Some things that I can think of re: building the intellectual links across the partisan divide:
Encourage living amongst people from the other political tribe and not in a political enclave.
Participate in the development of universalizing (but not straightforwardly political) cultures, such as spirituality, patriotism, and pop culture.
Contribute to positive social movements that don't fit neatly into current political buckets (e.g. effective altruism).
When approaching politics, focus on local politics much more than nationalized politics, due to the latter being much more vulnerable to polarization, gridlock, etc.
Recent subscriber going back through your old posts. I like your sentiment, but I worry the structure of American electoral processes which incentivize polar partisan politics is too big a barrier. To return to a procedure solution, I suspect some level of restructuring away from a de facto two party system would be a healthy way to allow the necessary wiggle room for particular factions across the political spectrum to organize on narrow shared interests without being vetoed by other factions within their one-of-two parties. But achieving that too would first require building back a civic ethos that transcends current party identity and convincing a majority across the political spectrum all at once that the current system serves very few particularly well, since unilaterally fracturing just the Democratic Party would be disastrous (despite growing turmoil in the GOP, I still think they’re less likely to be the party to fracture first on their own).
While I agree that outright propositive messages, oriented at actually building things, would definitely be quickly caught up in partisanship, one could also argue that, by exposing and trying to fix state inefficiencies, Democrats could preemptively take some ammunition out of the right's arsenal.
It would be interesting to see Republican pundits, which wave the flag of government inefficiencies every time they can, bend over backwards to contradict one of their usual talking points.
But either way, there are a number of environmental laws which have been proven to be really bad (by the way finding and exposing these laws is a technical problem, actually). And I think that Democrats in blue states could and should do what they can to repeal such laws at the local level, where politics, being more about concrete objectives and results instead of values, can be somewhat less toxic.
This is a relatively low hanging fruit and it does not need to be subordinate to any grand project to restore a common national identity, (or even democracy). Indeed such local efforts could plant some seeds towards the latter identity-building goals. And it can be done regardless to who is or will be in the white house or senate. I would actually argue that since it's a given that we're going to lose at the federal level, we might just as well lose while trying to do the right thing.
This is crucial, the democrats should do this not because it will help them win (it will not) but because it's the right thing to do.
Also, I agree that trying to rebuild a national identity would be wonderful and needs to be tried. Is also necessary, as you say, but necessity does not imply feasibility. Especially in the short timeframes of a decade or so, and considering what this is up against. So subordinating anything to this greater goal might be a recipe for endlessly postponing everything.
So my personal conclusion is that yes, the left should go and find and address government inefficiencies at the local level, talk about them, and try to address them ASAP.
So every non fascist should be Joe Manchin? Living in a fantasy world masturbating in the mirror while the brown shirts take over?
Round and round you go, Ryan. Your "if only's" matching in quantity to those of Ezra's in his plea to focus on, you know, getting something done. So, perhaps you could speak to one another and decide on a Thing that would help and pursue it, come hell or high water. Then, we'll see, won't we, whether it is at all possible to accomplish even the most simple stuff when one side of the political divide in inhabited by people who do not care to accomplish anything...that would help.