Josh Marshall was making an analysis of attack politics in the age of Trump when he offered this observation with regards to Democrats engaging in attack politics:
I often find myself in the “Okay, but …” mode in these conversations. That is even though in many ways the whole TPM thing was originally based on espousing and modeling a way a more aggressive and confrontational way of approaching politics and political questions. Some of that is characterological. Maybe some of it is age. But most of it is based on the observation that people get themselves riled up about doing X when X actually isn’t possible. They want to pump the balloon full of air. But the balloon has a hole in it. So they’re actually wasting their time. In fact they’re doing more than wasting their time. They’ll riled up about doing X. And when X doesn’t happen they get demoralized. They decide they’re in a club that doesn’t care about filling the balloon. Or maybe their leaders actually want to keep the balloon empty for hidden and sinister reasons? It all leaders to demoralization, enervation, a collective spinning of wheels to no effect.
I think this is really critical in understanding the interest group politics that both feeds and hampers Democratic coalition politics. Currently there is some movement on immigration reform in the Senate. Having a bipartisan immigration bill that is more punitive and restrictive toward undocumented immigrants is a political winner for the White House. I'm sorry but it is. However, if you've decided to blow on the Open Borders balloon, you're going to be pissed. However, if the alternative to a more restrictive immigration plan is Donald Trump as president then you need to get your fucking priorities straight.
No comments:
Post a Comment