This is a terrific post, and an important observation. To a certain degree, it reflects what has always been true of the difference between parliamentary and first-past-the-post winner take all democratic systems: there is an immediacy to the politics of European nations that a country with a fixed election schedule and only two dominant parties, no fluidity, can never match.. The US, even when before its autocratic turn, always moved at ponderous speed, and with the same cast of characters for generations (with a Clinton, Bush, or Biden on a presidential ticket for forty years). And another difference is ideological-- Europeans live their politics, and class and labor matter far more than the US, which except for a brief time after WWII was ruled by business, aristocrats, and technocrats-- despite European aristocratic lineage actual participation in US politics has been far more elitist than its counterparts. Plus religion, and specifically the Christian nationalism that has always been near the surface in the US but now is prominent, always plays a bigger role than in modern Europe.
Here's the rub, or the payoff, however: I think you make a characteristic mistake in equating Republican fealty to Trump with the Democratic Party's caution and unwillingness to rebuke a Schumer or Jeffries. For a whole number of reasons: first, whatever Americans and younger Americans say to pollsters, they are simply less ideological and less informed about politics than Europeans, across the board. They typically know far less about US politics than Europeans know about Americans , factually speaking. Americans want to make money and to be left alone--they are motivated by what Michael Schudson called "delectable materialism." That, not ideology, is the unifying force. So when you push too hard politically, or go deeper than the "affordability" you scorn, you alienate more voters than you bring over, at least to the present. (I'm a professional political consultant-- I can prove this to you in discouraging but real detail.) Schumer and Jeffries, especially the latter, who knows and has said that we are in a war for our country, are operating with constraints as well, namely the actual makeup of their voters, who are more progressive than before but still far from a majority. The Democratic Party is a congeries of voters and interests who have relatively little in common except fairly inchoate beliefs in economic growth, protection of privacy, and freedom from fear by the state. With the actual makeup of the Party in mind, the Congressional leaders have done quite an amazing job with little real power-- going as far as they could in the shutdowns, and, in retrospect (despite catching a lot of flak) picking the right issues and battles to wage.
Also, Democrats have policied their ranks, with respect to scandals and to their values, if anything to excess, as with Al Franken. The only real deviations from this were Ralph Northam in Virginia and Bill Clinton himself, and Northam played no real role going forward. And if you mean political rebukes, when it comes to policy at least at the moment I challenge you to tell me how the policies of a future Senator Platner will deviate from those of a Sherril or Spanberger or Slotkin. They won't. And if they are more anti-capitalist, I suspect they weill be short-lived. What passes for radical even among Democrats is modestly social democratic, maybe not even moderate left, by European standards, and given the actual makeup of the party and the polity that makes sense. The Democratic Party is a huge tent, and perhaps not even big enough by my lights, and I wish that instead of running it down ritually (that, by the way, is not what you are doing, but day in and day out I hear nothing else from donors and partisans within the party) we were a bit more complimentary of the skill and different skillsets of its leaders, and less preoccupied with seeking the unicorn who might unite all of them.
Leif — appreciate the depth, genuinely. A few things back.
First, a clarification: I wasn't making a culture-to-culture argument. The structural differences between "first past the post" and parliamentary systems are real and predate any of this. What got reawakened listening to Campbell and Stewart wasn't "Europe does it better." It was a feeling tied to a specific time and place, where some of us — not many, never enough — did political work that actually required strategic thinking. Real craft. Not just riding whatever the economy happened to be doing that quarter, or as we see now the short-sighted focus on Trump as the core at the center of the rot. It's a deeper systems problem and real leaders can move voters/citizens to understand the stakes.
Schumer/Jeffries are incapable of doing that. Can it win a cycle? Sure. But we are way past that.
It may sound quaint but I did it/experienced it more than once, and the Obama campaign did it in '08 when I was fortunate enough to be a partner at GMMB and have a front row seat. (Although definitely wasn't driving that car!!)
On Franken vs. Healey: performative vs. substantive. Franken was politics about politics and a weird moment in time. Healey called out his own PM and his own party's spending plan, on principle, at real personal cost.
Very different.
On affordability — I just watched Marty Supreme on the flight back and I was going to use a ping pong analogy. But maybe the right image isn't ping-pong but Newton's cradle. You know, the metal balls that bounce back and forth. People used to have them on their office desk. I really don't know why but it's useful as an analogy.
Basically, whoever's holding power when prices spike takes the hit, the energy transfers to the other side, and a few years later it swings back. No strategy required. Nothing repaired.
Sure, the UK has had swings in leadership. A lot of them. But that's politics. And it's what I miss.
What a sad reverie, Steve. Thank you for your frankness and for not giving up on the ideals, however elusive, that brought you into the work originally. They are worth saving, resurrecting, reconstructing, and realizing anew.
This is a terrific post, and an important observation. To a certain degree, it reflects what has always been true of the difference between parliamentary and first-past-the-post winner take all democratic systems: there is an immediacy to the politics of European nations that a country with a fixed election schedule and only two dominant parties, no fluidity, can never match.. The US, even when before its autocratic turn, always moved at ponderous speed, and with the same cast of characters for generations (with a Clinton, Bush, or Biden on a presidential ticket for forty years). And another difference is ideological-- Europeans live their politics, and class and labor matter far more than the US, which except for a brief time after WWII was ruled by business, aristocrats, and technocrats-- despite European aristocratic lineage actual participation in US politics has been far more elitist than its counterparts. Plus religion, and specifically the Christian nationalism that has always been near the surface in the US but now is prominent, always plays a bigger role than in modern Europe.
Here's the rub, or the payoff, however: I think you make a characteristic mistake in equating Republican fealty to Trump with the Democratic Party's caution and unwillingness to rebuke a Schumer or Jeffries. For a whole number of reasons: first, whatever Americans and younger Americans say to pollsters, they are simply less ideological and less informed about politics than Europeans, across the board. They typically know far less about US politics than Europeans know about Americans , factually speaking. Americans want to make money and to be left alone--they are motivated by what Michael Schudson called "delectable materialism." That, not ideology, is the unifying force. So when you push too hard politically, or go deeper than the "affordability" you scorn, you alienate more voters than you bring over, at least to the present. (I'm a professional political consultant-- I can prove this to you in discouraging but real detail.) Schumer and Jeffries, especially the latter, who knows and has said that we are in a war for our country, are operating with constraints as well, namely the actual makeup of their voters, who are more progressive than before but still far from a majority. The Democratic Party is a congeries of voters and interests who have relatively little in common except fairly inchoate beliefs in economic growth, protection of privacy, and freedom from fear by the state. With the actual makeup of the Party in mind, the Congressional leaders have done quite an amazing job with little real power-- going as far as they could in the shutdowns, and, in retrospect (despite catching a lot of flak) picking the right issues and battles to wage.
Also, Democrats have policied their ranks, with respect to scandals and to their values, if anything to excess, as with Al Franken. The only real deviations from this were Ralph Northam in Virginia and Bill Clinton himself, and Northam played no real role going forward. And if you mean political rebukes, when it comes to policy at least at the moment I challenge you to tell me how the policies of a future Senator Platner will deviate from those of a Sherril or Spanberger or Slotkin. They won't. And if they are more anti-capitalist, I suspect they weill be short-lived. What passes for radical even among Democrats is modestly social democratic, maybe not even moderate left, by European standards, and given the actual makeup of the party and the polity that makes sense. The Democratic Party is a huge tent, and perhaps not even big enough by my lights, and I wish that instead of running it down ritually (that, by the way, is not what you are doing, but day in and day out I hear nothing else from donors and partisans within the party) we were a bit more complimentary of the skill and different skillsets of its leaders, and less preoccupied with seeking the unicorn who might unite all of them.
Leif — appreciate the depth, genuinely. A few things back.
First, a clarification: I wasn't making a culture-to-culture argument. The structural differences between "first past the post" and parliamentary systems are real and predate any of this. What got reawakened listening to Campbell and Stewart wasn't "Europe does it better." It was a feeling tied to a specific time and place, where some of us — not many, never enough — did political work that actually required strategic thinking. Real craft. Not just riding whatever the economy happened to be doing that quarter, or as we see now the short-sighted focus on Trump as the core at the center of the rot. It's a deeper systems problem and real leaders can move voters/citizens to understand the stakes.
Schumer/Jeffries are incapable of doing that. Can it win a cycle? Sure. But we are way past that.
It may sound quaint but I did it/experienced it more than once, and the Obama campaign did it in '08 when I was fortunate enough to be a partner at GMMB and have a front row seat. (Although definitely wasn't driving that car!!)
On Franken vs. Healey: performative vs. substantive. Franken was politics about politics and a weird moment in time. Healey called out his own PM and his own party's spending plan, on principle, at real personal cost.
Very different.
On affordability — I just watched Marty Supreme on the flight back and I was going to use a ping pong analogy. But maybe the right image isn't ping-pong but Newton's cradle. You know, the metal balls that bounce back and forth. People used to have them on their office desk. I really don't know why but it's useful as an analogy.
Basically, whoever's holding power when prices spike takes the hit, the energy transfers to the other side, and a few years later it swings back. No strategy required. Nothing repaired.
Sure, the UK has had swings in leadership. A lot of them. But that's politics. And it's what I miss.
What a sad reverie, Steve. Thank you for your frankness and for not giving up on the ideals, however elusive, that brought you into the work originally. They are worth saving, resurrecting, reconstructing, and realizing anew.
Yes, there is certainly sadness there. Maybe more a sense of loss. I'm always here for the fight though!!