Just a few weeks ago you argued that the average american voter doesn't have a long enough memory for the ICE shootings in minneapolis to make an impact. If you believe that, how can you believe voters will care about a "if you don't clap you're gay" style gotcha at the end of the SOTU months later? It isn't good optics, but saying democrats will have to spend months backpedaling is an overreaction
Because that snippet will be used in a million attack ads this fall.
For the record, I also think Democrats will try to remind people of Renee Good and Alex Pretti this fall, with some inpact; that article was about how these things cycle out of your consciousness after a little time, and I think the joke holds up.
Everyone freaked out the week before the election when Biden seemed to call Trump supporters garbage. The worry was that this would mess things up for Harris at the last minute. In the end, she lost big(ly) and everyone agreed it was because of inflation and immigration and the Biden garbage comment was forgotten. This is the same thing. This viewpoint does not make anyone “Blue MAGA.”
You’re overrating the significance of this. Will these low information voters who will see this ad even turn out for the midterms? Not if recent elections are any guide. Trump’s inability to “fix” the economy will greatly outweigh anything said or done at the SOTU. And Democrats can always run ads featuring the murders of Renee Good, and Alex Pretti and ask if this is the America voters want.
It’ll be so easy, just replace "Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you" with “Democrats stand for Illegal Immigrants, Republicans stand for Americans.”
Playing out the alternative, Trump starts a game of "Keep standing if..." The ad becomes perhaps a little less punchy, but at some point you sit down or Trump says something like "Keep standing if you think my job is to secure our elections," and then we're discussing how that's a lose-lose trap because while it is not his job, no one who only sees an attack ad cares that it isn't his job. And we're talking about how Dems are dumb for playing along.
They lost by being in the room. Not because of abstract "lending credibility" or whatever - though also that. They lost because there is no non-prop in Trump's presence unless he happens to be awed by you like Putin or Mamdani, and not a single person in Congress has that juice. So may as well refuse to be the prop.
Mamdani was totally a prop in the oval office. Trump was grinning like he'd gotten a new vassal. Which, um, he totally had. Not sure what Mamdani needed, but Trump got him by the short and curlies
They might want to focus on the two killings. I wouldn't, because then it becomes about the victims, and you get into their moral character and did they provoke things and it becomes an argument.
Instead, I would paint with a broader brush and focus on ICE being unprofessional, needlessly aggressive, and yes, include the shootings but make them only part of the wider tapestry (because, at the end of the day, it's really just luck that those two died and not someone else).
I think caring about ICE being unprofessional goofs is smart and wise. But I don't think ads about "ICE is unprofessional" will move the average voter.
I was addressing the repeated point in the essay about the first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not future campaign advertising strategies.
The point is almost funny within the context of the second Trump presidency except that it's not.
A Simon says sound bite won't exactly cut it for me Republicans either.
It's the mindset, not the particular manifestation. If Dems are still mindlessly walking into obvious traps, we should expect them to keep doing so between now and November absent some obvious course correction. So if it's not this particular example, it will just be whatever dumb, conterproductive performance someone engages in this August.
yep, this exactly, it's not the moment itself so much as what the "moment" is an example of: the mindset of a large portion of the Democratic Party (and of many of its voters and supporters) that is still unable/unwilling to reconcile with the reasons their approaches to immigration and border enforcement helped cost them the 2024 election, and that their current reaction to Trump's over-correction to that is still putting them out of step with the average voter, despite the horror show in Minneapolis and the Pretti and Good murders by ICE, because the most visible opposition (protestors and progressive celebrities) is taking the moment to retrench in familiar radical rhetoric "No one is illegal on stolen land" "Abolish ICE" which reads to any casual observer that the left opposes any sort of concept of borders or of immigration enforcement whatsoever - and Democrats are making no real effort to distance themselves from left protest rhetoric, in fact are embracing it - more shades of 2020 and "DefundThePolice" in what continues to be a strange recycling of the first Trump term, even down to some trying to rationalize the defintion of "Abolish ICE" to mean "create some other agency not called ICE that will essentially do what ICE does, but nicer", when the most vocal proponents of this are quite clear that "Abolish ICE" means abolishing any sort of interior immigration enforcement, period, the same dissonance of the "Defund" movements of 2020.
But even the protests and "resistance" in Minneapolis prior to the Good and Pretti killings were seemingly predicated on the notion that for a lot of the local very progressive populace, any interior immigration enforcement that consists of removing people here illegally *because they are here illegaly* is an illegitimate action of immigration enforcement. One can certainly dispute the methods and tactics of ICE, and of its prioritization of targets - let alone of the undertones that Trump is using ICE as a weapon against blue states in general outside of immigration - , but at the end of the day, it is *not* illegitimate to remove people that are here illegally, regardless of any other mitigating personal circumstances that make them sympathetic. There is no code in immigration law that only illegal immigrants with criminal records are subject to deportation proceedings, or those that aren't popular in their communities, or those with children, etc. Those are enforcement choices, but not legal protections or exclusions. It's as legitimate as an American citizen being forcibly deported from a foreign country if they overstay their visa or violate the rules of the visa, and it hardly seems controversial to expect to be deported from, say even Canada, as an American on those terms, or to expect mass rallies and resistance of Canadian citizens to try to prevent that deportation from occuring.
The position that Democrats seem to have landed on is that if you have evaded whatever border security is in place at the time and settled anywhere in the interior, it is almost never legitimate to expect to be removed, and even criminal illegal aliens seem to fly under that radar as well, which seems kind of nutty to have been in contact with the criminal justice system as an undocumented and here illegally individual (and sometimes repeatedly!) and not get deported as part of the adjudication process! I couldn't imagine that being an expectation in most other places? But mainly, I think this position of mass exemptions to enforcement/deportation is way out of step with the average voter, and also sets up a bad incentive to keep irregular immigration continuing if the bar for removal is set so high that a Democratic policy appears to create. Now personally, I wouldn't necessarily target the "good cases" of illegal immigrants for immediate deportation either, I would prefer some sort of arrangement where they pay a series of fines/fees, take citizenship courses, re-apply for a legal visa/path to citizenship etc, but that still is an "enforcement choice" that could be removed at any time absent a legal set of papers, and if too broadly applied to the existing population of undocumented residents wuld just incentivize more. Part of having "border security" is making it unattractive to be here illegally and attempt to evade the border. It shouldn't be treated as near-citizenship or unenforceable. And yet the Democratic Party seems to still think the "moderate middle" is deporting only those with serious criminal records, which is basically just the status quo of the Biden policies that got us here. Majorities of voters still agree with the position that people here illegally, regardless of their criminal record, should be deported *because they are here illegally* - and this remains true in the aftermath of Minneapolis, and that the Democratic position is not at all the "moderate middle".
It's the refusal to stake out a stronger policy on enforcement on top of the still also continued muscular ethno-centrism on behalf of immigrants and encouraged of immigrants (the flying of Mexican flags at pro-immigration/anti-ICE rallies is really counter-productive if the goal is to try to persuade American voters of the inherent "Americanness"/assimilation of immigrants and to therefore support a softer stance on immigration in general, and of illegal immigration in particular! And yes, intellectually I get it's an "ethnic pride" response to the also very vocal racist/bigoted anti-immigrant reactionaries but as a PR tactic it just props up that side rather than persuades the majority that react on those visuals) that views pushes for assmiliation as "white supremacy" but that also doesn't allow for a similar group identity of Americans (note: not of whites only) that would allow for a common sense of culture and values and experiences that we would like immigrants to embrace and contribute towards, not to avoid, isolate from, and denigrate. The "No one is illegal on stolen land" goes even further into denying even an American nationality. The circling of the wagons around the MN Somali community is commendable, but it also allowed for a widespread network of fraud to spread throughout that small community because Minnesota progressives were prioritzing being "inclusive" and so afraid of the scarlet "R" brand that they wound up painting a big target on the back of the larger community in the aftermath by allowing the fraud to go on for so long and balloon to such amounts, another issue that Democrats are pretty wishy washy on, which is a terrible look for a political party that is centered around concepts of generous government aid and assistance to seem so blase when so much of that money was diverted to fraudulent sources because being more forceful about it might give fuel to anti-immigration forces, when it is exactly the behavior of Democrats and liberals around this situation that is fueling those movements. So, we can't trust Democrats to manage immigration and border enforcement, and we also can't trust Democrats to police existing individuals that belong to immigrant groups if they are engaged in defrauding government programs that Democrats want us to continue pay more taxes to support and elect more Democrats to administrate, and we should also be generous in our asylum and immigration policies. This is a pretty bad message to counter Trump with IMO! You can have generous asylum and immigration and government programs but you have to be very srict about enforcing fraud against both, or you lose both issues.
It's not hard to see how these views are out of step with voters - and it's how despite Trump's reversal in his approvals on handling of immigration that Democrats have not improved on their (lower) approvals regarding, and why even if voters are uncomfortable and angry with Trump's overreaction and of ICE itself, they may not trust Democrats with the issue if Democrats cannot distinguish a position that can disavow some of this stuff, while still strking a clean opposition to Trump's misuse of ICE and that remains pro *legal* immigrant and also protective of an American identity and doesn't reflexively view as racist or "white supremacy".
And that's the other issue - the inability/refusal to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration and conflating the two. There's a perfect road in the middle of promoting for and supporting legal immigration that doesn't require having to conflate that with lax border and enforcement of illegal immigration. It's super frustrating that Democrats still seem unable to do this despite the lessons of the 2024 election and that they seem to think they don't need to change anything and just ride anti-ICE sentiment around it, and I don't think that's going to be true enough to succeed. If voters are presented with the Trump/ICE brutalism of enforcement or a progressive Democratic approach of no/minimal enforcement centered around a negative anti-American ideological viewpoint, they are going to choose the former, most every time. And I guess where I'm getting around to, is that refusal to stand at the SOTU is a visual wrapper around all of these positions and issues of the Democratic Party when it comes to immigration policies and tactics, yes of course it was a bait but I agree with Jeff - if they stood and clapped (and then sat right back down) it would left Trump holding his limp dick in his hand - worthy on its own merits to rob Trump of a scripted and planned "moment"! - on top of providing a visual signal that regardless of all else, the Democratic Party understands its primary constituency. Instead, welll, it just signaled that it remains conflicted and if it's so out of step on what should be some very easy to take positions (legal vs illegal immigration, prioritize citizen interests over non-citizen interests *as a political party*) that it definitely won't be able to make moves on the hard ones.
Why can’t a Dem who sat just say, when asked why he didn’t stand up, say “Because we’re not his monkeys”? Everyone can *feel*, viscerally, what Trump’s trying to do here. In fact, if they had played along and stood, I’d be the one saying “Nice job, dummies”
“If you’re explaining you’re losing” is correct, and also, they will not have an opportunity to explain. That clip will be used in an ad, the ad is all low-information voters will see.
Republicans acted completely unhinged during Obama's SOTU addresses and still won midterms. This take is reflective of spending too much time on the feed part of the app.
Dems should run the same clip in dem ads with the quote, "We're not trained monkeys for a _____" (someone can surely fill that blank better than I can). Then a shot of the Obamas-as-Monkeys graphic. And then a 25 second montage of replcns showing that they are trained monkeys. And they would air at least 100 different versions of that last 25 seconds and with a voice over stating what Dems do care about that will make the point of working in the interest of All of us. The selling point for dems it that there's no decision Donald Trump makes that doesn't benefit his bank account or his self-serving power and he's dragging our democratic, constitutional, and even religious values--for those for whom that matters--as well as our global reputation through the mud in order to serve his, not our, interests.
Honestly, with all the bat-shit-crazy nonsense that's gone on for the last year, if this clip is insurmountable for Dems and even needs to be explained in order for them to win, then it's over. But the other point of staying away from leftist extremism is an obvious no-brainer ... not saying the dems can manage that. What they really need is independent center right campaigns with old-timey (2008) republicans to fracture the right and then dem candidates to govern with the understanding of the political reality (that they need to generally govern as centrists). You say "unrealistic!"? I say ... yes, absurdly unrealistic.
You seem smarter than nearly any Democrat in public office these days. Why aren't you on the ticket? Ned Lamont, nerdy schmerdling that he is, got on the ticket. Get on the ticket, or go get Howard Dean's old job. You're better than most of these chuckleheads.
yes keep sayingmonkeys monkeys monkeys over and over againin campaign ads Dems. what does he think we are monkeys. huh? he asked people to stand if they agreed with the idea.
Do you think it is the federal government or any other elected official to first represent the American people before illegals?i
dems response. what does he think we are monkeys...as they stay seated.
can somebody please help this political party and when finished Go over and help the Republicans or whatever they are
we need 2 strong political parties.
thanks Obama. this is the tail end of the power he once had. ugly.
Except that they *are* his monkeys. They did exactly what Trump wanted and expected them to! They weren’t defying him, they were voluntarily providing B-roll for the GOP midterm ads.
> everyone can viscerally feel what Trump is doing here
I don't think this is true if you don't already like democrats. For people who dislike Democrats (a majority of the country that I cludes a lot of people who also dislike Trump) this is a good reminder of why (democrats really do only seem to really care about terrorists and criminals).
You sound like my mother who always thinks you get to explain yourself to people who are judging you.
“Just tell them…”
Nope. They’re not actually asking and they don’t care.
Doesn’t work that way, unless you’re in a court of law.. and my understanding is that when you are on trial, it’s not always a good idea to be put on the stand.
It was wild seeing left leaning outlets frame this as Democrats “not taking the bait” when it was very clear to me that the Democrats, once again, fell into Trump’s very obvious trap. I too question their intelligence. Sitting most certainly sends a stronger message to swing voters who they need to win general elections than standing would to those hyper partisans who will vote for them regardless.
Good thing you're not running for president then. This is the age of sound bytes and reels and if democrats didn't learn that from the "Kamala stands for they/them" ad, they deserve what they get. Getting bested in a war of optics and words against an arguably stupid and psychopathic octagenarian was pathetic. Letting it happen twice because of self righteous indignation would be indefensible.
If you can't come to agreement with someone you dislike on something as basic as you loving your children, why should I expect you to be able to negotiate with foreign countries, or to ever get anything bipartisan passed? Being 100 percent "anti" is good for winning primaries and for sitting in opposition, it's childish for anyone attempting to show ability to govern and leadership.
This is not about agreeing with the content of the claim lol. This is all theatrics. I won’t stand up just because I’m told to by a bully. Reps didn’t stand up because they agreed. Dems didn’t stay seated because they disagreed.
Because that wouldn't explain why they didn't stand for the grieving families Trump paraded around. What are they going to say? “And we’re not compassion’s monkeys, either”?
would have been better if they just didn't attend in that case. Of course they were going to be baited - but their response made them the ideal hook for the bait. It was exactly the optics Trump wanted, that and for the family of Irena K. In both cases it would have completely defused Trump's show if they played against type and stood and clapped (and then quickly sat down after) - but if not, then just don't attend and provide zero targets to bait. And no, their conduct in the SOTU won't be a voting factor in the midterms, but it is symptomatic of bigger issues in the Democratic Party and its so far finding where the "resistance" to Trump should be, and its ability to be a credible opposition party. It's also in like, why are we having a contentious primary in Texas for a Senate seat that is badly needed for a majority, especially one that is dividing the Democratic electorate on racial lines. If Trump is the emergency Democrats are claiming (and he is), then why are they not acting like a political party laser focused on winning on those seats versus indulging in egos and the same divisive identity politics that got us here?? (and yes, by that I mean a useful DNC would have diverted Jasmine Crockett from this kamikaze move and maybe hired for a can't refuse job in managing Democratic social media or something to that effect, not only strengthening the race in Texas but rewarding the Congresswoman for where her talents truly lie than letting her set herself for career suicide if she wins the primary and blows the race by a miles).
The only people reading “explanations” aren’t people they need to read. If you’re the type of person read what democrats say in long form then you don’t need to be reached. You are already captured. People do this thing where they think “it I can look it up and understand it surely others can”. But perspective just works differently than that. And the only people that matter is the 5-10% on the fence.
I think the Democrats are stuck on "We reliably get all the votes in large population centres like California, to hell with those rednecks, we don't need them".
And then we see the complaining about the Electoral College and that Candidate OurPerson got the majority of the popular vote, it's not fair!!!!
You had Ilhan Omar doing her thing, but that's not going to convince a ton of people when it's "oh yeah, the Somali representative from the state with all the Somali fraud" in a lot of people's heads.
I do think their problem is that if they did stand up, any one who did would be crucified on social media, and they're terrified of alienating the progressive wing since those are the ones most active on social media and so would be doing the scripted calls and campaigns to 'recall that traitor who supports MAGA Nazis'.
Damn it, is there nobody with Bill Clinton's political instincts left in charge anymore?
'I think the Democrats are stuck on "We reliably get all the votes in large population centres like California, to hell with those rednecks, we don't need them".'
Based on what? Joe Biden going out of his way to distribute funds for major projects and economic development for rural areas?
Based on refusing to signal agreement with a rather anodyne statement that plays very well with small-town Americans, but sounds like Something A Republican Would Say to the left fringe of the party.
It's juvenile. Anybody who watches it and genuinely thinks "wow, they don't want to PROTECT AMERICANS???" is not a reachable voter. And I take a very, very expansive view of who is a "reachable voter."
Sure, it's juvenile. But I have no idea how you're justifying your middle sentence, especially if you truly do have an expansive view of the "reachable voter".
As I understand it, swing voters tend to be low-information voters. I can easily see a bunch of undecideds watching that clip in a Republican ad and thinking "woah, better vote for the Republicans then I guess".
Eh, I can see your argument. Not how I lean, but understandable.
If you're not stupid it's really hard to put yourself in the mind of a stupid person. And if you are stupid, you're likely to reach bad conclusions about complex issues. So basically nobody understands stupid people. It's hard to tell what triggers their "oh, come on" cynicism versus what triggers their wide-eyed gullibility.
(As it happens, the cynicism is sometimes triggered by things that are actually true.)
((Nobody get up my ass about the word "stupid" please, yes, different kinds of intelligence, blah blah blah. Half of the country could not read this comment section. But most of those people still have common sense.))
Exactly - Trump said “illegal aliens.” Any Democrat from a safe district who stood up would have been primaried by the “no person is illegal on stolen land” crowd.
Let’s try not to overstate the impact of this moment on an election in 8 months. This feels like unnecessary catastrophizing. If the GOP holds the House and Senate, I don’t think this sotu moment will be among the top 10 reasons why. Dems should just move on and keep doing their thing on affordability
Fair enough, but I think the incident is pretty indicative of how, 10 years into MAGA, Democrats still haven’t figured out how to not be baited by him into doing and saying stuff that turns off wide swaths of the moderate electorate, and it looks increasingly less likely that they ever will.
That’s fine. Immigration is a hard issue for Democrats. I still don’t think anyone needs to panic that they are going to lose a very winnable election because they got blindsided at the sotu and did not think quickly on their feet about attack ads that might come 8 months later
The thing is, it *shouldn't* be a hard issue for Democrats. They should be able to strike a set of positions that support and promote legal immigration for many levels of immigrants and immigration types coupled with strict border security and interior enforcement (that would be a lessened necessity with better policies and border security), and taking a rhetorical tone on immigration that prizes the contributions and ethnic/cultural traits of immigrants that are also encouraged to join and become Americans while sharing and retaining those traits because America is good too, blah blah. Oh, and if you violate the law in any way expect to be prosecuted, up to and including denaturalization/deportation (depending on status). But that also provides for a just and trained enforcement agency subject to oversight etc.
It's baffling why Democrats still refuse to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration when they start (annoyingly) waxing on about Ezra Pound and Ellis Island and 1920's wave immigration as to why Americans should except large numbers of irregular immigration (while gaslighting voters that it was even happening, hmm if what was happening under Biden was so good and Statue of Liberty-like, why not run with it?). As recent defections from heavily and traditionally Hispanic districts along the Rio Grande in Texas should indicate, it's not required to be "pro illegal immigration" for courting Hispanic votes, in fact it may repel those voters for a variety of reasons, at least which is the broad misassigning of "identity groups" based on the rather unique experience and trends of the African American demographic (which is also generationally trending away from the post-Civil Rights coalition) and conflation of loose ethnic grouping to cultural, political and ideological views. It's a niche and ideological position of activists and progressives that may make a lot of noise online and at protests but is not representative of the broader "Hispanic" electorate - and a reality that a political party with access to all sorts of data modeling and polling technology let alone recent electoral results should be able to discern yet they keep taking the activist views even if it costs them.
I think you over simplify the difficulty of the democrats’ position, but I basically agree that moderating on immigration is a smart move. The same way I would tell the GOP to moderate on health care. It is easier said than done - hence why it’s a difficult issue. Democrats are lucky that Trump has systematically worked to destroy his advantage on that particular issue (see Nate Silver recently)
yeah maybe but I think the difference between the GOP and health care moderation is that the GOP is ideologically and purposefully opposed to most sort of social spending programs, not just for health care since pretty much Reagan, and is why they remain incapable of coming up with an alternative to the ACA that doesn't just suck, because the ACA was pretty much the most allowance a Republican Party could stomach in the expansion of government policy and spending in health care, and even that is apparently too much.
Versus what I consider to be "moderation" on immigration would still allow for a party centered around inclusiveness, diversity and pro-immigration social and political politics, it doesn't require having to abandon those values or ideological preferences, and if liberals could see their way to comprehending that going around the political process to increase immigration levels (as what happened under Biden) results in a backlash that ultimately harms the immigrant population and support for immigration then it should also follow that immigration moderation is really the most "pro" immigration policy at the end of the day. You can talk about enforcement and legal pathways without sounding like Stephen Miller! It would just require being clear in the distinction between legal and illegal immigration and being willing to crack down on the latter to promote and increase the former. The belief that Democrats apparently hold that being lax on illegal immigration is a Hispanic voter priority and that the view of activists on this issue is representative is clearly false and like I said, they have access to data to prove that. It's also literally where the party was a few cycles ago so it's also not like some new territory - yes progressives got upset with Obama "Deporter in Chief" and he won two decisive electoral victories and carried the Senate for a duration of his terms as well. Just sayin'! :)
But otherwise, yeah I agree that Democrats most likely are doing the usual least risk adverse path of just letting Trump trip on his own dick over an issue that has always been his greatest strength in the terrible execution of :/ Unfortunately for Democrats, while the polling does show Trump going in the negatives on immigration, the polling for Democrats hasn't really improved from their negatives and majorities still trust *Republicans* more than Democrats on immigration!
Who are these “moderates” who are still in the thrall of a would-be fascist? Do you actually imagine them saying “I would have voted for Democrats, but they didn’t stand when Trump said ‘if you hate babies, stay seated!’”
As a hint, they are the people who don’t think that agreeing with Trump about whether babies should be hated would put you “in the thrall of a would-be fascist”.
The stand-up-if-you-love-Americans thing is a stupid rhetorical trick. Kinda like the inverse of the classic “Sir, when did you stop beating your wife.”
No one was persuaded by that but dumb pieces of shit who were already going to support MAGA anyway. Not a single god damn “moderate” thought Trump — the would-be fascist — made a sincere, good point
The problem is there's no winning move. That's what makes it a trap. If they had stood up Dems would have been in an even worse place: they'd have been attacked by their own supporters for taking an apparently pro-ICE stance, and still attacked by Republicans for the ongoing shutdown and whatever anti-ICE moves they might continue to make.
I think the point Jeff is making here is that “their own supporters” are putting them into that bind by insisting that putting the interests of citizens ahead of illegal aliens is an unacceptable “pro-ICE” stance.
Plus, what Democrats are supposed to react like trained seals? I ain't standing for nothing when people play this game and it's not about the substance, it's about being treated like a child, or trained seal.
Trump says the economy is better than ever; GOP stand and clap. Trump says they're bringing in healthcare; GOP stand and clap. Make the connection very clear. This party lies, to you, and cheers for the lie.
A lot of writers on this platform need to log off for a while. You can miss a deadline or two. Substack turning into centrist Twitter hasn't been good for anyone.
I don't know. I think you could make the case that they would have looked weak if they got baited into a game of Simon Says by Trump. Especially (and I don't know if he planned or could have executed this) if the game progressed to increasingly divisive commands and you see the Democrats dithering, half-standing, clearly getting jerked around.
Not worried about the attack ads. If Democrats DID stand, the ad-makers would just say "fuck it" and splice in some other random footage of them sitting. Same outcome but with less dignity.
I saw plenty of comments about how 'low energy' Trump was, how his speech was pretty bland, boring, and more interesting for what it didn't say (about immigration, iran, Epstein ). People were talking about Miller's bizarre (even for him) thousand year Reich-esque comment. People are talking about whether or not the President is using the Justice Department to cover up claims he raped a child. Who is talking about this one moment from a speech most people didn't watch?
How many low information swing voters do you think bothered to watch the state of the union address though? It just doesn't matter to the people who decide elections, so the clip above is probably the only thing from the speech they will ever see, and they will see it in a Republican attack add.
Kamala, "surely answering this ACLU survey about where I stand on tax-payer funded sex change operations for illegal immigrants will never come back to bite me."
None. Trump is the kind of guy that gets high information voters to turn away as well. It's a gimmick, it's not substance. Who wants to stand on order like a trained seal. I wish there was a way to bet on this (but not really since I don't bet).
Yeah, like those black folks in Minnesota. Problem (for the Democrats) is that the blacks actually kind of like ICE. Folks that solve problems, and have a mandate to not go after the US Citizen Black Folk.
Too many people are willing to vote for someone who doesn't actually meet their needs so long as someone else - blacks, gays, women, immigrants, whomever - gets a nominally worse deal than them. This is the political inertia we're stuck in.
Republicans politicians generally don't seem to pander to their fringe in their bills, Democrats however try to pass everything bagel bills to appease everyone in their party, and since the left fringe yells the loudest about it, they end up getting outsized concessions in Democrats bills. Voter rightfully view the left fringe as having more influence on generic Democrats in congress than on generic Republicans, so they punish Democrats for extreme lefty views more than Republicans for extreme right views.
Republican politicians that do espouse extreme righty positions have trouble getting elected in larger elections (Kari Lake is a perfect example of this), so it is pretty clear that the unpopular thing is being connected to fringe political views in either direction, and the Republicans have done a much better job of keeping the party as a whole not connected to the fringe views on their side than the Democrats have on their end, because the republicans view their fringe as something to throw under the bus when political convenient and not something to pander to in bills. The Democrats view their fringe as part of their base that needs representation and make sure to include them in the bill creation process.
Trump is a bit of a weird exception to this, except his views are not uniform on the left right spectrum (his position on tariffs is the extreme lefty position for example), so it is more that some of his positions are extreme right, some extreme left, and a whole lot of "WTF is that supposed to be?" about his positions.
TL;DR: When Trump asked Democrats in Congress, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" they all should have stood up! By remaining seated, the Democrats gave the impression that they will continue to beat their wives and enjoy it. This is very bad optics for the Democrats! Boo, Democrats!
Anyway, this just reinforces my belief that Democrats should have skipped the SOTU.
Yeah, but it's not that sort of trick question, where both "yes" and "no" imply something bad.
It's the sort of trick question where the correct answer (or, at least, the politically sensible answer) is pretty obvious, but you end up refusing to give it because you don't like the idea of agreeing with the guy who asked the question.
It reminds me of that "It's Okay To Be White" troll campaign. The whole point is to trick people into saying "no it isn't!".
To that end, I agree with OP that skipping was the obvious choice. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. There is no win once you start engaging with Trump in good faith. It would have required explaining, yes, but it would have been better ground.
I strongly disagree with your premise: that it is true (let alone so obviously true that it was idiotic not to stand up to support Trump in proclaiming it) that the first duty” of a government is to “protect its citizens and not illegal aliens”. That’s simply *not* a true moral proposition, in my view and many others’, no more than it’s true that a person’s first duty is to look after themselves.
It is just as important a duty to protect and promote the interests of refugees and the world’s most desperately poor- if not moreso, on any sane and remotely defensible theory of ethics.
And on the “optics” my response would be twofold:
1) It is valuable in itself to insist on truth and the moral good
2) Not standing up “in support” (and on the command) of Trump on an increasingly unpopular issue for him is unlikely to be as politically damaging in the medium term as you seem to think
You’re approaching this from a moral standpoint, whereas I’m speaking more to nature of the compact between citizens and their elected representatives. And, yes, I do think that an elected official has a special obligation to the people who elected them — if they don’t, then what’s the purpose of an election to begin with, since we’re apparently expecting all officials to hew to some higher, universalist truth? You can run saying “My priority is compassion for illegal immigrants,” and if you win, that can be assumed to be your electorate’s priority — jingoistic chauvinism is not required here. But, yes, I think that elected officials have a duty to represent the people who elected them, and that duty is fundamental to democracy.
And as a purely practical matter: Is “I have no special obligation to you, the people I’m asking to vote for me” ever likely to be a winning political message?
> You’re approaching this from a moral standpoint, whereas I’m speaking more to nature of the compact between citizens and their elected representatives. And, yes, I do think that an elected official has a special obligation to the people who elected them
I don't think this distinction makes sense; the question of what elected officials should do is an inherently moral one.
We're both approaching it from a moral standpoint; we just disagree about what the relevant moral principles are. I think elected officials should follow the same moral principles as apply to every other facet of life, including not prioritising the interests of some over others based on arbitrary factors such as place of birth; you think that elections create a special obligation that overrides those normal ethical considerations.
My question is: why? How would this work? No other social arrangement or contractual obligation supercedes the precepts of normal morality in that way. How do you justify the existence of this special relationship, and how can that justification avoid proving too much by for example creating special obligations towards your own voters over opposition voters, or voting age adults over children?
> if they don’t, then what’s the purpose of an election to begin with, since we’re apparently expecting all officials to hew to some higher, universalist truth?
I don't understand this argument. The point of an election is to elect leaders; the question of what you're electing them to do is a question for the participants in that election, not something pre-determined by the concept of elections itself.
There's nothing in the concept of an election that implies that it is necessarily a procedure aimed at the furtherance of the participating group's self-interest, and there's nothing inconsistent, or obviously unreasonable, about wanting to hold elections to choose leaders who will use the group's resources and collective power to better promote the universal good. If you disagree with that position, and instead want your leaders to prioritise your interests at the expense of foreigners', you have to make the argument for that; you can't just stipulate it as proceeding naturally from the very concept of electing leaders, because it does not.
> And as a purely practical matter: Is “I have no special obligation to you, the people I’m asking to vote for me” ever likely to be a winning political message?
I think this is much less unlikely than you suggest. Polling suggests that Americans of both parties largely support a significant amount of foreing aid and a strong majority support "taking into account the interests of other countries, even if it means making compromises with them". Pew note that this majority has "increased significantly since 2023", from 59% to 64%. Even Republicans have gone from 43% to 47%, suggesting this is likely to be a majority positon among swing voters (given that it almost is amongst conservatives!). It's also notable that Americans famously hold the mistaken belief that foreign aid is as much as 25% of the federal budget- and think it should be more like 10%, which is of course vastly greater than the actual figure. These positions all suggest fairly strong and broad support, especially amongst Democrats and independent or moderate voters, for balancing the interests of Americans with the interests of foreigners in a way that at least arguably conflicts with Trump's statement.
In short, I don't think people are anywhere near as amoral or as selfish as you suggest, and I think there is broad support for the US using its enormous power and wealth to improve the world and help those who need it most, rather than to defend its citizens as its first priority and therefore at the expense of all other considerations.
As I pointed out elsewhere in the thread, the question was framed specifically in terms of "showing your support" to Trump, and for defending Americans "and not illegal aliens", bringing it squarely into the realm of an increasingly damaging issue for Trump, an issue on which Democrats were asked to physically and viscerally align with him or in opposition to him. I would find it surprising if Democrats and swing voters were particularly disgusted by officials, in response, demonstrating clear distance between themselves and the GOP on that issue, especially given that the statement itself, taken anywhere near literally, arguably conflicts with a majority of voters' actual views and policy preferences.
At the least, the above does not seem so obviously incorrect as to justify the accusation that officials are stupid for not making the decision, in that moment, that you would have wanted them to, with no time to think through the various implications. I think therefore that your criticism of them is largely unwarranted.
Okay: from a moral standpoint, people matter just as much regardless of whether they're from the same country as you. But as an elected official, standing for the interests of your electorate is literally your job.
I remember talking to a union rep who said privately that she felt the employee she was about to represent (in an unfair dismissal case) was in the wrong and deserved to lose. But she had to do her best to fight his corner anyway, because it's a union and that's what unions are for. If they didn't do that, why would people join?
I think there's something similar to the idea of someone winning an election and then saying to their electorate: "Wait, you expect me to stick up for your interests? What makes you think you're more important than other people with different interests?"
Interesting comparison. Perhaps it's not a coincidence that the American left seems increasingly anti-union as well. We could even view America as a union, and migrant workers as scabs (especially the ones paid less than minimum wage, under the table).
> But as an elected official, standing for the interests of your electorate is literally your job.
What your job is, as an elected official, is precisely the question at issue. This is just asserting your position again. I disagree.
I had already noticed this pattern amongst people holding this position: they start with it as an almost foundational assumption, as if it does not need to be justified. When met with someone who doesn’t share their assumptions, they resort to increasingly more frustrated reiterations of their assumption. ‘But… it’s their job!’
I disagree. That isn’t what I’d want the leader of the group I was a part of to do, especially not if we were an affluent and powerful group that were especially safe and prosperous compared to the other groups. I’d want them to promote the moral good (while doing enough to ensure we were continued to be prosperous ourselves). And crucially, I’d be perfectly entitled to vote on that basis, and I think many people do. You can’t just assert to them that they are fundamentally wrong and your conception of a leader “is their job” and they have to act accordingly no matter how many of your fellow group members disagree.
Well, to begin with, if you want them to promote the moral good, and vote for them on that basis, promoting the moral good IS them standing up for your interests. So I'm not sure you're disagreeing with me here. And you're certainly welcome to vote on any basis you wish, so we're not disagreeing there either.
This is an isolated demand for rigour, I think. My instinct is that an elected official should represent the interests of their electorate. Yours is that they should ignore said interests in favour of promoting the moral good (however we're defining that). Well and good. What I'm not sure is why you think my instinct needs to be proven correct but yours apparently doesn't.
Yes, to be clear: I am not saying that the government should not promote the interests of its citizens. I’m saying that it should do that as one part of its greater goal of promoting the moral good. That’s what I’d want of my leader, and so that’s what I think the job of elected officials should be.
The reason that I have been demanding a rigorous justification from you is that you are insisting that your concept of what an elected official should do is “literally their job”. You seem to be arguing that your conception just is the case and admits of no disagreement. That requires some justification. I made no such assertion; I just said I disagree. And yet I have nonetheless expounded at length all over the thread on my justification for this view, so I’m not sure what you mean that it’s an “isolated” demand for rigour. It’s just a regular, consistent demand for rigour, and one that I would apply to myself (big fan of ssc/acx though, so I fancy you’re right that we don’t disagree as much as it initially seems).
TL;DR, but it is immoral to support people who are not a part of the country that hired you to do a job. If my neighbor hires me to mow his lawn, it is immoral for me to mow the lawn down the street.
It might be nice for me to do that, but immoral to do it on his dime, unless he asked me to. And if my neighbor is sufficiently progressive, you would think he would be OK with that. My experience has been that progressive folks are the least likely to do that, they want the government to do it. Democrats donate less to charity than Republicans, they expect the government to take care of things.
If you had read the whole thing you’d know that objection is amply addressed.
The TL;DR is that there’s no reason to think that optimising the welfare of Americans is the job that elected officials were “hired” to do, nor that improving the welfare of others is outwith the scope of that job.
The entire international system is built on the premise that states have a primary duty to their citizens, with duties to non-citizens being secondary. That's why richer, more developed countries (i.e., those doing a better job of already serving their citizens) are consistently expected to do more in terms of refugee relief even when they are geographically further from a conflict (e.g., Italy being expected to do more on behalf of Libyan refugees than Egypt).
A state's duties towards non-citzens may not be trivial, but they are decisively subordinated to the state's dutyies towards its citizens.
Yes... but that doesn't have anything to do with dumb gotcha stunts in speeches nobody watched, and whether they will have any effect on the election in eight months. (Highly doubtful.)
You are acting like Democrats went out there and said 'NO, that is NOT the duty!" when all they did was not stand and clap for a guy they hate, who hates them.
If he asked them to stand up if they support veterans or the US hockey team winning gold or something, I imagine they would have stood up. So I see your argument, but it shouldn't hurt anything to stand for something they believe to be true. I think that was pretty effective at illustrating the partisanship and especially the silly taboos that still exist on the left.
Yeah, and I agree with you that whatever it was that made Democrats not stand - whether it was some kind of timidity (looking around to see if anyone else is standing, not seeing anyone, doing nothing) or a fear of angering "the base" - is not a great impulse for them to be indulging. But in this case I don't think the impulse was wrong. So it worries me more in terms of what it says about how they will carry themselves the rest of the year, rather than the effects of the gambit itself.
Like, I'm pretty sure Fetterman stood and even if we aren't perfectly aligned, and he kind of scares the hell out of me in an "is he okay?" sense, I appreciate that he just does whatever. The way he's treated by the rest of the caucus and Dem voters makes it clear why nobody else operates that way. (Brain damage: the new political superpower.)
Everybody should've just done what they thought was best for their state or district (or heart). Democrats don't have to project unity because they are an anti-coalition coalition. There's no reason to EXPECT them to be unified.
So, having talked it out, I suppose we are mostly in agreement, I just get edgy when I see "bad vibes" being put out that I don't think are necessary, because that's where our ambient "vibes" come from and why we can't get them under control. Almost everything liberals and the left say about Democrats is negative.
To be fair, watching a few years of recklessness might improve people's opinions of risk aversion! The electorate is beyond fickle. As soon as they see something, they start wanting the opposite. "Stop separating families! Now stop immigration! No, not like that!" Biden winning - over both Sanders and Trump - was a triumph of risk aversion.
(Also, while I'm sure Silver based his assertions in some data, it really isn't possible to be more comfortable with risk than a successful professional gambler, so that is going to shade his opinion towards the pro-risk side, all else being equal.)
If you’re alluding to me, I can assure you that my disagreement is not born of any ignorance about the structure of the American government.
It’s a political-philosophical disagreement, and one which you have not begun to engage with if you think it can be settled by descriptive facts taught in civics class.
The duty to citizens is enumerated in every foundational document and the very structure of the government. It's axiomatic. If the State has duties to anyone other than the citizens, please give some evidence for that.
The United States Constitution clearly enumerates responsibilities the government has to non-citizens, which is to acknowledge and respect their full Constitutional rights.
1. It's a descriptive claim only insofar as it accurately describes the widespread acceptance of a normative claim prescribed by basic social contract theory. If you're going to assert that "any sane and remotely defensible theory of ethics" supports your view, without elaboration, I'm going to assume at least passing familiarity with one of the most widespread theories of ethical governance.
2. Descriptive facts have moral valence, however inconvenient that might be to idealists. A nanny owes a specific duty of care to the children she's hired to watch, even if the specific assignment is morally arbitrary. Similarly, a state that fails to secure its own citizens' well-being is acting immorally by virtue of the descriptive fact that *this is the job it's been charged with.*
> It's a descriptive claim only insofar as it accurately describes the widespread acceptance of a normative claim prescribed by basic social contract theory.
Yes, a descriptive claim.
> If you're going to assert that "any sane and remotely defensible theory of ethics" supports your view, without elaboration
Without elaboration? I've written hundreds if not thousands of words elaborating on this in this thread.
> I'm going to assume at least passing familiarity with one of the most widespread theories of ethical governance.
You assume correctly! What's the relevance of this?
Should I not be able to similarly assume familiarity with academic ethics, and therefore conclude that it would be redundant to "elaborate" on the fact that all defensible theories of ethics include non-discrimination between persons? The fact you require justification for that claim suggests it is you who lacks passing familiarity with the relevant theory, here.
> Descriptive facts have moral valence, however inconvenient that might be to idealists.
They rather famously do not. It's one of the central quandaries of academic meta-ethics. Again, I wonder at the audacity to sneer at the lack of relevant knowledge you perceived me to have, when we are getting snagged on such rudimentary philosophy 101 stuff.
> A nanny owes a specific duty of care to the children she's hired to watch, even if the specific assignment is morally arbitrary.
This is another controversial claim which you simply assert as if requiring no justification, and with which I disagree. Morality demands that a nanny look after the children she is hired to watch, because she is well positioned to do so and by virtue of her agreement has made others less so. There need be no reference to a 'specific duty of care' that overrides all other moral obligations, and in fact I think such a duty is highly implausible when you actually consider her moral duty in various scenarios. For example, I doubt you would agree that she should kill ten children in order to protect the two she is assigned to care from minor harm (or perhaps you don't- at least you'd be consistent). So I think your example fails to demonstrate the existence of an analogous duty.
> Similarly, a state that fails to secure its own citizens' well-being is acting immorally by virtue of the descriptive fact that *this is the job it's been charged with.*
I dispute that descriptive claim. Charged by whom? That's not the job that I would charge my elected representatives with. Again you seem to assume your conclusion in your premises.
Well, in the case of the United States specifically, that government was quite self-consciously “instituted among men” for the express purpose of securing rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness after a predecessor government failed in that duty.
But why let the received wisdom of basically all of human history get in the way of an intellectually pleasing academic theory?
That's a great way to live your personal life, or lead a church or civic organization, but it's not a great way to get elected to lead a country with 300 million people with all kinds of views. I think it's too much to expect the government to not prioritize it's own people (the people who vote for thier leaders as Jeff points out), the same way it's too much to expect businesses not to prioritize shareholders (i.e. the people who decide who leads the company).
I'm with you on moral truth existing and being important, but the government isn't a reasonable place to expect it, and trying to get that is a good way to not have any power to make life better for the 300 million people who are citizens.
This seems like a mix of various arguments. On “it’s not a great way to get elected”- see point 2.
Your other argument is a bit harder to parse. Why is it “too much to expect” that governments should follow the same moral principles that persons or smaller groups? Obviously the facts of governing are different so the particular actions required by morality will be different, but I don’t see any reason why the fundamental precepts should be different, and I think you’d at least need to make a positive argument for that difference. And it is quite a fundamental principle of morality that you consider the interests of persons equally without regard to eg ethnicity, nationality or citizenship.
Any argument for focusing on the interests of the people within your country at the expense of others who happen to live outwith it would seem to fall victim to the same sort of objections as philosophical egoism (which you will note that almost no-one professes to believe).
I don’t think the fact that Americans voted the government in is a good reason to give Americans priority consideration, no more than it would be reason to give priority consideration to those who voted for the governing party over those who voted for the opposition, or to adults of voting age over children who could not vote.
Less so in the former case, in fact, because at least opposition voters had the option to vote for the future president. It is no fault of the Indonesian factory worker that he is not afforded the opportunity to influence the makeup and direction of the most powerful entity in the world (and one of very few that can lift him out of suffering) purely because he failed to be born in sufficient geographical proximity to it, and it is hard to see how our moral patiency could be at all dependent on such accidents of birth.
I believe that the moral principles at play are essentially the same, and the only reason this is any less obvious than the fact that you should consider the welfare of others alongside your own is that our moral intuitions break down at this level of abstraction and scale (ie the 150 monkeys thing).
One good reason not to expect governments to follow the same moral principles as persons or smaller groups is that we generally don't favor persons or smaller groups imprisoning each other or seizing each other's property.
As for considering the interests of persons equally, I'm reminded of a story I heard about Phil Gramm, who was in an argument with someone who for some reason assured him, "I care about your children just as much as you do." To which Gramm replied "Really? What are their names?"
> One good reason not to expect governments to follow the same moral principles as persons or smaller groups is that we generally don't favor persons or smaller groups imprisoning each other or seizing each other's property.
This is an example of a situation where the government is commonly (though not universally) thought to be justified in departing from normal individual moral *behaviour*, in specific narrow circumstances. It is not a general argument that normal moral *principles* do not apply, or for a presumption that the government can behave generally in ways that would be inconsistent with morality as it applies to individuals.
In that example, support for this departure is justified by specific argument (essentially, that this is absolutely necessary for society to function). Proponents of departing from the general principle of treating people equally without regard to arbitrary considerations such as place of birth or nationality would have to make a similarly specific argument for that. And as I mentioned above, attempts to do so have, to my knowledge, thus far been unsuccessful and unpersuasive, falling victim to the same kind of objections as philosophical egoism.
It is my belief that the only reason your view is not, like philosophical egoism, roundly rejected by almost everyone is that our intuitions about morality and fairness breakdown at such remove, abstraction and scale, and our reason falls victim to tribal instincts which have long served their evolutionary purpose.
I've been thinking about what you're saying. I agree with you directionally (would be great if our government cared more about people in other countries, especially after usaid cuts), but I'm having trouble taking you literally. Do you really expect people to value a kid in Indonesia as much as thier own kids? If not, then why can parents value people differently, but governments can't?
I heard, and I'm not sure where, but it was a recent podcast, that described governance as being about setting priorities. In that framework, which makes a lot of sense and I agree with, there is no difference between saying everything is important and nothing is important.
So yes, a government first and foremost needs to look out for citizens, and then it can look after others. If the American government doesn't prioritise Americans, who will? As Rabbi Hillel said, "if I am not for myself, who will be for me?"
I don’t follow your argument here. How does it follow from the premise that government is about setting priorities that its first duty should be defending its citizens?
> If the American government doesn't prioritise Americans, who will?
No-one! No one needs to discriminate in favour of Americans on the basis of their nationality. If all world governments were focused on promoting the universal good we would have a much better world.
Great. You and John Lennon can imagine that. In the meanwhile, every country in the world will prioritise their own people. Are you familiar with the concept of a "Nash Equilibrium"?
I'm not sure what your point is. "Imagining" that, ie arguing for its truth, is what is called 'doing philosophy', and it's what we are all trying to doing here- some more successfully than others.
If you're trying to be scathing about my considering the hypothetical optimally desirable behaviour of government officials, in a discussion about precisely that, you're just making yourself look incurious and unintelligent, to be frank.
I used to play poker semi-professionally, so I certainly am!
> In the meanwhile, every country in the world will prioritise their own people.
Again, I'm struggling to see the relevance of this. I don't disagree, if that's not clear.
> Are you familiar with the concept of a "Nash Equilibrium"?
I certainly am! I used to play poker semi-professionally, so I've had to study the concept in some depth. I think I can guess at your point, and as I have discussed above, this is much the same argument that has been advanced for ethical egoism. Unfortunately for egoism (and a significnat reason that it has been largely abandoned), it is demonstrably not the case that everyone optimising for their own individual interests will achieve a mutually optimal equilibrium. One of the reasons for this is that unlike in Nash Equilibrium, the parties to real life interactions are not interchangeable, and differ in their material resources and abilities in significant ways, meaning that there are asymmetrical power relations meaning that one party optimising for its own interests will disproportionately disadvantage another. A real life example and intuition pump is malaria nets; we could save hundreds of thousands of infant lives per year, if we acted more altruistically, because we have the material resources to help them much more than they can help themselves. Unfortunately, this means that both parties to this relationship acting in their own self-interest produces enormous preventable suffering.
I don't see any reason that the same objections should not be equally devastating to the state egoism you implicitly seem to endorse.
So you seem to have missed the main point of a Nash Equilibrium. It's not that you're acting solely for your own benefit, it's that any change in behaviour you make will only make you worse off.
Hypothetically every country not caring about their own citizens above other country citizens could be preferable (I disagree, but that's irrelevant), but in the world that is, any country choosing to not prioritise it's own citizens over others will be strictly worse off.
I'm not having a hypothetical discussion about how it would be better if human nature was different. I'm saying that, based upon reality, countries have to look out for themselves first, and then they can look after others.
> So you seem to have missed the main point of a Nash Equilibrium. It's not that you're acting solely for your own benefit, it's that any change in behaviour you make will only make you worse off.
I wouldn't say it's "the main point" of Nash Equilibrium, but it is indeed oe way of describing the mutual optimality that is a feature of it.
> Hypothetically every country not caring about their own citizens above other country citizens could be preferable (I disagree, but that's irrelevant), but in the world that is, any country choosing to not prioritise it's own citizens over others will be strictly worse off.
I disagree with this too! But being worse off is a reasonable (and common) price of moral behaviour, so I wouldn't consider this a strong objection even if I did accept the descriptive claim.
The basic example of a Nash Equilibrium is the 100 dollar game. Two players must choose an amount of money. If the amount is equal or less than 100, than each player get what's they wrote down. If its above 100,no one gets anything.
In this game, there are 101 Nash Equilibrium points (0,100; 1,99; 2,98;...99,1; 100,0). That's because, at any of those numbers, you can only get less money by changing your answer, unless the other side does as well. Notice though, that being maximally altruistic and choosing zero, still leads to a Nash Equilibrium.
The entire premise of giving immense power to the State is that the State will use it to provide for and protect the citizens before anything else. It's the foundation of government.
Morals are great but have no connection to getting elected (moral politicians are basically an oxymoron at this point). This post was about the party strategy to win elections, so what do morals have to do with it?
Also, about the issue being unpopular for Trump, Republicans in general are still polling as more trusted on immigration than Democrats, because if the choices are "a controlled border" and an "uncontrolled border", the first will win every time regardless of how draconian it is controlled. Trump's specific policy on how to control the border is unpopular because most people think he is going too far, but that is not the same as saying people think the Democrat's position on the border is more desirable (this is the issue of just measuring Trumps popularity on an issue, the pertinent thing is "which candidate's position do you prefer on an issue", not "do you like this candidate's position on this issue"m you can think both candidate's positions are trash, but one candidate's position is just a normal turd while the other side is a flaming turd. The Democrat's position on immigration is currently a flaming turd, so no matter how much they point at how much of a turd Trump's position is on this issue, it won't help them in an election because their position remains a lot worse by comparison. Elections are not a "my position is good" thing, it is "my position is better than the other candidate" thing, Democrats position is so bad here that the only way to not loose immigration badly is to fix their own position full stop, no amount of pointing out how bad the position of the other side is will work.
I'm sure you're cheering when the importation of people includes those who keep human body parts as trophies. You know, the families of those human body parts actually want them back? And are going to "legally murder" (via courts) these people?
Still want all the refugees? Still think these are the most mentally stable people you've ever had in America? That they (or their children) won't pick up knives or guns or fists and hurt someone?
I agree. A lot has been written on "Democrats should distance themselves from far-left activists", this was an opportunity. They would have looked like they stood up at Trump's call - so what? Far-left activists would have yelled, but that would have been the point.
Agreed that Trump set a trap that Democrats could easily have avoided. That said, how much will it change things in the twenty or so Congressional swing districts that will decide the House majority in 2027-28? Most voters start paying attention after Labor Day, which is more than six months away. Will attack ads (“My opponent will not stand up for the American people. I will.”) really work? If Trump continues to act like a demented toddler on a sugar high and the economy remains iffy at best, who will care? And good counterattack ads (“When Donald Trump says ‘jump,’ the only thing my opponent says is ‘how high?’ Unlike him, I stand on my own two feet.”) could neutralize the whole thing.
I doubt it, but I'm gonna give you a like for the funny mental image of some of those dinosaurs trying to stand for a whole hour at their age and failing.
Agree, and once you've decided you have to stand for one thing you agree with, then you're forced to evaluate every statement he makes as to whether it is stand-worthy. Hardly seems worth it. Clearly this was their plan, as Stephen Miller is over on Twitter yelling about how "they were repeatedly entreated to stand" and how people will remember this chilling moment for a thousand years 🙄 It think it seems very silly and have a hard time believing it's something that's going to matter. I guess if it actually makes for dozens of effective ads that move voters that would be good to know, but I'm skeptical.
Just a few weeks ago you argued that the average american voter doesn't have a long enough memory for the ICE shootings in minneapolis to make an impact. If you believe that, how can you believe voters will care about a "if you don't clap you're gay" style gotcha at the end of the SOTU months later? It isn't good optics, but saying democrats will have to spend months backpedaling is an overreaction
Because that snippet will be used in a million attack ads this fall.
For the record, I also think Democrats will try to remind people of Renee Good and Alex Pretti this fall, with some inpact; that article was about how these things cycle out of your consciousness after a little time, and I think the joke holds up.
Everyone freaked out the week before the election when Biden seemed to call Trump supporters garbage. The worry was that this would mess things up for Harris at the last minute. In the end, she lost big(ly) and everyone agreed it was because of inflation and immigration and the Biden garbage comment was forgotten. This is the same thing. This viewpoint does not make anyone “Blue MAGA.”
You’re overrating the significance of this. Will these low information voters who will see this ad even turn out for the midterms? Not if recent elections are any guide. Trump’s inability to “fix” the economy will greatly outweigh anything said or done at the SOTU. And Democrats can always run ads featuring the murders of Renee Good, and Alex Pretti and ask if this is the America voters want.
"the joke" holds up? a stewart-level cop out to cocky, inconsistent writing.
Because it's an easy ad for the Republicans to run. A 10 second, highly visual, clip.
Obviously Democrats will want to run images of ICE behaving badly, but at least the people in the video won't actually be the candidates!
It’ll be so easy, just replace "Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you" with “Democrats stand for Illegal Immigrants, Republicans stand for Americans.”
Maybe go back to that kneeling image during BLM and "Democrats kneel for illegal immigrants, Republicans stand for Americans".
Playing out the alternative, Trump starts a game of "Keep standing if..." The ad becomes perhaps a little less punchy, but at some point you sit down or Trump says something like "Keep standing if you think my job is to secure our elections," and then we're discussing how that's a lose-lose trap because while it is not his job, no one who only sees an attack ad cares that it isn't his job. And we're talking about how Dems are dumb for playing along.
They lost by being in the room. Not because of abstract "lending credibility" or whatever - though also that. They lost because there is no non-prop in Trump's presence unless he happens to be awed by you like Putin or Mamdani, and not a single person in Congress has that juice. So may as well refuse to be the prop.
Mamdani was totally a prop in the oval office. Trump was grinning like he'd gotten a new vassal. Which, um, he totally had. Not sure what Mamdani needed, but Trump got him by the short and curlies
He's asking Trump to give him billions so he can build more housing in Queens.
Yeah, killing Americans could be called bad behavior. And yeah, the shooters aren't candidates.
So, all good.
They might want to focus on the two killings. I wouldn't, because then it becomes about the victims, and you get into their moral character and did they provoke things and it becomes an argument.
Instead, I would paint with a broader brush and focus on ICE being unprofessional, needlessly aggressive, and yes, include the shootings but make them only part of the wider tapestry (because, at the end of the day, it's really just luck that those two died and not someone else).
I think caring about ICE being unprofessional goofs is smart and wise. But I don't think ads about "ICE is unprofessional" will move the average voter.
I think it might help if they focus the optics on the despicable things they did to kids and American citizens.
Did you hear, Ice is playing songs about marijuana to people as they ship them south of the border?
(La Cucaracha. Very patriotic, no?)
I was addressing the repeated point in the essay about the first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not future campaign advertising strategies.
The point is almost funny within the context of the second Trump presidency except that it's not.
A Simon says sound bite won't exactly cut it for me Republicans either.
Americans choose to fight cops and get killed all the time. BWCs have really reduced the political impact because it's clear who is at fault.
It's the mindset, not the particular manifestation. If Dems are still mindlessly walking into obvious traps, we should expect them to keep doing so between now and November absent some obvious course correction. So if it's not this particular example, it will just be whatever dumb, conterproductive performance someone engages in this August.
yep, this exactly, it's not the moment itself so much as what the "moment" is an example of: the mindset of a large portion of the Democratic Party (and of many of its voters and supporters) that is still unable/unwilling to reconcile with the reasons their approaches to immigration and border enforcement helped cost them the 2024 election, and that their current reaction to Trump's over-correction to that is still putting them out of step with the average voter, despite the horror show in Minneapolis and the Pretti and Good murders by ICE, because the most visible opposition (protestors and progressive celebrities) is taking the moment to retrench in familiar radical rhetoric "No one is illegal on stolen land" "Abolish ICE" which reads to any casual observer that the left opposes any sort of concept of borders or of immigration enforcement whatsoever - and Democrats are making no real effort to distance themselves from left protest rhetoric, in fact are embracing it - more shades of 2020 and "DefundThePolice" in what continues to be a strange recycling of the first Trump term, even down to some trying to rationalize the defintion of "Abolish ICE" to mean "create some other agency not called ICE that will essentially do what ICE does, but nicer", when the most vocal proponents of this are quite clear that "Abolish ICE" means abolishing any sort of interior immigration enforcement, period, the same dissonance of the "Defund" movements of 2020.
But even the protests and "resistance" in Minneapolis prior to the Good and Pretti killings were seemingly predicated on the notion that for a lot of the local very progressive populace, any interior immigration enforcement that consists of removing people here illegally *because they are here illegaly* is an illegitimate action of immigration enforcement. One can certainly dispute the methods and tactics of ICE, and of its prioritization of targets - let alone of the undertones that Trump is using ICE as a weapon against blue states in general outside of immigration - , but at the end of the day, it is *not* illegitimate to remove people that are here illegally, regardless of any other mitigating personal circumstances that make them sympathetic. There is no code in immigration law that only illegal immigrants with criminal records are subject to deportation proceedings, or those that aren't popular in their communities, or those with children, etc. Those are enforcement choices, but not legal protections or exclusions. It's as legitimate as an American citizen being forcibly deported from a foreign country if they overstay their visa or violate the rules of the visa, and it hardly seems controversial to expect to be deported from, say even Canada, as an American on those terms, or to expect mass rallies and resistance of Canadian citizens to try to prevent that deportation from occuring.
The position that Democrats seem to have landed on is that if you have evaded whatever border security is in place at the time and settled anywhere in the interior, it is almost never legitimate to expect to be removed, and even criminal illegal aliens seem to fly under that radar as well, which seems kind of nutty to have been in contact with the criminal justice system as an undocumented and here illegally individual (and sometimes repeatedly!) and not get deported as part of the adjudication process! I couldn't imagine that being an expectation in most other places? But mainly, I think this position of mass exemptions to enforcement/deportation is way out of step with the average voter, and also sets up a bad incentive to keep irregular immigration continuing if the bar for removal is set so high that a Democratic policy appears to create. Now personally, I wouldn't necessarily target the "good cases" of illegal immigrants for immediate deportation either, I would prefer some sort of arrangement where they pay a series of fines/fees, take citizenship courses, re-apply for a legal visa/path to citizenship etc, but that still is an "enforcement choice" that could be removed at any time absent a legal set of papers, and if too broadly applied to the existing population of undocumented residents wuld just incentivize more. Part of having "border security" is making it unattractive to be here illegally and attempt to evade the border. It shouldn't be treated as near-citizenship or unenforceable. And yet the Democratic Party seems to still think the "moderate middle" is deporting only those with serious criminal records, which is basically just the status quo of the Biden policies that got us here. Majorities of voters still agree with the position that people here illegally, regardless of their criminal record, should be deported *because they are here illegally* - and this remains true in the aftermath of Minneapolis, and that the Democratic position is not at all the "moderate middle".
It's the refusal to stake out a stronger policy on enforcement on top of the still also continued muscular ethno-centrism on behalf of immigrants and encouraged of immigrants (the flying of Mexican flags at pro-immigration/anti-ICE rallies is really counter-productive if the goal is to try to persuade American voters of the inherent "Americanness"/assimilation of immigrants and to therefore support a softer stance on immigration in general, and of illegal immigration in particular! And yes, intellectually I get it's an "ethnic pride" response to the also very vocal racist/bigoted anti-immigrant reactionaries but as a PR tactic it just props up that side rather than persuades the majority that react on those visuals) that views pushes for assmiliation as "white supremacy" but that also doesn't allow for a similar group identity of Americans (note: not of whites only) that would allow for a common sense of culture and values and experiences that we would like immigrants to embrace and contribute towards, not to avoid, isolate from, and denigrate. The "No one is illegal on stolen land" goes even further into denying even an American nationality. The circling of the wagons around the MN Somali community is commendable, but it also allowed for a widespread network of fraud to spread throughout that small community because Minnesota progressives were prioritzing being "inclusive" and so afraid of the scarlet "R" brand that they wound up painting a big target on the back of the larger community in the aftermath by allowing the fraud to go on for so long and balloon to such amounts, another issue that Democrats are pretty wishy washy on, which is a terrible look for a political party that is centered around concepts of generous government aid and assistance to seem so blase when so much of that money was diverted to fraudulent sources because being more forceful about it might give fuel to anti-immigration forces, when it is exactly the behavior of Democrats and liberals around this situation that is fueling those movements. So, we can't trust Democrats to manage immigration and border enforcement, and we also can't trust Democrats to police existing individuals that belong to immigrant groups if they are engaged in defrauding government programs that Democrats want us to continue pay more taxes to support and elect more Democrats to administrate, and we should also be generous in our asylum and immigration policies. This is a pretty bad message to counter Trump with IMO! You can have generous asylum and immigration and government programs but you have to be very srict about enforcing fraud against both, or you lose both issues.
It's not hard to see how these views are out of step with voters - and it's how despite Trump's reversal in his approvals on handling of immigration that Democrats have not improved on their (lower) approvals regarding, and why even if voters are uncomfortable and angry with Trump's overreaction and of ICE itself, they may not trust Democrats with the issue if Democrats cannot distinguish a position that can disavow some of this stuff, while still strking a clean opposition to Trump's misuse of ICE and that remains pro *legal* immigrant and also protective of an American identity and doesn't reflexively view as racist or "white supremacy".
And that's the other issue - the inability/refusal to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration and conflating the two. There's a perfect road in the middle of promoting for and supporting legal immigration that doesn't require having to conflate that with lax border and enforcement of illegal immigration. It's super frustrating that Democrats still seem unable to do this despite the lessons of the 2024 election and that they seem to think they don't need to change anything and just ride anti-ICE sentiment around it, and I don't think that's going to be true enough to succeed. If voters are presented with the Trump/ICE brutalism of enforcement or a progressive Democratic approach of no/minimal enforcement centered around a negative anti-American ideological viewpoint, they are going to choose the former, most every time. And I guess where I'm getting around to, is that refusal to stand at the SOTU is a visual wrapper around all of these positions and issues of the Democratic Party when it comes to immigration policies and tactics, yes of course it was a bait but I agree with Jeff - if they stood and clapped (and then sat right back down) it would left Trump holding his limp dick in his hand - worthy on its own merits to rob Trump of a scripted and planned "moment"! - on top of providing a visual signal that regardless of all else, the Democratic Party understands its primary constituency. Instead, welll, it just signaled that it remains conflicted and if it's so out of step on what should be some very easy to take positions (legal vs illegal immigration, prioritize citizen interests over non-citizen interests *as a political party*) that it definitely won't be able to make moves on the hard ones.
Yeah this post is way too “online”. Nobody will care about this next Tuesday let alone in November.
They will be reminded with the instant attack ad the sitters delivered on Tuesday.
Why can’t a Dem who sat just say, when asked why he didn’t stand up, say “Because we’re not his monkeys”? Everyone can *feel*, viscerally, what Trump’s trying to do here. In fact, if they had played along and stood, I’d be the one saying “Nice job, dummies”
“If you’re explaining you’re losing” is correct, and also, they will not have an opportunity to explain. That clip will be used in an ad, the ad is all low-information voters will see.
Republicans acted completely unhinged during Obama's SOTU addresses and still won midterms. This take is reflective of spending too much time on the feed part of the app.
You’re right. It was a total winning move to stay seated. Great look.
Everybody who thinks this matters needs to log off.
Dems should run the same clip in dem ads with the quote, "We're not trained monkeys for a _____" (someone can surely fill that blank better than I can). Then a shot of the Obamas-as-Monkeys graphic. And then a 25 second montage of replcns showing that they are trained monkeys. And they would air at least 100 different versions of that last 25 seconds and with a voice over stating what Dems do care about that will make the point of working in the interest of All of us. The selling point for dems it that there's no decision Donald Trump makes that doesn't benefit his bank account or his self-serving power and he's dragging our democratic, constitutional, and even religious values--for those for whom that matters--as well as our global reputation through the mud in order to serve his, not our, interests.
Honestly, with all the bat-shit-crazy nonsense that's gone on for the last year, if this clip is insurmountable for Dems and even needs to be explained in order for them to win, then it's over. But the other point of staying away from leftist extremism is an obvious no-brainer ... not saying the dems can manage that. What they really need is independent center right campaigns with old-timey (2008) republicans to fracture the right and then dem candidates to govern with the understanding of the political reality (that they need to generally govern as centrists). You say "unrealistic!"? I say ... yes, absurdly unrealistic.
That's...A pretty good recovery actually
You seem smarter than nearly any Democrat in public office these days. Why aren't you on the ticket? Ned Lamont, nerdy schmerdling that he is, got on the ticket. Get on the ticket, or go get Howard Dean's old job. You're better than most of these chuckleheads.
yes keep sayingmonkeys monkeys monkeys over and over againin campaign ads Dems. what does he think we are monkeys. huh? he asked people to stand if they agreed with the idea.
Do you think it is the federal government or any other elected official to first represent the American people before illegals?i
dems response. what does he think we are monkeys...as they stay seated.
can somebody please help this political party and when finished Go over and help the Republicans or whatever they are
we need 2 strong political parties.
thanks Obama. this is the tail end of the power he once had. ugly.
They don't have to explain though. It's just self evident.
"Why can’t a Dem who sat just say, when asked why he didn’t stand up, say ..."
If you're explaining, you're losing. Also, neither an attack ad nor Fox Noise is going to show a Dem explain themselves unless it looks bad.
They could have anticipated, and maybe had a sign that read "duh", that they could use to signal agreement when Trump sets such an obvious trap.
I’d like a herd of flying unicorns and democrats to be able to coordinate intelligently on any scale. Which one do you think I’m more likely to get?
Except that they *are* his monkeys. They did exactly what Trump wanted and expected them to! They weren’t defying him, they were voluntarily providing B-roll for the GOP midterm ads.
> everyone can viscerally feel what Trump is doing here
I don't think this is true if you don't already like democrats. For people who dislike Democrats (a majority of the country that I cludes a lot of people who also dislike Trump) this is a good reminder of why (democrats really do only seem to really care about terrorists and criminals).
You sound like my mother who always thinks you get to explain yourself to people who are judging you.
“Just tell them…”
Nope. They’re not actually asking and they don’t care.
Doesn’t work that way, unless you’re in a court of law.. and my understanding is that when you are on trial, it’s not always a good idea to be put on the stand.
It was wild seeing left leaning outlets frame this as Democrats “not taking the bait” when it was very clear to me that the Democrats, once again, fell into Trump’s very obvious trap. I too question their intelligence. Sitting most certainly sends a stronger message to swing voters who they need to win general elections than standing would to those hyper partisans who will vote for them regardless.
Exactly. This is so dumb. I wouldn’t stand if he asked me if I love my children.
Good thing you're not running for president then. This is the age of sound bytes and reels and if democrats didn't learn that from the "Kamala stands for they/them" ad, they deserve what they get. Getting bested in a war of optics and words against an arguably stupid and psychopathic octagenarian was pathetic. Letting it happen twice because of self righteous indignation would be indefensible.
Correct, I am not running.
If you can't come to agreement with someone you dislike on something as basic as you loving your children, why should I expect you to be able to negotiate with foreign countries, or to ever get anything bipartisan passed? Being 100 percent "anti" is good for winning primaries and for sitting in opposition, it's childish for anyone attempting to show ability to govern and leadership.
This is not about agreeing with the content of the claim lol. This is all theatrics. I won’t stand up just because I’m told to by a bully. Reps didn’t stand up because they agreed. Dems didn’t stay seated because they disagreed.
Because that wouldn't explain why they didn't stand for the grieving families Trump paraded around. What are they going to say? “And we’re not compassion’s monkeys, either”?
would have been better if they just didn't attend in that case. Of course they were going to be baited - but their response made them the ideal hook for the bait. It was exactly the optics Trump wanted, that and for the family of Irena K. In both cases it would have completely defused Trump's show if they played against type and stood and clapped (and then quickly sat down after) - but if not, then just don't attend and provide zero targets to bait. And no, their conduct in the SOTU won't be a voting factor in the midterms, but it is symptomatic of bigger issues in the Democratic Party and its so far finding where the "resistance" to Trump should be, and its ability to be a credible opposition party. It's also in like, why are we having a contentious primary in Texas for a Senate seat that is badly needed for a majority, especially one that is dividing the Democratic electorate on racial lines. If Trump is the emergency Democrats are claiming (and he is), then why are they not acting like a political party laser focused on winning on those seats versus indulging in egos and the same divisive identity politics that got us here?? (and yes, by that I mean a useful DNC would have diverted Jasmine Crockett from this kamikaze move and maybe hired for a can't refuse job in managing Democratic social media or something to that effect, not only strengthening the race in Texas but rewarding the Congresswoman for where her talents truly lie than letting her set herself for career suicide if she wins the primary and blows the race by a miles).
The only people reading “explanations” aren’t people they need to read. If you’re the type of person read what democrats say in long form then you don’t need to be reached. You are already captured. People do this thing where they think “it I can look it up and understand it surely others can”. But perspective just works differently than that. And the only people that matter is the 5-10% on the fence.
They should respond with attack ads of Madison Cawthorn refusing to stand up for the pledge of allegiance.
You are right. This is much ado about nothing.
I think the Democrats are stuck on "We reliably get all the votes in large population centres like California, to hell with those rednecks, we don't need them".
And then we see the complaining about the Electoral College and that Candidate OurPerson got the majority of the popular vote, it's not fair!!!!
You had Ilhan Omar doing her thing, but that's not going to convince a ton of people when it's "oh yeah, the Somali representative from the state with all the Somali fraud" in a lot of people's heads.
I do think their problem is that if they did stand up, any one who did would be crucified on social media, and they're terrified of alienating the progressive wing since those are the ones most active on social media and so would be doing the scripted calls and campaigns to 'recall that traitor who supports MAGA Nazis'.
Damn it, is there nobody with Bill Clinton's political instincts left in charge anymore?
'I think the Democrats are stuck on "We reliably get all the votes in large population centres like California, to hell with those rednecks, we don't need them".'
Based on what? Joe Biden going out of his way to distribute funds for major projects and economic development for rural areas?
Based on refusing to signal agreement with a rather anodyne statement that plays very well with small-town Americans, but sounds like Something A Republican Would Say to the left fringe of the party.
It's juvenile. Anybody who watches it and genuinely thinks "wow, they don't want to PROTECT AMERICANS???" is not a reachable voter. And I take a very, very expansive view of who is a "reachable voter."
Sure, it's juvenile. But I have no idea how you're justifying your middle sentence, especially if you truly do have an expansive view of the "reachable voter".
As I understand it, swing voters tend to be low-information voters. I can easily see a bunch of undecideds watching that clip in a Republican ad and thinking "woah, better vote for the Republicans then I guess".
Eh, I can see your argument. Not how I lean, but understandable.
If you're not stupid it's really hard to put yourself in the mind of a stupid person. And if you are stupid, you're likely to reach bad conclusions about complex issues. So basically nobody understands stupid people. It's hard to tell what triggers their "oh, come on" cynicism versus what triggers their wide-eyed gullibility.
(As it happens, the cynicism is sometimes triggered by things that are actually true.)
((Nobody get up my ass about the word "stupid" please, yes, different kinds of intelligence, blah blah blah. Half of the country could not read this comment section. But most of those people still have common sense.))
Exactly - Trump said “illegal aliens.” Any Democrat from a safe district who stood up would have been primaried by the “no person is illegal on stolen land” crowd.
Let’s try not to overstate the impact of this moment on an election in 8 months. This feels like unnecessary catastrophizing. If the GOP holds the House and Senate, I don’t think this sotu moment will be among the top 10 reasons why. Dems should just move on and keep doing their thing on affordability
Fair enough, but I think the incident is pretty indicative of how, 10 years into MAGA, Democrats still haven’t figured out how to not be baited by him into doing and saying stuff that turns off wide swaths of the moderate electorate, and it looks increasingly less likely that they ever will.
That’s fine. Immigration is a hard issue for Democrats. I still don’t think anyone needs to panic that they are going to lose a very winnable election because they got blindsided at the sotu and did not think quickly on their feet about attack ads that might come 8 months later
The thing is, it *shouldn't* be a hard issue for Democrats. They should be able to strike a set of positions that support and promote legal immigration for many levels of immigrants and immigration types coupled with strict border security and interior enforcement (that would be a lessened necessity with better policies and border security), and taking a rhetorical tone on immigration that prizes the contributions and ethnic/cultural traits of immigrants that are also encouraged to join and become Americans while sharing and retaining those traits because America is good too, blah blah. Oh, and if you violate the law in any way expect to be prosecuted, up to and including denaturalization/deportation (depending on status). But that also provides for a just and trained enforcement agency subject to oversight etc.
It's baffling why Democrats still refuse to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration when they start (annoyingly) waxing on about Ezra Pound and Ellis Island and 1920's wave immigration as to why Americans should except large numbers of irregular immigration (while gaslighting voters that it was even happening, hmm if what was happening under Biden was so good and Statue of Liberty-like, why not run with it?). As recent defections from heavily and traditionally Hispanic districts along the Rio Grande in Texas should indicate, it's not required to be "pro illegal immigration" for courting Hispanic votes, in fact it may repel those voters for a variety of reasons, at least which is the broad misassigning of "identity groups" based on the rather unique experience and trends of the African American demographic (which is also generationally trending away from the post-Civil Rights coalition) and conflation of loose ethnic grouping to cultural, political and ideological views. It's a niche and ideological position of activists and progressives that may make a lot of noise online and at protests but is not representative of the broader "Hispanic" electorate - and a reality that a political party with access to all sorts of data modeling and polling technology let alone recent electoral results should be able to discern yet they keep taking the activist views even if it costs them.
I think you over simplify the difficulty of the democrats’ position, but I basically agree that moderating on immigration is a smart move. The same way I would tell the GOP to moderate on health care. It is easier said than done - hence why it’s a difficult issue. Democrats are lucky that Trump has systematically worked to destroy his advantage on that particular issue (see Nate Silver recently)
yeah maybe but I think the difference between the GOP and health care moderation is that the GOP is ideologically and purposefully opposed to most sort of social spending programs, not just for health care since pretty much Reagan, and is why they remain incapable of coming up with an alternative to the ACA that doesn't just suck, because the ACA was pretty much the most allowance a Republican Party could stomach in the expansion of government policy and spending in health care, and even that is apparently too much.
Versus what I consider to be "moderation" on immigration would still allow for a party centered around inclusiveness, diversity and pro-immigration social and political politics, it doesn't require having to abandon those values or ideological preferences, and if liberals could see their way to comprehending that going around the political process to increase immigration levels (as what happened under Biden) results in a backlash that ultimately harms the immigrant population and support for immigration then it should also follow that immigration moderation is really the most "pro" immigration policy at the end of the day. You can talk about enforcement and legal pathways without sounding like Stephen Miller! It would just require being clear in the distinction between legal and illegal immigration and being willing to crack down on the latter to promote and increase the former. The belief that Democrats apparently hold that being lax on illegal immigration is a Hispanic voter priority and that the view of activists on this issue is representative is clearly false and like I said, they have access to data to prove that. It's also literally where the party was a few cycles ago so it's also not like some new territory - yes progressives got upset with Obama "Deporter in Chief" and he won two decisive electoral victories and carried the Senate for a duration of his terms as well. Just sayin'! :)
But otherwise, yeah I agree that Democrats most likely are doing the usual least risk adverse path of just letting Trump trip on his own dick over an issue that has always been his greatest strength in the terrible execution of :/ Unfortunately for Democrats, while the polling does show Trump going in the negatives on immigration, the polling for Democrats hasn't really improved from their negatives and majorities still trust *Republicans* more than Democrats on immigration!
Who are these “moderates” who are still in the thrall of a would-be fascist? Do you actually imagine them saying “I would have voted for Democrats, but they didn’t stand when Trump said ‘if you hate babies, stay seated!’”
As a hint, they are the people who don’t think that agreeing with Trump about whether babies should be hated would put you “in the thrall of a would-be fascist”.
The stand-up-if-you-love-Americans thing is a stupid rhetorical trick. Kinda like the inverse of the classic “Sir, when did you stop beating your wife.”
No one was persuaded by that but dumb pieces of shit who were already going to support MAGA anyway. Not a single god damn “moderate” thought Trump — the would-be fascist — made a sincere, good point
Trump is a goddamn buffoon. If you want a fascist, see who comes next.
he’s a buffoon who aspires to fascism. His own god damn chief of staff said so. Get your head out of the god damn sand.
The problem is there's no winning move. That's what makes it a trap. If they had stood up Dems would have been in an even worse place: they'd have been attacked by their own supporters for taking an apparently pro-ICE stance, and still attacked by Republicans for the ongoing shutdown and whatever anti-ICE moves they might continue to make.
I think the point Jeff is making here is that “their own supporters” are putting them into that bind by insisting that putting the interests of citizens ahead of illegal aliens is an unacceptable “pro-ICE” stance.
Ding ding ding! Exactly
Plus, what Democrats are supposed to react like trained seals? I ain't standing for nothing when people play this game and it's not about the substance, it's about being treated like a child, or trained seal.
I think that's the counter attack ad.
Trump says the economy is better than ever; GOP stand and clap. Trump says they're bringing in healthcare; GOP stand and clap. Make the connection very clear. This party lies, to you, and cheers for the lie.
A lot of writers on this platform need to log off for a while. You can miss a deadline or two. Substack turning into centrist Twitter hasn't been good for anyone.
I don't know. I think you could make the case that they would have looked weak if they got baited into a game of Simon Says by Trump. Especially (and I don't know if he planned or could have executed this) if the game progressed to increasingly divisive commands and you see the Democrats dithering, half-standing, clearly getting jerked around.
Not worried about the attack ads. If Democrats DID stand, the ad-makers would just say "fuck it" and splice in some other random footage of them sitting. Same outcome but with less dignity.
I saw plenty of comments about how 'low energy' Trump was, how his speech was pretty bland, boring, and more interesting for what it didn't say (about immigration, iran, Epstein ). People were talking about Miller's bizarre (even for him) thousand year Reich-esque comment. People are talking about whether or not the President is using the Justice Department to cover up claims he raped a child. Who is talking about this one moment from a speech most people didn't watch?
Jeff Maurer, but admittedly he might be wrong, and is in this case.
How many low information swing voters do you think bothered to watch the state of the union address though? It just doesn't matter to the people who decide elections, so the clip above is probably the only thing from the speech they will ever see, and they will see it in a Republican attack add.
Kamala, "surely answering this ACLU survey about where I stand on tax-payer funded sex change operations for illegal immigrants will never come back to bite me."
None. Trump is the kind of guy that gets high information voters to turn away as well. It's a gimmick, it's not substance. Who wants to stand on order like a trained seal. I wish there was a way to bet on this (but not really since I don't bet).
“Americans are not going to elect candidates who don’t put their needs first”
Many Americans have done exactly that for quite some time now.
That’s not how they see it.
Yeah, like those black folks in Minnesota. Problem (for the Democrats) is that the blacks actually kind of like ICE. Folks that solve problems, and have a mandate to not go after the US Citizen Black Folk.
Too many people are willing to vote for someone who doesn't actually meet their needs so long as someone else - blacks, gays, women, immigrants, whomever - gets a nominally worse deal than them. This is the political inertia we're stuck in.
I can't believe Trump said they poop their pants and they didn't even respond with a "nuh uh."
Now everybody is going to think they poop their pants! They didn't even deny it!
Given how old some of them are...
Republicans politicians generally don't seem to pander to their fringe in their bills, Democrats however try to pass everything bagel bills to appease everyone in their party, and since the left fringe yells the loudest about it, they end up getting outsized concessions in Democrats bills. Voter rightfully view the left fringe as having more influence on generic Democrats in congress than on generic Republicans, so they punish Democrats for extreme lefty views more than Republicans for extreme right views.
Republican politicians that do espouse extreme righty positions have trouble getting elected in larger elections (Kari Lake is a perfect example of this), so it is pretty clear that the unpopular thing is being connected to fringe political views in either direction, and the Republicans have done a much better job of keeping the party as a whole not connected to the fringe views on their side than the Democrats have on their end, because the republicans view their fringe as something to throw under the bus when political convenient and not something to pander to in bills. The Democrats view their fringe as part of their base that needs representation and make sure to include them in the bill creation process.
Trump is a bit of a weird exception to this, except his views are not uniform on the left right spectrum (his position on tariffs is the extreme lefty position for example), so it is more that some of his positions are extreme right, some extreme left, and a whole lot of "WTF is that supposed to be?" about his positions.
I think the opposite is true.
We
If you care about democracy call your democratic representatives right now and tell them to get better at standing and clapping!!!!!
This is urgent folks
TL;DR: When Trump asked Democrats in Congress, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" they all should have stood up! By remaining seated, the Democrats gave the impression that they will continue to beat their wives and enjoy it. This is very bad optics for the Democrats! Boo, Democrats!
Anyway, this just reinforces my belief that Democrats should have skipped the SOTU.
Yeah, but it's not that sort of trick question, where both "yes" and "no" imply something bad.
It's the sort of trick question where the correct answer (or, at least, the politically sensible answer) is pretty obvious, but you end up refusing to give it because you don't like the idea of agreeing with the guy who asked the question.
It reminds me of that "It's Okay To Be White" troll campaign. The whole point is to trick people into saying "no it isn't!".
To that end, I agree with OP that skipping was the obvious choice. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. There is no win once you start engaging with Trump in good faith. It would have required explaining, yes, but it would have been better ground.
I broadly agree, but I'm not sure whether skipping the SOTU is seen as some damning breach of etiquette or not.
I strongly disagree with your premise: that it is true (let alone so obviously true that it was idiotic not to stand up to support Trump in proclaiming it) that the first duty” of a government is to “protect its citizens and not illegal aliens”. That’s simply *not* a true moral proposition, in my view and many others’, no more than it’s true that a person’s first duty is to look after themselves.
It is just as important a duty to protect and promote the interests of refugees and the world’s most desperately poor- if not moreso, on any sane and remotely defensible theory of ethics.
And on the “optics” my response would be twofold:
1) It is valuable in itself to insist on truth and the moral good
2) Not standing up “in support” (and on the command) of Trump on an increasingly unpopular issue for him is unlikely to be as politically damaging in the medium term as you seem to think
You’re approaching this from a moral standpoint, whereas I’m speaking more to nature of the compact between citizens and their elected representatives. And, yes, I do think that an elected official has a special obligation to the people who elected them — if they don’t, then what’s the purpose of an election to begin with, since we’re apparently expecting all officials to hew to some higher, universalist truth? You can run saying “My priority is compassion for illegal immigrants,” and if you win, that can be assumed to be your electorate’s priority — jingoistic chauvinism is not required here. But, yes, I think that elected officials have a duty to represent the people who elected them, and that duty is fundamental to democracy.
And as a purely practical matter: Is “I have no special obligation to you, the people I’m asking to vote for me” ever likely to be a winning political message?
> You’re approaching this from a moral standpoint, whereas I’m speaking more to nature of the compact between citizens and their elected representatives. And, yes, I do think that an elected official has a special obligation to the people who elected them
I don't think this distinction makes sense; the question of what elected officials should do is an inherently moral one.
We're both approaching it from a moral standpoint; we just disagree about what the relevant moral principles are. I think elected officials should follow the same moral principles as apply to every other facet of life, including not prioritising the interests of some over others based on arbitrary factors such as place of birth; you think that elections create a special obligation that overrides those normal ethical considerations.
My question is: why? How would this work? No other social arrangement or contractual obligation supercedes the precepts of normal morality in that way. How do you justify the existence of this special relationship, and how can that justification avoid proving too much by for example creating special obligations towards your own voters over opposition voters, or voting age adults over children?
> if they don’t, then what’s the purpose of an election to begin with, since we’re apparently expecting all officials to hew to some higher, universalist truth?
I don't understand this argument. The point of an election is to elect leaders; the question of what you're electing them to do is a question for the participants in that election, not something pre-determined by the concept of elections itself.
There's nothing in the concept of an election that implies that it is necessarily a procedure aimed at the furtherance of the participating group's self-interest, and there's nothing inconsistent, or obviously unreasonable, about wanting to hold elections to choose leaders who will use the group's resources and collective power to better promote the universal good. If you disagree with that position, and instead want your leaders to prioritise your interests at the expense of foreigners', you have to make the argument for that; you can't just stipulate it as proceeding naturally from the very concept of electing leaders, because it does not.
> And as a purely practical matter: Is “I have no special obligation to you, the people I’m asking to vote for me” ever likely to be a winning political message?
I think this is much less unlikely than you suggest. Polling suggests that Americans of both parties largely support a significant amount of foreing aid and a strong majority support "taking into account the interests of other countries, even if it means making compromises with them". Pew note that this majority has "increased significantly since 2023", from 59% to 64%. Even Republicans have gone from 43% to 47%, suggesting this is likely to be a majority positon among swing voters (given that it almost is amongst conservatives!). It's also notable that Americans famously hold the mistaken belief that foreign aid is as much as 25% of the federal budget- and think it should be more like 10%, which is of course vastly greater than the actual figure. These positions all suggest fairly strong and broad support, especially amongst Democrats and independent or moderate voters, for balancing the interests of Americans with the interests of foreigners in a way that at least arguably conflicts with Trump's statement.
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2025/05/01/international-engagement-and-support-for-foreign-aid/
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-every-american-should-know-about-u-s-foreign-aid/
In short, I don't think people are anywhere near as amoral or as selfish as you suggest, and I think there is broad support for the US using its enormous power and wealth to improve the world and help those who need it most, rather than to defend its citizens as its first priority and therefore at the expense of all other considerations.
As I pointed out elsewhere in the thread, the question was framed specifically in terms of "showing your support" to Trump, and for defending Americans "and not illegal aliens", bringing it squarely into the realm of an increasingly damaging issue for Trump, an issue on which Democrats were asked to physically and viscerally align with him or in opposition to him. I would find it surprising if Democrats and swing voters were particularly disgusted by officials, in response, demonstrating clear distance between themselves and the GOP on that issue, especially given that the statement itself, taken anywhere near literally, arguably conflicts with a majority of voters' actual views and policy preferences.
At the least, the above does not seem so obviously incorrect as to justify the accusation that officials are stupid for not making the decision, in that moment, that you would have wanted them to, with no time to think through the various implications. I think therefore that your criticism of them is largely unwarranted.
Okay: from a moral standpoint, people matter just as much regardless of whether they're from the same country as you. But as an elected official, standing for the interests of your electorate is literally your job.
I remember talking to a union rep who said privately that she felt the employee she was about to represent (in an unfair dismissal case) was in the wrong and deserved to lose. But she had to do her best to fight his corner anyway, because it's a union and that's what unions are for. If they didn't do that, why would people join?
I think there's something similar to the idea of someone winning an election and then saying to their electorate: "Wait, you expect me to stick up for your interests? What makes you think you're more important than other people with different interests?"
Interesting comparison. Perhaps it's not a coincidence that the American left seems increasingly anti-union as well. We could even view America as a union, and migrant workers as scabs (especially the ones paid less than minimum wage, under the table).
Might explain why blacks are increasingly turning to Republicans, yeah.
> But as an elected official, standing for the interests of your electorate is literally your job.
What your job is, as an elected official, is precisely the question at issue. This is just asserting your position again. I disagree.
I had already noticed this pattern amongst people holding this position: they start with it as an almost foundational assumption, as if it does not need to be justified. When met with someone who doesn’t share their assumptions, they resort to increasingly more frustrated reiterations of their assumption. ‘But… it’s their job!’
I disagree. That isn’t what I’d want the leader of the group I was a part of to do, especially not if we were an affluent and powerful group that were especially safe and prosperous compared to the other groups. I’d want them to promote the moral good (while doing enough to ensure we were continued to be prosperous ourselves). And crucially, I’d be perfectly entitled to vote on that basis, and I think many people do. You can’t just assert to them that they are fundamentally wrong and your conception of a leader “is their job” and they have to act accordingly no matter how many of your fellow group members disagree.
Well, to begin with, if you want them to promote the moral good, and vote for them on that basis, promoting the moral good IS them standing up for your interests. So I'm not sure you're disagreeing with me here. And you're certainly welcome to vote on any basis you wish, so we're not disagreeing there either.
This is an isolated demand for rigour, I think. My instinct is that an elected official should represent the interests of their electorate. Yours is that they should ignore said interests in favour of promoting the moral good (however we're defining that). Well and good. What I'm not sure is why you think my instinct needs to be proven correct but yours apparently doesn't.
Yes, to be clear: I am not saying that the government should not promote the interests of its citizens. I’m saying that it should do that as one part of its greater goal of promoting the moral good. That’s what I’d want of my leader, and so that’s what I think the job of elected officials should be.
The reason that I have been demanding a rigorous justification from you is that you are insisting that your concept of what an elected official should do is “literally their job”. You seem to be arguing that your conception just is the case and admits of no disagreement. That requires some justification. I made no such assertion; I just said I disagree. And yet I have nonetheless expounded at length all over the thread on my justification for this view, so I’m not sure what you mean that it’s an “isolated” demand for rigour. It’s just a regular, consistent demand for rigour, and one that I would apply to myself (big fan of ssc/acx though, so I fancy you’re right that we don’t disagree as much as it initially seems).
TL;DR, but it is immoral to support people who are not a part of the country that hired you to do a job. If my neighbor hires me to mow his lawn, it is immoral for me to mow the lawn down the street.
It might be nice for me to do that, but immoral to do it on his dime, unless he asked me to. And if my neighbor is sufficiently progressive, you would think he would be OK with that. My experience has been that progressive folks are the least likely to do that, they want the government to do it. Democrats donate less to charity than Republicans, they expect the government to take care of things.
If you had read the whole thing you’d know that objection is amply addressed.
The TL;DR is that there’s no reason to think that optimising the welfare of Americans is the job that elected officials were “hired” to do, nor that improving the welfare of others is outwith the scope of that job.
The entire international system is built on the premise that states have a primary duty to their citizens, with duties to non-citizens being secondary. That's why richer, more developed countries (i.e., those doing a better job of already serving their citizens) are consistently expected to do more in terms of refugee relief even when they are geographically further from a conflict (e.g., Italy being expected to do more on behalf of Libyan refugees than Egypt).
A state's duties towards non-citzens may not be trivial, but they are decisively subordinated to the state's dutyies towards its citizens.
Yes... but that doesn't have anything to do with dumb gotcha stunts in speeches nobody watched, and whether they will have any effect on the election in eight months. (Highly doubtful.)
You are acting like Democrats went out there and said 'NO, that is NOT the duty!" when all they did was not stand and clap for a guy they hate, who hates them.
If he asked them to stand up if they support veterans or the US hockey team winning gold or something, I imagine they would have stood up. So I see your argument, but it shouldn't hurt anything to stand for something they believe to be true. I think that was pretty effective at illustrating the partisanship and especially the silly taboos that still exist on the left.
Yeah, and I agree with you that whatever it was that made Democrats not stand - whether it was some kind of timidity (looking around to see if anyone else is standing, not seeing anyone, doing nothing) or a fear of angering "the base" - is not a great impulse for them to be indulging. But in this case I don't think the impulse was wrong. So it worries me more in terms of what it says about how they will carry themselves the rest of the year, rather than the effects of the gambit itself.
Like, I'm pretty sure Fetterman stood and even if we aren't perfectly aligned, and he kind of scares the hell out of me in an "is he okay?" sense, I appreciate that he just does whatever. The way he's treated by the rest of the caucus and Dem voters makes it clear why nobody else operates that way. (Brain damage: the new political superpower.)
Everybody should've just done what they thought was best for their state or district (or heart). Democrats don't have to project unity because they are an anti-coalition coalition. There's no reason to EXPECT them to be unified.
So, having talked it out, I suppose we are mostly in agreement, I just get edgy when I see "bad vibes" being put out that I don't think are necessary, because that's where our ambient "vibes" come from and why we can't get them under control. Almost everything liberals and the left say about Democrats is negative.
Nate Silver wrote about how people hate how risk averse democrats are, even on common-sense things, and now I can't unsee it
To be fair, watching a few years of recklessness might improve people's opinions of risk aversion! The electorate is beyond fickle. As soon as they see something, they start wanting the opposite. "Stop separating families! Now stop immigration! No, not like that!" Biden winning - over both Sanders and Trump - was a triumph of risk aversion.
(Also, while I'm sure Silver based his assertions in some data, it really isn't possible to be more comfortable with risk than a successful professional gambler, so that is going to shade his opinion towards the pro-risk side, all else being equal.)
It's like we don't teach civics anymore.
What do you mean by this?
If you’re alluding to me, I can assure you that my disagreement is not born of any ignorance about the structure of the American government.
It’s a political-philosophical disagreement, and one which you have not begun to engage with if you think it can be settled by descriptive facts taught in civics class.
The duty to citizens is enumerated in every foundational document and the very structure of the government. It's axiomatic. If the State has duties to anyone other than the citizens, please give some evidence for that.
The United States Constitution clearly enumerates responsibilities the government has to non-citizens, which is to acknowledge and respect their full Constitutional rights.
On the contrary, it says right in the Preamble that this is all "for ourselves and our posterity".
The Bill of Rights is a restriction on action by the State, not a list of responsibilities.
As far as I can tell, you’re simply confusing descriptive facts with normative ones.
I don’t see that how follows, let alone how it, as a purely descriptive claim, is relevant to this normative question.
1. It's a descriptive claim only insofar as it accurately describes the widespread acceptance of a normative claim prescribed by basic social contract theory. If you're going to assert that "any sane and remotely defensible theory of ethics" supports your view, without elaboration, I'm going to assume at least passing familiarity with one of the most widespread theories of ethical governance.
2. Descriptive facts have moral valence, however inconvenient that might be to idealists. A nanny owes a specific duty of care to the children she's hired to watch, even if the specific assignment is morally arbitrary. Similarly, a state that fails to secure its own citizens' well-being is acting immorally by virtue of the descriptive fact that *this is the job it's been charged with.*
(Edited to correct a typo)
> It's a descriptive claim only insofar as it accurately describes the widespread acceptance of a normative claim prescribed by basic social contract theory.
Yes, a descriptive claim.
> If you're going to assert that "any sane and remotely defensible theory of ethics" supports your view, without elaboration
Without elaboration? I've written hundreds if not thousands of words elaborating on this in this thread.
> I'm going to assume at least passing familiarity with one of the most widespread theories of ethical governance.
You assume correctly! What's the relevance of this?
Should I not be able to similarly assume familiarity with academic ethics, and therefore conclude that it would be redundant to "elaborate" on the fact that all defensible theories of ethics include non-discrimination between persons? The fact you require justification for that claim suggests it is you who lacks passing familiarity with the relevant theory, here.
> Descriptive facts have moral valence, however inconvenient that might be to idealists.
They rather famously do not. It's one of the central quandaries of academic meta-ethics. Again, I wonder at the audacity to sneer at the lack of relevant knowledge you perceived me to have, when we are getting snagged on such rudimentary philosophy 101 stuff.
> A nanny owes a specific duty of care to the children she's hired to watch, even if the specific assignment is morally arbitrary.
This is another controversial claim which you simply assert as if requiring no justification, and with which I disagree. Morality demands that a nanny look after the children she is hired to watch, because she is well positioned to do so and by virtue of her agreement has made others less so. There need be no reference to a 'specific duty of care' that overrides all other moral obligations, and in fact I think such a duty is highly implausible when you actually consider her moral duty in various scenarios. For example, I doubt you would agree that she should kill ten children in order to protect the two she is assigned to care from minor harm (or perhaps you don't- at least you'd be consistent). So I think your example fails to demonstrate the existence of an analogous duty.
> Similarly, a state that fails to secure its own citizens' well-being is acting immorally by virtue of the descriptive fact that *this is the job it's been charged with.*
I dispute that descriptive claim. Charged by whom? That's not the job that I would charge my elected representatives with. Again you seem to assume your conclusion in your premises.
“Charged by whom?”
Well, in the case of the United States specifically, that government was quite self-consciously “instituted among men” for the express purpose of securing rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness after a predecessor government failed in that duty.
But why let the received wisdom of basically all of human history get in the way of an intellectually pleasing academic theory?
> But why let the received wisdom of basically all of human history get in the way of an intellectually pleasing academic theory?
Yeah, this but unironically. I think we’ve found the crux of our disagreement.
That's a great way to live your personal life, or lead a church or civic organization, but it's not a great way to get elected to lead a country with 300 million people with all kinds of views. I think it's too much to expect the government to not prioritize it's own people (the people who vote for thier leaders as Jeff points out), the same way it's too much to expect businesses not to prioritize shareholders (i.e. the people who decide who leads the company).
I'm with you on moral truth existing and being important, but the government isn't a reasonable place to expect it, and trying to get that is a good way to not have any power to make life better for the 300 million people who are citizens.
This seems like a mix of various arguments. On “it’s not a great way to get elected”- see point 2.
Your other argument is a bit harder to parse. Why is it “too much to expect” that governments should follow the same moral principles that persons or smaller groups? Obviously the facts of governing are different so the particular actions required by morality will be different, but I don’t see any reason why the fundamental precepts should be different, and I think you’d at least need to make a positive argument for that difference. And it is quite a fundamental principle of morality that you consider the interests of persons equally without regard to eg ethnicity, nationality or citizenship.
Any argument for focusing on the interests of the people within your country at the expense of others who happen to live outwith it would seem to fall victim to the same sort of objections as philosophical egoism (which you will note that almost no-one professes to believe).
I don’t think the fact that Americans voted the government in is a good reason to give Americans priority consideration, no more than it would be reason to give priority consideration to those who voted for the governing party over those who voted for the opposition, or to adults of voting age over children who could not vote.
Less so in the former case, in fact, because at least opposition voters had the option to vote for the future president. It is no fault of the Indonesian factory worker that he is not afforded the opportunity to influence the makeup and direction of the most powerful entity in the world (and one of very few that can lift him out of suffering) purely because he failed to be born in sufficient geographical proximity to it, and it is hard to see how our moral patiency could be at all dependent on such accidents of birth.
I believe that the moral principles at play are essentially the same, and the only reason this is any less obvious than the fact that you should consider the welfare of others alongside your own is that our moral intuitions break down at this level of abstraction and scale (ie the 150 monkeys thing).
One good reason not to expect governments to follow the same moral principles as persons or smaller groups is that we generally don't favor persons or smaller groups imprisoning each other or seizing each other's property.
As for considering the interests of persons equally, I'm reminded of a story I heard about Phil Gramm, who was in an argument with someone who for some reason assured him, "I care about your children just as much as you do." To which Gramm replied "Really? What are their names?"
> One good reason not to expect governments to follow the same moral principles as persons or smaller groups is that we generally don't favor persons or smaller groups imprisoning each other or seizing each other's property.
This is an example of a situation where the government is commonly (though not universally) thought to be justified in departing from normal individual moral *behaviour*, in specific narrow circumstances. It is not a general argument that normal moral *principles* do not apply, or for a presumption that the government can behave generally in ways that would be inconsistent with morality as it applies to individuals.
In that example, support for this departure is justified by specific argument (essentially, that this is absolutely necessary for society to function). Proponents of departing from the general principle of treating people equally without regard to arbitrary considerations such as place of birth or nationality would have to make a similarly specific argument for that. And as I mentioned above, attempts to do so have, to my knowledge, thus far been unsuccessful and unpersuasive, falling victim to the same kind of objections as philosophical egoism.
It is my belief that the only reason your view is not, like philosophical egoism, roundly rejected by almost everyone is that our intuitions about morality and fairness breakdown at such remove, abstraction and scale, and our reason falls victim to tribal instincts which have long served their evolutionary purpose.
I've been thinking about what you're saying. I agree with you directionally (would be great if our government cared more about people in other countries, especially after usaid cuts), but I'm having trouble taking you literally. Do you really expect people to value a kid in Indonesia as much as thier own kids? If not, then why can parents value people differently, but governments can't?
I heard, and I'm not sure where, but it was a recent podcast, that described governance as being about setting priorities. In that framework, which makes a lot of sense and I agree with, there is no difference between saying everything is important and nothing is important.
So yes, a government first and foremost needs to look out for citizens, and then it can look after others. If the American government doesn't prioritise Americans, who will? As Rabbi Hillel said, "if I am not for myself, who will be for me?"
I don’t follow your argument here. How does it follow from the premise that government is about setting priorities that its first duty should be defending its citizens?
> If the American government doesn't prioritise Americans, who will?
No-one! No one needs to discriminate in favour of Americans on the basis of their nationality. If all world governments were focused on promoting the universal good we would have a much better world.
Great. You and John Lennon can imagine that. In the meanwhile, every country in the world will prioritise their own people. Are you familiar with the concept of a "Nash Equilibrium"?
> Great. You and John Lennon can imagine that.
I'm not sure what your point is. "Imagining" that, ie arguing for its truth, is what is called 'doing philosophy', and it's what we are all trying to doing here- some more successfully than others.
If you're trying to be scathing about my considering the hypothetical optimally desirable behaviour of government officials, in a discussion about precisely that, you're just making yourself look incurious and unintelligent, to be frank.
I used to play poker semi-professionally, so I certainly am!
> In the meanwhile, every country in the world will prioritise their own people.
Again, I'm struggling to see the relevance of this. I don't disagree, if that's not clear.
> Are you familiar with the concept of a "Nash Equilibrium"?
I certainly am! I used to play poker semi-professionally, so I've had to study the concept in some depth. I think I can guess at your point, and as I have discussed above, this is much the same argument that has been advanced for ethical egoism. Unfortunately for egoism (and a significnat reason that it has been largely abandoned), it is demonstrably not the case that everyone optimising for their own individual interests will achieve a mutually optimal equilibrium. One of the reasons for this is that unlike in Nash Equilibrium, the parties to real life interactions are not interchangeable, and differ in their material resources and abilities in significant ways, meaning that there are asymmetrical power relations meaning that one party optimising for its own interests will disproportionately disadvantage another. A real life example and intuition pump is malaria nets; we could save hundreds of thousands of infant lives per year, if we acted more altruistically, because we have the material resources to help them much more than they can help themselves. Unfortunately, this means that both parties to this relationship acting in their own self-interest produces enormous preventable suffering.
I don't see any reason that the same objections should not be equally devastating to the state egoism you implicitly seem to endorse.
So you seem to have missed the main point of a Nash Equilibrium. It's not that you're acting solely for your own benefit, it's that any change in behaviour you make will only make you worse off.
Hypothetically every country not caring about their own citizens above other country citizens could be preferable (I disagree, but that's irrelevant), but in the world that is, any country choosing to not prioritise it's own citizens over others will be strictly worse off.
I'm not having a hypothetical discussion about how it would be better if human nature was different. I'm saying that, based upon reality, countries have to look out for themselves first, and then they can look after others.
> So you seem to have missed the main point of a Nash Equilibrium. It's not that you're acting solely for your own benefit, it's that any change in behaviour you make will only make you worse off.
I wouldn't say it's "the main point" of Nash Equilibrium, but it is indeed oe way of describing the mutual optimality that is a feature of it.
> Hypothetically every country not caring about their own citizens above other country citizens could be preferable (I disagree, but that's irrelevant), but in the world that is, any country choosing to not prioritise it's own citizens over others will be strictly worse off.
I disagree with this too! But being worse off is a reasonable (and common) price of moral behaviour, so I wouldn't consider this a strong objection even if I did accept the descriptive claim.
The basic example of a Nash Equilibrium is the 100 dollar game. Two players must choose an amount of money. If the amount is equal or less than 100, than each player get what's they wrote down. If its above 100,no one gets anything.
In this game, there are 101 Nash Equilibrium points (0,100; 1,99; 2,98;...99,1; 100,0). That's because, at any of those numbers, you can only get less money by changing your answer, unless the other side does as well. Notice though, that being maximally altruistic and choosing zero, still leads to a Nash Equilibrium.
The entire premise of giving immense power to the State is that the State will use it to provide for and protect the citizens before anything else. It's the foundation of government.
Morals are great but have no connection to getting elected (moral politicians are basically an oxymoron at this point). This post was about the party strategy to win elections, so what do morals have to do with it?
Also, about the issue being unpopular for Trump, Republicans in general are still polling as more trusted on immigration than Democrats, because if the choices are "a controlled border" and an "uncontrolled border", the first will win every time regardless of how draconian it is controlled. Trump's specific policy on how to control the border is unpopular because most people think he is going too far, but that is not the same as saying people think the Democrat's position on the border is more desirable (this is the issue of just measuring Trumps popularity on an issue, the pertinent thing is "which candidate's position do you prefer on an issue", not "do you like this candidate's position on this issue"m you can think both candidate's positions are trash, but one candidate's position is just a normal turd while the other side is a flaming turd. The Democrat's position on immigration is currently a flaming turd, so no matter how much they point at how much of a turd Trump's position is on this issue, it won't help them in an election because their position remains a lot worse by comparison. Elections are not a "my position is good" thing, it is "my position is better than the other candidate" thing, Democrats position is so bad here that the only way to not loose immigration badly is to fix their own position full stop, no amount of pointing out how bad the position of the other side is will work.
I'm sure you're cheering when the importation of people includes those who keep human body parts as trophies. You know, the families of those human body parts actually want them back? And are going to "legally murder" (via courts) these people?
Still want all the refugees? Still think these are the most mentally stable people you've ever had in America? That they (or their children) won't pick up knives or guns or fists and hurt someone?
I agree. A lot has been written on "Democrats should distance themselves from far-left activists", this was an opportunity. They would have looked like they stood up at Trump's call - so what? Far-left activists would have yelled, but that would have been the point.
Agreed that Trump set a trap that Democrats could easily have avoided. That said, how much will it change things in the twenty or so Congressional swing districts that will decide the House majority in 2027-28? Most voters start paying attention after Labor Day, which is more than six months away. Will attack ads (“My opponent will not stand up for the American people. I will.”) really work? If Trump continues to act like a demented toddler on a sugar high and the economy remains iffy at best, who will care? And good counterattack ads (“When Donald Trump says ‘jump,’ the only thing my opponent says is ‘how high?’ Unlike him, I stand on my own two feet.”) could neutralize the whole thing.
I disagree that standing would have undercut the point. He'd start a game of "Keep standing if..."
The mistake was being in the room at all.
I doubt it, but I'm gonna give you a like for the funny mental image of some of those dinosaurs trying to stand for a whole hour at their age and failing.
Wouldn’t you just look like you’re a lame puppet if you stood up? Seems like a no win scenario. Which is presumably why Trump does this every time.
Agree, and once you've decided you have to stand for one thing you agree with, then you're forced to evaluate every statement he makes as to whether it is stand-worthy. Hardly seems worth it. Clearly this was their plan, as Stephen Miller is over on Twitter yelling about how "they were repeatedly entreated to stand" and how people will remember this chilling moment for a thousand years 🙄 It think it seems very silly and have a hard time believing it's something that's going to matter. I guess if it actually makes for dozens of effective ads that move voters that would be good to know, but I'm skeptical.