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
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 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.
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.
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.
You sound like my mother who always thinks you get to explain yourself to people who are judging you.
Nope. 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.
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 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?
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
Either “It should be no surprise that an America that will vote in those numbers for Joe Biden would vote AOC into the Presidency” or “An American electoral system so compromised that enough ballots were manufactured to put Joe Biden in the White House can certainly manufacture enough ballots to put AOC in the White House”.
I'm not sure either since several million of those people stayed home when they had a chance to vote for his hand picked successor. Biden was also run as Obamas third term and a return to "normal behavior". He was supposed to be a corrective candidate who would be moderate compared to Trump I extremism and chaos. He was going to save us from COVID after Trump supposedly mangled everything with "injecting bleech" or whatever to hot accusation was. AOC will be none of those things even in theory and have none of those political currents to ride in election. Neither will Newsome or any Dem who wins the nom this cycle.
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?
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 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 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, purely because he failed to be born within 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 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 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.
Can’t imagine being this far into 2026 and still fully supporting a convicted rapist and pedo protector. Sure, the Dems fell right into Trumps 4d chess moves. What a bunch of fools. Clown.
To be fair, Heaven's Gate is 3:39 long, Trump's speech only 1:48 . . . about the same as a rom-com (if any such were made these crazy days): "Trump’s Heaven’s Gate-length speech."
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 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!
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 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.
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.
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.
"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?
You sound like my mother who always thinks you get to explain yourself to people who are judging you.
Nope. 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.
You are right. This is much ado about nothing.
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 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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
“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.
“I can’t imagine a world in which Democratic Nominee AOC clears 175 electoral votes”
Can you imagine a world in which Democratic Nominee Joe Biden gets 81MM votes?
Either “It should be no surprise that an America that will vote in those numbers for Joe Biden would vote AOC into the Presidency” or “An American electoral system so compromised that enough ballots were manufactured to put Joe Biden in the White House can certainly manufacture enough ballots to put AOC in the White House”.
Take your pick.
Yes 5 years ago but I'm not sure where you're going with this
I'm not sure either since several million of those people stayed home when they had a chance to vote for his hand picked successor. Biden was also run as Obamas third term and a return to "normal behavior". He was supposed to be a corrective candidate who would be moderate compared to Trump I extremism and chaos. He was going to save us from COVID after Trump supposedly mangled everything with "injecting bleech" or whatever to hot accusation was. AOC will be none of those things even in theory and have none of those political currents to ride in election. Neither will Newsome or any Dem who wins the nom this cycle.
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?
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 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 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, purely because he failed to be born within 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 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?"
"Democrats went in genitals first...."
That does sound like something we would do.
In both contexts.
Is this issue on the betting markets? SOTU never matters and some stupid "stand for" this or that puppet theater is not going to change that.
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.
Can’t imagine being this far into 2026 and still fully supporting a convicted rapist and pedo protector. Sure, the Dems fell right into Trumps 4d chess moves. What a bunch of fools. Clown.
To be fair, Heaven's Gate is 3:39 long, Trump's speech only 1:48 . . . about the same as a rom-com (if any such were made these crazy days): "Trump’s Heaven’s Gate-length speech."
I believe we can all stop wondering: "I sometimes wonder if these people are simply not smart."