Treating economics separately from culture may be a strategic error for both parties down the road. Few seem to appreciate that tariffs are as much a cultural weapon as an economic one. Maybe more so.
Large demographic movements take decades to play out. Trump is the US is just the American expression of a global populist movement.
The underlying dynamic is the growing gulf between the top 25% of earners versus the middle class. There is significant disagreement among liberal elites on issues like "Defund the Police", transgenderism, and illegal immigration versus the rest of the country. I don't think it's realistic to expect those deep cultural divisions to resolve overnight.
Further complicating matters for liberals in the US is the normal thermostatic movement of American politics. Barack Obama took a "shellacking" in the 2010 midterms. Bill Clinton saw a historic realignment in 1994. Trump lost the House in 2018, as did Joe Biden in 2022. George W. Bush saw his reckoning delayed due to the 9/11 effect, but he would eventually lose Congress as well. It's simply normal for American voters to react against the party in power. The danger for Democrats is that they mistakenly interpret the normal midterm losses of the dominant party as something more significant: note that despite those midterm reversals, Obama, Clinton, Bush and Trump all went on to win second terms.
The shortcomings of Trump/MAGA are evident; the ability of Dems to capitalize on them is another thing entirely. Free advice for the Dems:
1. You need to deal with "inequality and stagnation" in an optimistic, unifying way. So much Dem messaging about "inequality" is transparently motivated by envy and resentment against people who have worked hard and are successful. Your message needs to avoid hate and spite against "billionaires" "landlords" or whoever are the designated scapegoats of the Bernie/AOC/Brooklyn loser class, and focus on concrete things that will help the striving working/middle class in flyover country. Read the Klein/Gallego interview. His constituents (Latinos in the Southwest) like working hard and making money. Their goal is not to achieve "socialism" so the DSA baristas can enjoy leading the socialist puppet theater. Their goal is to make capitalism work for the common man.
2. Maybe the message discipline whip team is enthusiastic about "avoiding culture war" but you don't get to avoid culture war by simply remaining silent about your most egregiously culturally radical commitments. The problem is that Dems are unable to back down from any of these commitments or their activist cadres will give them hell. Mainstream Dem culture is so "weird" to Middle America that it presents an irresistible culture-war target for their opponents. Examples:
a. Jaime Harrison, DNC Chairperson, attempting to be gender-balanced in his floor speech:
b. Biden, Harris, and Walz were ALL chosen for significantly DEI reasons ("we need a white/nonwhite man/nonman to balance the ticket!") and not coincidentally, were all incompetent fools and idiots.
c. The phrase "making history," in Demspeak, has been reduced entirely to the action of "checking boxes on the race/gender/identity checklist." If a Dem zombie refers to "making history," I already know that they are referring only to gender check-boxes, not to anything to do with actual history. Hint: Alexander the Great, Napoleon, and Stalin all made history. Being the first Balinese demisexual chairperson of the Interstate Commerce Commission does not make history.
You need to choose someone who is actually good at the job (i.e. not Biden, Harris or Walz) -- Buttigieg could work, if you can get past the Black homophobia that has him at zero percent in all polls of that community. But it has to be someone who is actually smart and competent, regardless of whether they "make history" in the pathetic Dem way.
What are the chances that the Dems take this free advice in any significant way? Very small. So I'm feeling good about Vance 2028 and 2032.
I definitely agree that there’s a counter vibe shift. Please excuse this, but I predict “woke 2”
I remember you predicting this
Oh nooooooooo
Treating economics separately from culture may be a strategic error for both parties down the road. Few seem to appreciate that tariffs are as much a cultural weapon as an economic one. Maybe more so.
ohhh please elaborate?!?!
I have a whole crazy map I’m working on. Post-right, woke 2, Alt Right 2 (different from dissident right).
Ugh. But I think you’re right.
This seems likely and indeed terrifying. The ardent progressives are still out there, even if MSM isn't giving them the megaphone right now.
We are currently getting Woke 2, its champion is Nick Fuentes. What are early life checks if not cancellation
No, woke 2 doesn’t come from Fuentes. Fuentes is this generation’s Spencer.
Large demographic movements take decades to play out. Trump is the US is just the American expression of a global populist movement.
The underlying dynamic is the growing gulf between the top 25% of earners versus the middle class. There is significant disagreement among liberal elites on issues like "Defund the Police", transgenderism, and illegal immigration versus the rest of the country. I don't think it's realistic to expect those deep cultural divisions to resolve overnight.
Further complicating matters for liberals in the US is the normal thermostatic movement of American politics. Barack Obama took a "shellacking" in the 2010 midterms. Bill Clinton saw a historic realignment in 1994. Trump lost the House in 2018, as did Joe Biden in 2022. George W. Bush saw his reckoning delayed due to the 9/11 effect, but he would eventually lose Congress as well. It's simply normal for American voters to react against the party in power. The danger for Democrats is that they mistakenly interpret the normal midterm losses of the dominant party as something more significant: note that despite those midterm reversals, Obama, Clinton, Bush and Trump all went on to win second terms.
The shortcomings of Trump/MAGA are evident; the ability of Dems to capitalize on them is another thing entirely. Free advice for the Dems:
1. You need to deal with "inequality and stagnation" in an optimistic, unifying way. So much Dem messaging about "inequality" is transparently motivated by envy and resentment against people who have worked hard and are successful. Your message needs to avoid hate and spite against "billionaires" "landlords" or whoever are the designated scapegoats of the Bernie/AOC/Brooklyn loser class, and focus on concrete things that will help the striving working/middle class in flyover country. Read the Klein/Gallego interview. His constituents (Latinos in the Southwest) like working hard and making money. Their goal is not to achieve "socialism" so the DSA baristas can enjoy leading the socialist puppet theater. Their goal is to make capitalism work for the common man.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/20/opinion/ruben-gallego-interview-democrats-border-security-affordability.html
2. Maybe the message discipline whip team is enthusiastic about "avoiding culture war" but you don't get to avoid culture war by simply remaining silent about your most egregiously culturally radical commitments. The problem is that Dems are unable to back down from any of these commitments or their activist cadres will give them hell. Mainstream Dem culture is so "weird" to Middle America that it presents an irresistible culture-war target for their opponents. Examples:
a. Jaime Harrison, DNC Chairperson, attempting to be gender-balanced in his floor speech:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-mveiXLfHzo
b. Biden, Harris, and Walz were ALL chosen for significantly DEI reasons ("we need a white/nonwhite man/nonman to balance the ticket!") and not coincidentally, were all incompetent fools and idiots.
c. The phrase "making history," in Demspeak, has been reduced entirely to the action of "checking boxes on the race/gender/identity checklist." If a Dem zombie refers to "making history," I already know that they are referring only to gender check-boxes, not to anything to do with actual history. Hint: Alexander the Great, Napoleon, and Stalin all made history. Being the first Balinese demisexual chairperson of the Interstate Commerce Commission does not make history.
You need to choose someone who is actually good at the job (i.e. not Biden, Harris or Walz) -- Buttigieg could work, if you can get past the Black homophobia that has him at zero percent in all polls of that community. But it has to be someone who is actually smart and competent, regardless of whether they "make history" in the pathetic Dem way.
What are the chances that the Dems take this free advice in any significant way? Very small. So I'm feeling good about Vance 2028 and 2032.
<<the basis of all these tribulations is a crisis of the spirit.
The politics is a superstructure.>>
https://stanleyabner1951gmailcom.substack.com/p/the-real-danger-of-ai