I’ll concede that there’s a little more nuance to it than that. We also have to make sure that we don’t come across looking like we’re incapable of governing.
Luckily, there is real time example in NYC. I think in the current climate having a fight is good (for the right reasons). But jeez even a dignified silence would be better than the status quo…
If you are going to go there Corbin, it behooves you to name names. It’s easy to yell, “We need someone better.” Well, who have you got? Does that person have a chance in hell of receiving enough caucus votes to win? Do you really need to be reminded that the caucus consists of representatives from places other than NYC?
If Jeffries becomes Speaker we will be mired in incrementalism, compromise, and collaboration with the current regime. Like most corporate Dems, he wants to maintain the status quo, not make the bold changes that will benefit those of us that are not part of the 1%.
“But the gavel’s a job, and the job right now is to move a country that’s stopped believing us.” Very insightful statement. Our issue is people stopped believing in Democrats because they’ve messed up so badly and no more than in education where there’s actually a simple solution-let the whistleblowers who taught teach Democrats what to do at WhiteChalkCrime.com.
The teacher unions are going along to get along and at the heart of the education problem but once people understand why, we can fix it. Democrats must become problem solvers not problem users.
You are absolutely correct, Corbin. The first thing I see to do is sit down with AOC, read and explain your essay on Hakeem Jeffries. She will change her tune. She has the courage to do that.
Being a procedural cloak room fighter is being a fighter. I think of Lyndon Johnson. His intricate knowledge of how to push things through Congress got us the Great Society. However, as Corbin eloquently states, in these times being a procedural fighter is necessary but insufficient. We also need outward facing political skills from the leadership of both Houses in order to give Congress the bully pulpit instead of the president. If Congress would stop giving away its power to the executive branch and evading hard legislative decisions by letting the judicial branch deal with that stuff, then it might be more beneficial for us.
We must be careful not to just exalt the show-offs, but also check to see that the fighters we back have the procedural skills to actually achieve results that are good for us. We don't need any more demagogues these days. Americans will back the fighter without investigating what that fighter might actually deliver. This tends to not turn out well.
Another way to look at this is if we had enough real representatives of the people in Congress willing to leverage their power, they might could force a procedural fighter into being a public leader. What we don't want to see is representatives elected on fighting who are then domesticated into docile creatures of donors and stasis.
As it stands, the power to compel real representation from Congress is not in voters' hands, it is in the hands of donors. We won't get a public-facing Speaker leading caucuses of rank and file members who are passionate about their constituents unless and until we realign the incentives.
The Left doesn't even need to succeed the first time around. They just need to show that they can prevent a Speaker getting elected to change things.
I’ll concede that there’s a little more nuance to it than that. We also have to make sure that we don’t come across looking like we’re incapable of governing.
Luckily, there is real time example in NYC. I think in the current climate having a fight is good (for the right reasons). But jeez even a dignified silence would be better than the status quo…
If you are going to go there Corbin, it behooves you to name names. It’s easy to yell, “We need someone better.” Well, who have you got? Does that person have a chance in hell of receiving enough caucus votes to win? Do you really need to be reminded that the caucus consists of representatives from places other than NYC?
If Jeffries becomes Speaker we will be mired in incrementalism, compromise, and collaboration with the current regime. Like most corporate Dems, he wants to maintain the status quo, not make the bold changes that will benefit those of us that are not part of the 1%.
“But the gavel’s a job, and the job right now is to move a country that’s stopped believing us.” Very insightful statement. Our issue is people stopped believing in Democrats because they’ve messed up so badly and no more than in education where there’s actually a simple solution-let the whistleblowers who taught teach Democrats what to do at WhiteChalkCrime.com.
The teacher unions are going along to get along and at the heart of the education problem but once people understand why, we can fix it. Democrats must become problem solvers not problem users.
You are absolutely correct, Corbin. The first thing I see to do is sit down with AOC, read and explain your essay on Hakeem Jeffries. She will change her tune. She has the courage to do that.
Being a procedural cloak room fighter is being a fighter. I think of Lyndon Johnson. His intricate knowledge of how to push things through Congress got us the Great Society. However, as Corbin eloquently states, in these times being a procedural fighter is necessary but insufficient. We also need outward facing political skills from the leadership of both Houses in order to give Congress the bully pulpit instead of the president. If Congress would stop giving away its power to the executive branch and evading hard legislative decisions by letting the judicial branch deal with that stuff, then it might be more beneficial for us.
We must be careful not to just exalt the show-offs, but also check to see that the fighters we back have the procedural skills to actually achieve results that are good for us. We don't need any more demagogues these days. Americans will back the fighter without investigating what that fighter might actually deliver. This tends to not turn out well.
Another way to look at this is if we had enough real representatives of the people in Congress willing to leverage their power, they might could force a procedural fighter into being a public leader. What we don't want to see is representatives elected on fighting who are then domesticated into docile creatures of donors and stasis.
As it stands, the power to compel real representation from Congress is not in voters' hands, it is in the hands of donors. We won't get a public-facing Speaker leading caucuses of rank and file members who are passionate about their constituents unless and until we realign the incentives.