On Wednesday I decided to dig up an old computer and listen to some podcasts. As some of you might know, in the aftermath of the 2016 election my roommate at the time and I hosted a podcast. On the show we’d talk about the news story de jure and I’ve previously discussed the errors of my ways during that era. It was good to relive the way I discussed politics back then, but it was a reminder that some changes are necessary. This post is a collection of the thoughts I’ve been having since last week and hope to cover (i) my view on why it happened, (ii) what I’m concerned about, and (iii) what I think we need to do to change for 2026 and beyond.
It’s the inflation, stupid.
In 2008 the Obama Administration was tasked with fixing the U.S. and global economy. There were many paths, one recommended path — encouraged by members of the current Biden administration — was to over pump a ton of money into the real economy (fiscal stimulus) and stimulate growth.
Give people money, give businesses incentive to produce, give banks incentives to lend, this is a shot in the arm for the economy.
Instead, the Obama administration chose a path which took cues from the Republicans in Congress at the time and resulted in a lower fiscal package, but The Fed dumped billions into the banking sector through quantitative easing to encourage lending. This resulted in a very long recovery in the real economy (jobs) and a slow recovery in the financial economy (stock market).
It took until TWENTY SIXTEEN to drop down to unemployment below 5%. Eight whole years. Hell, unemployment wasn’t under 8% until the 2012 election! But inflation was near-zero.
This was the trade-off matrix presented to the late-Trump and early-Biden administrations. Biden’s economic vision was to run the economy hot, encourage business, make sure people had jobs, and keep the economy working. This, combined with supply chain issues which embroiled the planet caused inflation. It was the cost of returning folks to work. It was the cost of thousands of dollars of stimulus checks provided by both administrations.
(I’ve written about my views on the causes of inflation before, and it’s not like we’ll ever get a real answer. But I think it’s like 80/20 — 80% general post-COVID global impacts, and maybe 20% Trump/Biden-administration decisions.)
I think the efforts to both fight inflation and keep the economy humming (the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS Act, opening up of oil permits) were valiant, but it’s clear that for whatever reason — it was not being rewarded by voters. Turns out, people fucking hate inflation. This comes down to some simple truths.
First, unemployment impacts at worst 10% of the population, and that 10% are sometimes looking to government for support (unemployment insurance, food stamps). The other 90%, well…to them unemployment is largely someone else’s problem. Inflation impacts literally everyone.
Second, inflation cannot be reversed. Once a Big Mac costs $8 it will never again cost $4. Inflation is a rate of change, in a healthy economy prices will not go down, so it is difficult to present solutions — and then have people recognize success, because a “success” in the form of returning to past prices is impossible.
People hated inflation, but I think Bidenomics took the right set of moves and correctly evaluated the trade-offs. I can think something was right, and people can disagree. That is ok, that is the nature of trade-offs. But it’s worth noting that next time around, there will be very little incentive for politicians to run the economy hot.
Get ready for more 2008 — 2012-style recoveries. Those are the only thing we’re going to receive for a while.
Cities need to work.
Another take-away from election night was the general malaise with Democrats. Democrats are losing support, and it’s universal. Here’s a brief list of some shifts:
Manhattan shifted Republican by 9 points
Brooklyn R → 12 points
Queens R → 21 points
Bronx R → 22 points
Orlando R → 10 points
Miami-Dade R → 19 points
Chicago R → 11 points
Folks, this is existential. There is a rot in Democratic electoral politics that we need to be honest and upfront about, because Republicans will not engage in good faith. The trains are not running, the taxes are too high, the services are not what they need to be, people want more police. Cities need to be run more effectively, because years of beating up on Chicago for being violent, Detroit for being bankrupt, San Francisco for being too expensive, and California for being a general mess. This cannot hold.
The Great American Cities are still amazing places and huge sources of intellectual, cultural, and financial capital. There are tons of reasons to live here, but people are getting tired of a bloated bureaucracy that wastes its money on consultants and studies that don’t go anywhere. I’m sick to my stomach that underneath the loop there is abandoned $400 million dollar “superstation” that was supposed to run non-stop routes to O’Hare and Midway…that’s a great idea, but the city couldn’t make it happen taxpayers are still paying the bill.
One of the reasons that I am a liberal and a Democrat is that I think government can provide great services to its people. Libraries, public transportation, defense of human rights. Government is not perfect, but if not governments, then who?
Democrats used to think like this. Used to act like this. Build things, improve peoples’ lives in lasting ways. I think Democrats still do, but it’s less visible than ever.
I wrote last month about how Democrats ran up the score during the WWII and post-WWII eras and made huge investments in this country. When people want to RETVRN a lot of times they’re referring to an era of investment and competent Democratic control. People yearn for a strong party that delivers for them, people want a country to be proud of. We just need to get our ducks in a row.
How I’m feeling.
My reaction comes in two parts. First, this was always possible. Candidly, this is one of the better bad outcomes since it was so decisive there will be no threat to the peaceful transfer of power. It doesn’t mean Trump won’t threaten democracy later in his term, but one step at a time.
Second, I want to be realistic about what we’re looking at here. We’re looking at the potential for economic hardship, an administrative state that has objectives which are counter to my own values, brewing conflict abroad, and a President who is openly hostile to the fundamental values of democracy.
Economic Hardship could come in the form of tariffs, which will raise the cost of good everywhere. Crony capitalism where companies flatter Trump to avoid tariffs and the profits of the business flow to Trump and his associates rather than to employees or shareholders. Turmoil at the Federal Reserve where Chairman Powell has said it is illegal for Trump to ask him to leave or fire him. Instability at the Fed would send shockwaves through the global financial markets. Then there are the deportation camps, which in addition to the humanitarian cost — would result in a sharp decrease in the labor force resulting in higher costs on many goods.
An Administrative State whose aims are hostile to my own beliefs are in a way the most regular downside after an election (most candidates for President are not openly pushing for degrowth-orientated policies). With respect to reproductive rights and LGBT freedom I have no doubt that the administration will posture and engage in inflammatory language. But I am skeptical around legislative changes — I guess we’ll see. With respect to healthcare policy, the destruction of the Affordable Care Act would hurt poor Americans, RFK getting his hands on vaccine development could be actively harmful. Then look at “government efficiency” or whatever the hell Elon thinks he’ll be doing. I do believe there is room to make a more efficient government — much of our policy making and execution efforts have been outsourced to the non-profit industrial complex and consulting firms. We need to instill a sense of purpose and bring back institutional capacity back to our agencies. Deregulatory measures can be good and bad. Not all deregulation is bad, but I sense that Elon’s objectives will lean pro-business and pro-billionaire in a way that doesn’t benefit consumers.
Conflicts Abroad are not settling down anytime soon. Trump claimed he would fix Ukraine in 24 hours after being elected and…? I guess we’re still waiting. It is my opinion that Trump is uniquely susceptible to bribery1 and flattery from dictators and enemies abroad. It is probably the piece of the Trump administration that I’m most afraid of.
Democracy is still at risk. I do not think there is a 50% chance that Trump will end democracy, but I do not think it is 0%. It’s probably somewhere between 0 — 5% and that’s much much too high. But it is important that we don’t overstate the risk. What does a real risk to democracy look like now that we’ve avoided January 6th Part II? A 3rd term? Direction of the military against his enemies? Weaponization / lack of independence in the judicial branch? I think we should use claims of autocracy and fascism with restraint and be prepared to use specific examples. Let’s not waste the language we have. In this vein, Jeff Mauer wrote about crying “several wolves” when there is only one wolf.
I would describe the current state of the presidential race this way: There is a wolf. Many people — Democrats, centrist Republicans, and even former members of the Trump administration — are crying “wolf!” And others — namely Resistance Democrats and the more incontinence-challenged members of the media — are crying “several wolves!” Sometimes, these people even cry “several wolves with switchblades and uzis and they’re biting people and giving them AIDS!” Trump’s backers respond by crying “They’re lying about the wolves!” And at that point, the first group is forced to chime back in and say “They are indeed exaggerating the threat posed by wolves but it is factually true that there is one wolf, who presents a serious threat that is, to be fair, probably not existential.” Which is not the type of pithy message that wins elections.
We should avoid calling out for several wolves when one wolf is clearly enough.
Hard Truths.
I want to spitball some changes I’d like to see myself and fellow Democrats make to help us win back the White House and the country. Not all of these are good ideas, in fact you may think some of them are quite stupid — sound off in the comments with your additions or critiques!
The privileged ones.
Since the 2000 election Democrats have firmly been the party of the managerial class, the overly educated, the credential-laden laptop job-having masses. Exit polling data shows further educational polarization. The Democrats are firmly the party of post-election Instagram poem-posting and national days of grieving after elections. Guys, I hate to break it to everyone here, but life is pretty ok. I’m not saying there are not incidents of hardship, but if your day job consists of working on a laptop and you live in an economically mobile environment, you’re probably not thinking about what you’re eating next week. You probably don’t know anyone who experienced a death of despair. There’s a severe level of comfort that we experience.
We’re the people who complain about the price of Door Dash, a service where others prepare and deliver food to your door. A service only available to literal Kings not a century ago.
Concerns around acceptance and opportunity are valid, but let’s be honest when we talk about those. You’re not advocating for a DEI program at a restaurant to ensure a waiter gets a raise. There’s not a diversity program on the construction site. The DEI-industrial complex exists for those who have a bachelor’s degree and are at a minimum middle class. I’m not saying liberals in general are not concerned about the troubles of the working class, but the policies of diversity, equality, and inclusion are not targeted at that community. They’re at place in universities, financial institutions, large corporations. These are privileged concerns. That doesn’t mean they’re not real, but let’s get serious.
Stop the snark.
I know this is unbelievably rich coming from me, but we need to chill on the superiority complex which has consumed the movement. There is no way we can determine the intent behind people motives writ large. Did 70 million people really vote for Trump because they hate women? Seriously? That’s your honest opinion. If you’re willing to defend that, why do you think it? Where’s the basis? How do you prove that.
I am not smarter than everyone, and I should probably stop acting like it. There’s a lot more humility needed in the party. If someone is saying they’d like to decrease illegal immigration it’s not necessarily because they’re racist; there are genuine concerns — hell, these illegal immigrants are breaking the law! They’re just asking the rule of law to be followed…isn’t that a liberal value?
The downside of ascribing intent onto folks is that you then discount their viewpoint automatically. I need to stop talking down to people (it will not happen overnight) and avoid the types of argument that strawman others’ concerns and steelman our own.
Another way this surfaces itself is through death-by-explainer. Take this video from Hank Green. He’s kind of just reiterating 8th-grade level map take-downs, and then tries to discount some maps flying around without really calling them bad. The “vibe” of this video is that “no Democrats didn’t necessarily lose that bad”. That is a bad take-away. Democrats did lose! Badly! Let’s not try and over-analyze this to death. I know I’m picking on Hank here, MSNBC is surely doing this too, and John Oliver will also likely pick up the baton next episode. But there’s no way we’re going to grow if we keep gorging on this delicious, deep-fried cope.
I’ll admit — this is the exact sort of content that I used to go crazy for. Really. But explaining things only goes so far. Sometimes the American people are just wiser as a group. Remember how the overwhelming consensus was that Joe Biden was too old to run for President? They have some good opinions buried in there sometimes. Point is — we need to take this loss head on. We’re losers. Let’s fix it.
Resurgence of Values.
There’s this sign that neoliberals used to put in their yards unironically. A well-known line reads “we believe in science”. A pretty harmless line on its own…but what does that mean? The intent is clearly to differentiate oneself from those who believe climate change is a hoax or vaccines cause autism.
But those are pretty immaterial questions — does “believing in science” mean that you embrace decarbonization at all costs? Does believing in science mean that Elon Musk should be universally praised because he’s the most prolific applied scientist of our generation? Does it mean that banning alcohol is a good idea because it has been proven to cause human deaths?
“Belief in science” is just a slogan — to determine your stance on an issue involves understanding the trade-offs in a scenario. Are you pro-electric car because it doesn’t use gas? Have you considered the mining of rare earth metals? How about the added weight and the added costs associated with accelerated damage to our roads? This is just one example, but it highlights that there is rarely an absolute good.
Another example, should the U.S. drill more oil? Maybe yes, because oil is a global market, and the demand is not tied to production — but additional production could drive down prices which increase demand. So, then you want higher oil prices? Is that a tenable position to maintain in electoral politics? Do you want the U.S. to drill more oil so oppressive regimes make less money and topple, thus accelerating the liberation of their residents? But what if those people face years of famine because a collapsed economy would hurt them? The point — being pro- or anti- a position is less about having a “belief in science”, but rather a set of values that guide your decisions.
Broaden the tent.
Is there someone in your life who is a little anti-union? How about someone who doesn’t like living in cities and prefers single-family housing? What about that anti-EV person in your life, or that anti-public transit person? Anyone you know that likes to use the word retard? Or maybe someone who doesn’t think someone born as a biological male should be able to compete against biological females after puberty? How about if they like Fox News?
These are all views people are allowed to have. If you disagreed on any one of these would you kick them out of the party and risk not accomplishing your goals? How many different opinions do you need to have to shut someone out of the party? I’m serious here, like — we need to chill it with the canceling. Do you think Mitch McConnell agrees with RFK Jr.? Do you think he voted for him regardless? Remember, RFK is a glorified liberal hippie; he’s just lucky that Republicans got super-anti-vaccine in the last four years.
Kicking people out is not doing us any good. It’s creating a tighter and tighter party that doesn’t allow for diverse views. People can fuck up. People can think we need more police and want more equal justice. Different voters can think that Hamas is bad and should be rooted out, but also that Israel is engaging in non-proportional responses. Does shunning someone for a single belief really help the cause? Does going on Instagram and blaming white men for this help the cause?
I just think we could all chill out a bit. No one is perfect, no one has a completely consistent world view without contradiction. No one is 100% wrong.
Matt Yglesias.
Can’t go a whole post punching left without mentioning Matt Yglesias. After the election he posted a vision for “Common Sense Democrats”:
Ben Shapiro is already on record calling this list essentially “conservatism” — which I think is an indication it’s heading in the right direction (not because it’s conservatism, but because spineless Republican goons are trying to discount it). Some quick comments on a few items:
This means that degrowth is not a solution. Economic growth in the twenty-first century will require our continued use of fossil fuels, it will result in more meat consumption, and it will raise the amount of waste produced worldwide. Those are truths. We cannot lecture the developing world and say “sorry, no more burgers because of climate change” — that is not an effective strategy. Growth in necessary, growth it good for the poorest among us. Folks who would prefer degrowth are those who can survive on their own pools of capital. Be skeptical of these takes.
Similar to #1, rigid adherence is a bad way to achieve goals. Start with the outcome you’d like to see, ask yourself is this helping or hurting the goal, and even if actions taken don’t fully achieve global climate goals, they’re often a step in the right direction.
“Antisocial” conduct is a pretty broad and vague category, going to reserve judgement on this point.
Four seems straight forward, but Democrats have been veering away from this in uncomfortable ways.
Again, Democrats have been veering away from this in uncomfortable ways.
Neither are financiers — anyone can be told they’re stupid and wrong.
Obsessive language policing needs to be stopped. We have to cease being the hall monitor party. I want to return to an America where the overly conservative Right is policing our swears and D&D games because of satanism. It sucks to be the complainers.
A sensible way to approach immigration. Boarders matter. Not everyone can be an American. We need to decide what we want from immigrants, and then transparently enforce those policies.
The Department of Defense should benefit the American people, not the defense contractors. Our schools should be run to benefit children, not the teachers’ unions. Public transit operations should be judged based on their ability to transport citizens and not dollars jettisoned to projects and consulting firms. These are good guides for bureaucratic change.
This is getting pretty long. I think it was a difficult week, but I want to end with a few pieces of advice I’m giving myself.
With any new “scandals” or “top of the day”-type stories, I’m going to wait at least 24 hours to spout out an opinion on a topic. It will be easy to over-react.
“Trump Derangement Syndrome” is a catch-all complaint for pro-Trumpers. I genuinely think that the Harris Campaign took a very non-TDS approach to their campaign and tried to attack it with policies, I’m going to try and focus my complaints with Trump on the policy programs versus the words he uses.
Israel / Palestine, I’m going to continue to avoid this debate like the plague.
If Sonia Sotomayer dies in office, remember it is her fault we’re losing the courts for two generations rather than one.
Posting is the most powerful force in the universe, I will never stop, and I will never touch grass.
This was the last election with Trump, I will forever be thankful it is now over.
I’m sure over the course of four years I will find a policy or position which I am reversing my opinion on because Trump is holding it. OK, I’m not perfectly consistent, sue me.
Thanks for reading all the way to the end, have a nice week and don’t forget to share and subscribe!
As much as organization like the Clinton Foundation has been abused for political purposes, Trump can be bribed through a very simple and (questionably) legal exchange of financial instruments. He is a majority owner in NASDAQ: DJT — a useless meme stock that can directly inflate the wealth of the President.
👏