Mr. Stephens, I enjoy your columns and as a liberal, I appreciate conservative voices like yours being critical of a Republican administration. But, you and other conservative columnists have been writing quite a bit lately about the Democrats not fitting the mold you would like or are saying things that make you want to sit out the next election. To be blunt, you and all of the other conservatives brought the wrath of Trump on this country and world, so, suck it up and vote for whoever the Dem is. The racist, misogynist and evangelical policies of Trump have been embraced by the GOP (in the shadows) since before Nixon. Trump’s just the first one to say these things out in public. The current “opposition” GOP’s response is either resign, become Independents and write columns complaining the Dems aren’t your cup of tea. Well, respectfully, too bad. You broke this system (Gingrich, McConnell, Trump), plug your nose and vote for whoever unseats the monster currently occupying the White House. Then, we can go back to a policy debate in 2022.
21
Outstanding!
2
@Jeffrey Walz Hi Jeffrey, you needn’t worry about my vote: I’m a New Yorker, and New York won’t be going for Trump. Neither, by the way, will I.
8
I think this ‘fringe’ of which you speak, on both sides, are actually more closely aligned than you think. The system is rigged to benefit the wealthy and corporate powers and our economy is not working for working people- that’s what Dems are saying and that’s what Trump voters voted for (but did not receive and may be open to a new alternative). In my rural town, I saw plenty of Trump stickers in 2016, but a close second was stickers for Bernie. Maybe the comfortable moderates are the ones who are going to have to bend in this next election.
26
@Lynn Yes: Sanders got a majority of people to raise their hands in favor of Medicare4All at a a Town Hall on Fox News, of all places. If Sanders and/or Warren can make a few basic points to these voters, we can get people who fell for Trump's rhetoric to vote Democratic this time.
@Lynn Hi, Lynn. I agree with you. Well, at least I agree with your first sentence. In politics, the extremes of right and left tend to have more in common than either side usually cares to admit. The French even have a saying for it: Les extrêmes se touchent. The extremes meet.
That’s why I’m as opposed to someone like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren as I was (and remain) opposed to Trump: They share many of the same populist instincts that don’t serve us well. They even share some of the same policies particularly when it comes to their hostility to free trade.
But the reality of our economy is that most Americans have been the beneficiaries of free trade, not its victims. (Ever owned a Honda?)The reality is also that unemployment and inflation are low, and that wages are rising and benefitting the bottom half of earners.
If Democrats try to run a campaign promising radical economic change in the midst of broad economic prosperity, they will likely lose—just as Walter Mondale lost to Ronald Reagan and Bob Dole lost to Bill Clinton. A strategy that has a better chance of working would be similar to the way George W. Bush ran in 2000: By promising to restore honor and dignity to the White House, despite the strength of the Clinton-Gore economy. And the candidate who will best be able to do that isn’t a Bernie or a Warren.
2
Bret, you’re frightening me!
3
RBG is not infallible, and she obviously is not familiar with Buttigieg's ideas on the SCOTUS. Anyone who characterizes it as "packing the court" has not bothered to learn exactly what Buttigieg's plan is.
8
Gee, I wonder how all those Canadian hospitals stay open. Or the hospitals in other countries with a non-stupid healthcare system. Health care is not a market commodity, it is a HUMAN RIGHT! If a hospital, an important player in supplying that HUMAN RIGHT, is in danger of closing, obviously, OBVIOUSLY, the government would step in with subsidies. Duh!!
14
So, you want Democrats to become the old GOP so you can vote for them?
17
"Defeating Trumpism means abandoning the politics of extremes." Yes, greed to fix the world in one shot while trying to beat a uniquely powerful president is plain stupid. After they get the White House and hopefully, both Houses of Congress, they can worry about fighting for their progressive programs.
But it appears the voters know better. They prefer Joe Biden despite his weaknesses, his age, lack of astuteness, etc.
I hope the voters would express their support for Steve Bullock & Pete Buttigieg. And somebody may persuade Mitch Landrieu to jump in.
Even a woman, unless Oprah, or a person of color is unelectable in 2020. Kamala Harris could be a good choice for VP, to energize minorities & women.
1
From this Independent who listened to every word of all debates so far, I agree with Mr. Stephens and share his concern that these Dems who get all the praises for their progressive ideas would be easy for Trump too bump off. No consequences for crossing the border illegally?, plus free health care thrown in? Announce to the world you never would consider nuclear weapons? Make a public commitment to leaving Afghanistan?
The Dems are making this about race and gender which is how Trump is controlling their agenda. The Dems don't like a white guy, that helps Trump. Trump is managing the Dem Party.
16
I do not admire anyone who cannot think outside of his narrow conservative box. America has never made progress through isolation, narrow minded thinking or risk adversity. America has been an innovative leader in the world.
I do not admire anyone whose party makes them sick but they expect the other party to do something about it.
Please take responsibility for the party that you and other Republicans supported, contributed to and did not question. Anyone of those twenty Democratic candidates you disparage would be willing to sit down and have a conversation about what values we mutually share and how to restore decency and morality. Where are you?
I do not admire anyone who brands anything other than our failed medical system as crackpot ideas when the rest of the western industrial world has precisely some form of single payer insurance at half the cost of ours.
I do not admire anyone who cant see there way to free college, at least for the economic disadvantaged among us.
I do not admire anyone who will demonize workers because they work for heartless soulless multi-national companies.
I do not admire anyone who thinks that climate change can be solved through rapid economic development in the developing world (like China?).
I particularly do not admire someone who can stand by and watch Wall Street steal billions from the rest of us and pay themselves millions in bonuses after they collapsed our economy but can't begin to consider reparations for slaves.
13
I keep seeing columns written by Republicans telling America, esp Democrats, how to save us from Trump. But these columnists can't admit to themselves that their own, beloved Republican party created Trump, voted for him, (and his enablers in congress), voted for everything Trump represents, and continue to support his agenda.
Republicans who don't like Trump, (and there seem to be plenty of them), need to look in the mirror and recognize that their own party is responsible for getting us into this horrible, dark mess of pre-fascistic authoritarianism all in the name of tax cuts and personal enrichment, much to the detriment of society as a whole.
Stop looking for everyone else to save you, us, from Trump. We Dems are doing what we can but your people are fighting us every step of the way. It's up to conservative columnists like those at the Times to start publicly ridiculing Trump's policies AND his enablers. Or, I don’t know, maybe stand up for a good Democrat or two and tell America why.
It's up to columnists like you to plainly call out corruption within your own party and provide sane, conservative alternatives to the current regime, if that’s what you want. Meaningful change from this black, right-wing force must come from within the conservative tent.
10
I shall vote for the candidate with policies closest to Hugo Chavez’
Hugo Chavez did so much to promote and deliver equality in Venezuela. Now they are all starving equally. Viva equality!
4
Very well put.
But I would add the Democrats need to defend democracy...
My concern is that Trump is destroying our democracy, daily.
If he is re-elected, he will be permitted to finish the demolition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have not heard any Democratic candidate sound a warning.
I wonder if any candidate is aware of the DEMOCRACY song.
Leonard Cohen sang, "Democracy is coming to the USA" (1992).
Perhaps the insanity of Trump's attacks on our democracy can
produce a counter-wave of new democracy in the 2020 election.
Maybe the NY Times can write about the DEMOCRACY song,
to wake up the Democratic candidates, and we, the people.
"Democracy is coming to the USA"
1
Bret seems to assume that Trump's 40% plus the current GOP members of the Senate are gone forever down the rat hole of Trumpism.
That might be true. If it is, then we are in a nearly hopeless future with 40% opposing almost any kind of reasonable action on climate, jobs, national security, education, crime, etc.
6
Bret Stephens has absolutely no idea what this country is up against and what Democrat feelings are like. He is like a typical closet Trumper. "I want Trump to lose" is a popular GOP-voter statement that wants to appear decent in front of the world but under the hood this columnist is exactly who eventually elects Trumps of the world (instead of Kasich, Romney or Jeb Bush) and for whom the GOP ideals are more important than fundamental humanism.
Paraphrasing the last paragraph: Trump should win because I oppose Democratic ideals.
"I realize some readers will ditscount this column as unwanted advice from a non-Democrat. But I want Trump to lose next year as much as anyone. The party on view in Detroit was not close to being up to its historic responsibility of defeating him and governing responsibly in his place."
5
All morally upright conservatives with integrity need to stop focusing on the Democrats and get out and start a new conservative party. A vote for the current lot of spineless Republicans and for Trump is a spineless derogation of your duty to your country.
So do something about, and stop whining about the Democrats.
9
Bret Stephens is often so far off the mark like he is here. Elizabeth Warren is exactly right American corporations large corporations are eating the profits away from their workers and Stevens does not even realize this. Very behind the times
3
“climate change ... can only be solved through rapid economic growth”
Please explain how this can possibly be when the root cause of climate change and all other environmental problems is overpopulation, and economic growth depends on a growing population. Population growth must be halted, then ultimately reversed. We must find economics that work without growth. (Not optimistic that will happen soon enough, if ever.)
3
Bret, I agree with much of your take, but you're usually more open minded. It's key to distinguish between the unlikely yet aspirational, versus the practical attainable. We need both. The GOP has no one like Yang, no one like Warren, no one like Biden, no one like Harris. The GOP has become a Trump dead zone populated by the like of Moscow Mitch. We need to separate the Democratic Party into its "Think Tank" faction, and its "Practical Operations" faction. We need both.
5
The issue is that the liberal wing of the party is proposing ideas and defending them, in good faith that a debate might be had. The centrist wing of the party, on the other hand, is simply attacking the liberal wing of the party for being "too liberal." Why don't the centrists stand up there and support their own ideas? Is it because they don't have any, or what? If the centrists and the liberals were arguing ideas, then an IDEA would win, at the end of the day. As it is, the liberals have ideas but the centrists just have fear. And if fear wins, well, that's not a good day for anyone.
4
I agree with Bret Stephens take on health care.
According to a recent PBS report, 44 million Americans are uninsured and another 38 million have inadequate health insurance.
The "plans" put forward by Democratic candidates to not explain how we PROVIDE universal health care.
For one thing, to provide care to more patients, we need more doctors. That means more medical school education. But none of the proposals, to my knowledge, addresses this issue.
What has caused health care costs to explode in the US is population growth which has been unmatched by a similar growth in the number of doctors trained in medical schools.
I have watched changes over the last 54 years. In 1965 tuition at the University of California was ZERO. Moreover, I got a state scholarship to pay room and board.
That is no longer possible. Why? Because year after year the state budget runs short and more funds are shifted from universities to K12.
And why is that? It is population growth pure and simple. California has had a wave of illegal immigrants with large families who need K12 education.
So now fewer can afford college and fewer can afford medical school.
Sadly, the economists in this country have been captured by political correctness. They are unwilling to look at the arithmetic.
Resources are limited.
Democrats lie when they say Americans can afford to provide universal health care to an unending stream of illegal immigrants.
Those lies cause some to choose Trump.
7
There you go again...
In the language of the guy you worship, Mr. Stephens.
But, since Reagan, the last “great” Republican President, has been proven to be a racist by audio tapes, I’ll give you my own words:
This whiny guy again... if you want a Republican, go vote for one.
14
Any of the Democrats running for president will get my vote because I will be voting against Trump's America, you know, the fascists of all types that have always been part of the electorate but didn't have a controlling voice until Trump came along.
So, the effort then, given the vicious onslaught the Democratic candidate will have to endure, is to put forward the person who can best deal with the ugliness, and possibly violence, to come.
The 2020 election will define America and set its course as no other has since the Depression era,1932, and the War Years, 1940.... in particular the 1932 election because in that same year in the Federal elections in Germany forces were set in motion that resulted in Hitler the following year.
Our political situation may not seem so onerous as Germany presented then, but then keep in mind that Trump's fascist, and racist policies are supported by almost half of the country.
6
Don’t worry, Bret. The center right is due for a big comeback any day now. Bigotry, racism, and violent reactionary paranoia will go back in the closet, and . . . and . . . and, sorry, struggling to see any other difference between center right and alt right.
5
Andrew Gilliam, Stacy Abrams, Bill Nelson most probably lost due to interference by ??????? Who do you think?
5
Without a doubt when the Government returned from the scandalous shutdown and the Democrats did not immediately and with all haste and focus move to get rid of the destruction caused by Trump and his supporters they proved the failure of our Two Party System and saddened us to find that they were more like Republicans than different .
We now know that even having a racist and sexist President who has single handedly changed the Office from a symbol of good for all and inclusion to one of hate and division did not summon them to action .
It's bad enough that the Republicans have stood behind an unfit , lying , racist failed businessman who is caught on video bragging you can kiss women you don't know and grab them by their privates if you have money and power , but to find that that is OK with Democrats demands a dramatic change to restore representation that reflects all of our Citizens that cannot be held captive by powerful special interests like White Racists .
1
Let’s be clear, you are a Democrat! At one time you played a Rino, but anyone who watches you with. I Cole Wallace realizes you have never believed in our founding principles. You do not believe in self-reliance, you believe in collectivism. You admire a man who tried (and unfortunately did to some degree) “fundamentally change America”.
I suspect the only reason you are against reparations is because you realize that caucasians will be the minority soon (and then they would demand reparations). I can’t stand Eugene Robinson, but at least he is honest as to who he is and what he hates about America.
1
Agreed Bret, Democrats appear to be ready to form a circular firing squad.
4
Now let me see if I have this right.
This Republican "president" has put Hispanic infants and children in internment camps, with no plans to ever release them.
This Republican "president" has publicly praised the KKK and neo-Nazis as very fine people, will hurling racist insults against members of Congress who are women of color.
This Republican "president" has time and again joked about sexual assault and put a would-be rapist on the Supreme Court.
This Republic "president" will not hesitate to throw this nation into a nuclear holocaust if his bromance with Kim goes south.
This Republican "president" has destroyed every international alliance this country has, alliances that took decades to create and nurture.
This Republican "president" showed us in his disgusting display at Helsinki that he is nothing other than Putin's boy toy.
This Republican "president" has threatened to revoke the citizenship of peaceful protesters, and and has urged his rabid base to assault members of the press, at his rallies.
And Bret Stephens has the nerve to tell us that Democrats aren't living up to their historic responsibility? Every single Democratic candidate, include Ms. Williamson, would be orders of magnitude better than the disgusting man who now pollutes the White House.
So if I have Mr. Stephens' thesis correctly, what he is really saying is that Democrats have the sole responsibility to undo the tremendous damage Trump has caused since 2017. Are you kidding me?
16
You are drafting Nancy Pelosi. And about time.
1
Please, pretty please Democrats, nominate Liz or Bernie and save the country from the socialist madness. That these 2 get any support in America is beyond stupid. We are running a deficit now and they want to give higher education for free and healthcare free and open borders. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Just do the math, confiscate all the 1% money, jewels, homes, cars, stocks, cash, boats, vacation homes etc. Drop them off in Times Sq, with $10 left in their pockets, it won't pay for this pipe dream for even 1 year! Can the voters be this stupid? I don't think so, even the adults in the Democrats don't believe it. Even if one of these 2 gets in, all their new programs will be DOA.
5
These Dem candidates are absolutely terrifying....and not in a good way:
De facto open borders?
‘Free’ health insurance for illegal aliens?
‘Medicare For All’ and the elimination of private insurance?
Reparations for slavery?
Student loan bailout ?
Free college tuition?
The Dem agenda would result in millions more impoverished foreign migrants and their offspring swarming across our defacto open borders....just what we DON’T NEED! ....And a substantially higher tax burden to pay for all the pie/sky socialist benefits listed above.
Consequently, I...a longtime registered Democrat...will be voting Republican for the first time in my life. Good job, Dems!
5
Excuuuuuse me, you are a rightish middle of the reader advocating for milquetoast from the opponent party? And why should I take anything said here as more than one man’s opinion and that opinion having paved the way for our present King?
The only thing Democrats don’t have enough of is money. Most of their ideas about e.g. healthcare are already old news amongst our allies and over 70 years old here and they’ve been way ahead on global warming and their connection to Truth is infinitely better than the GOP. I guess you didn’t notice how many times right wing ideas lite didn’t get Dems elected before?
Finally, dire circumstances require new approaches. The nation under Republicans is already a lawless, Constitution ignoring government. Put your glasses on Bret, the democracy that you love is already swinging over into fascist rule by the corporate business world.
6
Trump ran to the extreme right, to the point of fascism, and won. What does that tell you, Brett?
10
And where, sir, is your Republican Party? They are standing around watching Trump slime every last one of them, and destroying the country in the meantime.
9
Gosh I’m sick of Republicans telling Democrats that they are just too crazy!!!
You watched, without one moment of pause, as your party slid farther and farther and farther right, and only when it actually fell off the cliff into fascism did you even raise your head and say oops.
10
Amen.
1
Only thing Bret got tight was that he’s right, we don’t want his advice. Unfortunately, the Democrats will not be shifting right to fill the Neoconservatice hole left in his heart by the 2016 election. Democrats have a historic responsibility since FDR to care for the oppressed. 2020 is the time to reclaim that mantle.
7
Yes!
I shall vote for the candidate with policies closest to Hugo Chavez’
Hugo Chavez did so much to promote and deliver equality in Venezuela. Now they are all starving equally. Viva equality!
1
Democrats Are Not Up To Their Historic Responsibility...to clean up the mess after EVERY GOP administration.
Stephens it was YOUR party that put this man in the White House - where is YOUR responsibility to clean up this mess?
10
Hmm, do Republicans have any "historic responsibility" for anything? Other than a mild "tut tut", fleeing from the cameras, or innocuous comments wrapped in a "I wouldn't have said it that way" bun--what Republican has lifted a finger to stop Trump? Plenty of those op-eds need to be written; few are.
9
I don't admire a commentator who creates a problem then blames the people they foisted it on for not coming up with solutions he approves of.
I really hate commentators who say things like "I really like when a candidate said the only way we're going to reduce carbon is to innovate our way out of it", and then say business is the best innovator, and then say their party, the one preparing to burn Earth to a ghastly cinder, would be the best one to fix the problem except for this one thing...they created the problem and they threaten physical harm to anyone proposing a solution.
And I hate commentators who say (the model is has been expanded ad hoc by several degrees) "Government Bad/Business Good, but in case business messes up, which shouldn't happen, Federal Government Bad/State Government OK".
But I live where nobody innovates unless somebody tells them to. In my case, my government is telling me not to. We're being forced to pay foolish energy executives to keep their foundering nucular energy plants chugging along though they never made a profit and will soon cost billions to tear apart.
Its OK, though: this will cost the companies nothing, it won't even reduce executive bonuses, because I get to pay for it. So why innovate? Why bother to manage, government got us covered.
Just to be sure, the state withdrew 100% of funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy.
So...business very bad. Pro-business government (yours, Bret) as bad as can be.
7
Thank you, Bret Stephens. I often don't agree with you, but always appreciate your ability to articulate your position. This is a sane, realistic assessment of the situation from the perspective of many Americans (notably including the minority ho have the education, resources, and level of concern to read the NY Times on a daily basis) who, like you, detest the current situation (Turmpublicanistan) and crave a plausible alternative, AND recognize that nothing is perfect.
This is called Reality, and as you've articulated, the Democratic party doesn't seem to be able to recognize it Why? Because the decision-makers live in the world of Twitter and Facebook, where the vocal minority thrives. If nothing else, this election may finally foment the end of our anachronistic two party system, and its overt vulnerability to be hijacked by the extremes.
1
This is too good. The Republicans gave us this disaster and it is now time for the opposition to fix the problem. Even though I am fairly liberal, I agree with Mr. Stephens way more than one would think, and yet in this case, you just gotta be kidding me. Way to take responsibility for your own ineptitude, Republicans.
10
There is no extreme in the Democratic party. Was FDR an extremist?
4
Yes. FDR was in extreme times
We are blessed with much goodness
Wages are rising
Opportunity for POC is vastly better than 30 years ago or 100 years ago
Unemployment rate is low
We don’t need extremes and yes some of the policies being proposed are akin to Hugo Chavez’ disastrous policies that led to starvation in Venezuela
1
The three candidates you mentioned should be registered Republicans, Bret. Face facts. As far as "historic responsibility" goes, your party ruined itself. So I fail to understand why you feel qualified to give Democrats advice on how to vote, particularly when even Winston Churchill - who was an advocate for universal healthcare over 70 years ago - is now being called a socialist by you and yours.
Honestly, who are you to give out lectures.
7
Too early Brett. There's a whole lot of shakin' out going on. It's a dialectic process not an episode of "Apprentice." The latter has been in reruns for almost three years.
3
Tired of all of them - D or R. Gotta go gas up the Wave Runners - company this weekend and time to play, not bemoan this nonsense.
I shall vote for the candidate with policies closest to Hugo Chavez’
Hugo Chavez did so much to promote and deliver equality in Venezuela. Now they are all starving equally. Viva equality!
3
As a lifelong liberal, I must agree! The Democrats are on the trail to destruction! It is a disorganized mess.
4
Where were you, Bret, when it was your responsibility to speak out against thirty years of GOP sermons of fear and hate that led us inevitably to Trump?
9
Well, Mr. Stephens, you are not a Democrat. Good for you. You do you, boo. We'll do the hard work of fixing our problems.
4
If, Mr. Stephens, "sensible conservatives" like you don't feel like you have a political home, it is because the Republican Party has marched off the cliff into a bottomless ocean of racism, xenophobia, and theocratic fascism. Your most empowering options: 1) Stay with the Republicans and sell America away for lower taxes. 2) Champion a new third party, ultimately hoping to kill the GOP but leading to unpredictable shake-up (or little effect) over the next few cycles. 3) Throw your lot in with the Democrats to pull the only remaining sane party closer to the center.
You've made clear (to your credit) that option 1 is unacceptable, and that Trump is not the GOP's only problem. Nobody seems willing to attempt option 2, at least in this cycle. But you seem unwilling to choose option 3. To do so, you need to argue with us for your principles as you are doing, but commit to stand with us when it's time to vote. Would a very left-leaning president -- who may or may not even be able to get the more radical proposals you fear through both legislative chambers -- be worse than hoping America can somehow survive four more years of Republican rule without getting sucked into the fascism vortex? In the long run, the US *needs* at least two sane parties. But right now, we need every American who believes in democracy to stand up, at every turn, and say "No!" to the GOP's undemocratic vision. No policy preference is worth the alternative.
8
So you would have joined those who called the steamboat, Fulton’s Folly, the Erie Canal Clinton’s Ditch. You would have joined those who criticized TR for the revolution in Panama that led to the building of the Canal. You might have even joined Winston for doubting D-Day, or JFK for Apollo,11. All big ideas that worked. Where are yours? I did. Ot find one in your column.
2
The Democrats seem hell bent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I am African American and I oppose reparations simply because I don’t know problem they would solve. After the money is spent what will have changed? My guess is not much with one exception, racial animus will surge even more.
Trump’s vision for America is dark and full of hopelessness. He pits one American against another and states clearly no one gains unless it is at the expense of someone else. A Democrat who articulates a vision of gains for everyone gets my vote. Of course such a vision should have some policy proposals that support it. These proposals should also be grounded in reality.
You are right about gradual change. Obamacare was not perfect but it was a huge step forward. Many Dems didn’t support it because it didn’t have a public option. In the heat of the Tea Party furor, congressional Democrats did very little to defend the plan for fear of losing their elections in 2010. They lost anyway. The country isn’t ready for Medicare for all. Improving Obamacare is the only option for now. Insisting on a wholesale change to something totally new will frighten voters and doom the Democrat’s chances of beating Trump and his toadies.
7
I see, free public education, a la K-12 is worthless.
3
Listen up, all you anti-Trump conservatives:
Nobody cares what you think about Dem candidates. Nobody. You had your chance and you blew it. Big time.
So how about you just grab your sturdy ol’ fountain pen and diligently write down all your munificent, patriarchal, country club, self-serving, status quo, condescending pearls of wisdom on grand sheets of fine paper ... and then toss them into the dumpster fire of your own failed ideology and party.
You, too, have an historic responsibility: Derail the horrifying monster you helped create. Fight in your own party . Fight for _your_ claimed values: restrained government, public decency, American international strength, our founders’ vision of liberty. Take your fight to your politicians and your institutions - you know, the ones betraying you and destroying our country. Fight in your caucus, against the people you elevated.
Fight to undo the mess you made. That’s *your* historic responsibility.
Ours is to sweep all of you - hideous politicians, institutions, and ideas - into the trash bin of history where you belong.
It’s bad enough we have to sweep up your mess. Nobody wants to listen to you backseat-broom.
“I realize some readers will discount this column as unwanted advice from a non-Democrat. But I want Trump to lose next year as much as anyone.“
9
This is painfully stupid. Trashing outsourcing will some how turn off working-voters? What do you thing Trump was talking about in 2016 in between the racism and lock her up stuff?
5
I agree w Bret Stephens.
These Democratic candidates are so intent on kissing up to black women (along w unions, the single most important Democratic party constituents apparently) and unions, that they have completely gone off the pale. I will not vote for any of the Warren, Sanders, Harris, buttigieg, de Blasio (gag), Booker, I don't believe in free enterprise, capitalism, or private property crowd. Forget it.
Reparations? My people didn't come until after slavery was over. And they were discriminated against when they did come. You're going to tax me? Not if I can help it.
Free college? Why did we bother to work hard and save then? People went to school and didn't finish? Is that our fault or was that their choice? At some point, people must be responsible for their own actions. How about from the time when they were no longer a child, like the rest of us?
Do they not think think people work for insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies? Or that pension funds (including unions) invest in them?
Where do they get off branding anyone as 'evil' and racist, or evil for making a profit or a return on an investment? And who cares if their parents were lower class and they lived under rent control? Is this communist china, where we have to prove our proletariat bona fides? Seems like it.
Forget these people, except for hickenlooper, Delaney, Bullock and maybe Klobuchar. And I am a Democrat.
7
Lastly, Hillary was a moderate....how'd that work out?
5
the democrats if they pick a progressive, they will lose in 2020;
they are so mixed up they even attack barack obama
joe biden is the only candidate to lead this party.
nominate someone else and one goes on the road to oblivion
4
Health care -
1) Stephens and the candidates themselves speak as though their ideas (especially "Medicare for All") is a monolithic proposal. We all know that the healthcare sausage-making will be ugly, as are all legislative initiatives. So I would like candidates (and especially Sens. Sanders, Warren and Harris) to change their rhetoric to "Here is my proposal - now what do you think" - because that is what is going to happen.
2) Especially Sen. Sanders, but all of the candidates need to say "Here is my proposal ... and here is the -process- we must follow to attain it." Everyone knows that even with enabling legislation, we aren't going to wake up in health-care paradise the next day (although many of us may die in health-care hell while waiting).
2
Changing a felony to a misdemeanor is not "decriminalization" Brett, but you do trade in straw men. Then there's this:
"I do not admire anyone who, whether through political opportunism or astonishing naiveté, embraces the Green New Deal. It is to climate change what an old-fashioned phlebotomy would be to pneumonia: a bad cure for a problem that can only be solved through rapid economic growth (that makes environmental action in the developing world affordable) and dramatic technological innovation (that makes climate mitigation effective and democratically palatable)."
First you decry the poorly named "Green New Deal" and then go on to explain the only way to solve the problem by actually describing what the Green New Deal purports to do. See Brett, building whole new manufacturing sectors and creating millions of well-paying jobs in a capitalist system is what the Green New Deal is all about, along with replacing our infrastructure. You should try speaking with people about it someday rather than relying on a single piece of paper "leaked" months ago.
Who knows? You might even learn that the vast majority of Democrats are looking for UHC, not Single payer. You know, like the majority of industrialized countries have, complete with health insurance companies. I guess your bread and butter depends on straw and, come to think of it, butter pretty much does. Happy spreading.
2
Mr. Stephens relax. The format for the debates and moderators could not have been worse. Beating on each other about policies is not the same as confronting Trump who has no health care, immigration, climate or infrastructure policies. Imagine Trump explaining climate with complete denial. His truncated answer the only viable one. He can and will lie. Health care repeal without replace. That is a real winner. Immigration in the hands of Ann Coulter.
Second, the Democratic platform will swing back to left center. The Green New Deal and an end to private insurance not in the cards. Reparations deserve discussion and debate but not likely to be in the platform as actionable.
Finally, last week Trump bet his political future on race baiting as a tool for electoral gain. Whether or not he is a racist misses the point. The greater sin his shameless use of race as a reelection strategy. He will likely retreat from overt to code going forward, but nuance not a Trump asset. His tweets of the past two weeks placed a marker for his path.
3
"I do not admire anyone embracing the bad idea of free college. The surest way to strip nearly anything of its value is to make it free."
What - the more you pay for an education, the more valuable it is? From your perspective, it would be a bad thing for everyone to be able to go as far as they could in getting an education because3 - there are too many educated people?
1
I do not discount this opinion. Also: I do not know the magic formula for defeating Trump. No one does. The universe has played a trick on us that must be karmically sourced. Nothing else explains it. We may as well pray, throw our hat in the ring, hold our breath, and sing Yankee Doodle Dandy, Which, I gainsay, will work as well as anything else. The Republicans are masters of the game, while Democrats keep trying new tactics, running high level candidates, and playing a game they’re not good at. We need a charismatic candidate. That’s when we win. We don’t have one. So we’ll probably lose.
1
How unsurprising that a Republican would think that the right thing for the Democrats to do is nominate someone most like him. I don't know whether the path to victory lies in the center or toward the progressive wing, but I do know that Stephens is not someone the party should be taking advice from.
3
If you admire Pete Buttigieg and your only problem is his plan for structural reforms of the Supreme Court, you should endorse him at once.
4
The more liberal ideas in the Democratic Party are also the ideas coming from Biden and Warren, the two candidates who are not taking corporate money. That makes me think that their ideas may not be as "outside the mainstream" as they are outside the sphere of corporate influence. I think there are a lot of Americans who will actually appreciate that.
5
Despite so many candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, when was the last time there was such a poor class of candidates in that there does not seem to be a single candidate who can actually win? Was it 1972? That wasn't a very good year for Democrats. Some guy who was the favorite of the party's left-wing and who was a college professor won the nomination. But he won only one state.
Bernie and Warren can't win. Sorry, they can't. And Liz could fight all she wants and not get Congress to pass 2 percent of her big-ideas platform. The Joe Biden of seven three years ago--heck, even of three years ago--could win, but the Joe Biden we are seeing today seems too old for a job that ages incredibly even the most physically vigorous. Harris and Booker seem much too willing to pander to the left, with too much emphasis on race and immigration. And Mayor Pete is young and looks younger, and his sexual orientation and marriage are probably too much too soon for a still socially conservative country (though, disappointed by Biden, I personally find him the most fascinating of the candidates).
My suggestions: Stop pandering, stop apologizing, stop taking positions that will doom a presidential candidacy when everybody votes in November 2020, stop worrying about social media, and start remembering that a handful of states, many of which voted for Trump in 2016, are going to decide the presidency next year.
3
Every single achievement (for lack of better word) of the Trump administration including the tax reform, the rollback of environmental regulations, the defrocking of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the multiple attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the trade wars, etc. was detrimental to the long term welfare of the middle class from coast to coast. Instead of a useless race to the left with unachievable objectives such as decriminalizing illegal immigration and free college, candidates should focus on what's important to middle class America. This is how they won the midterms and this is how they will win the 2020 presidential contest.
6
Every single achievement (for lack of better word) of the Trump administration including the tax reform, the rollback of environmental regulations, the defrocking of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the multiple attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the trade wars, etc. was detrimental to the long term welfare of the middle class from coast to coast. Instead of a useless race to the left with unachievable objectives such as decriminalizing illegal immigration and free college, candidates should focus on what's important to middle class America. This is how they won the midterms and this is how they will win the 2020 presidential contest.
2
“As a Republican, I was shocked and dismayed to watch the Democratic debates and discover I preferred the most conservative candidates.”
I’m a moderate, and I am glad Delaney was on the stage as a reality check. But sorry, there are something like twelve Never-Trumpers in the country. You are not a desirable demographic. If you hate Trump as much as you say you do, you will be a grown up and vote for whomever the Democrats nominate.
9
@Mercury S People aren't going to vote for policies they disagree with, no matter how much they don't like Trump. Sometimes I don't think there's a single Democrat who has really come to terms with why the party lost in 2016. Look at the 2018 results: many people who voted for Trump in 2016 are willing to vote Democratic, if it isn't someone from the party's Left.
3
@Charlie Reidy
Sorry Charlie, people need to suck it up and vote for the Democratic candidate even if they may disagree with them sometimes. You can be picky once we get our White House back.
5
1. we don't have time for anything other than the Green New Deal, which will chip away at inequity and get a move on with solutions for mitigating the climate catastrophe we are now experiencing the very early beginning of.
2. Enslaved Native Americans were the exception not the rule.
1
Middle income and below income wage earners with jobs and health insurance don't want to pay more taxes for universal health insurance since they already are insured. Poor people have medicaid. Elderly have medicare. So everyone's taxes goes up (sorry DeBlasio) to benefit freelancers, part-time workers, recently unemployed and people not yet old enough for medicare.
4
The debates are not debates. They are pageants and pageantry. And given there is no Left in America, I am way, way left of most people, but the ludicrous displays of pompous wealth and hubris on the stage, I’ve decided not to attend even 1min of them, unless and until they all agree to a swimsuit segment within this summer period; and we’ll recruit an infamous body-shamer to ask the questions.
3
Brett,
With all due respect, you opining on Democratic strategies, tactics, and messaging is like Exxon Mobile outlining a strategy for America to transition to renewable energy.
The Dems have spent the better part of three decades masquerading as "GOP lite". Trumpism arose precisely because there was no counter-balance to metastasizing GOP fascism. Those days are (thankfully) dead...
89
@David Gould best reply- couldn't have said it better.
7
@Richard Edgeman
'The Dems have spent the better part of three decades masquerading as "GOP lite" which is why the economy did so well under them. They can take credit for the record lows in unemployment today and a growing economy. Do you want to give that up by electing an avowed socialist?
4
@David Gould I bet you $1.00 you're wrong
If I could sit the democratic candidates down in a room and make them all do a middle school reading and writing assignment, this column would be required reading. "Read and outline the major points in the following essay, then prepare a well researched written response, summarizing each major point and objectively describing the arguments for and against each. Then write a position statement explaining and justifying your position on each issue."
4
Never voted Republican in my life....but we’re at retirement age and worked hard for over 4 decades to achieve some economic stability. There’s NO WAY we’re going to vote for a socialist revolution and de facto open borders at this stage of our lives.
Boomers had better think twice before signing up for the so-called ‘progressive’ agenda.
14
@Michaela
If I was a boomer, I would vote Democratic Socialist. You would get the benefits of a functioning government and a strong social safety net. If Trump wins again, you will still pay taxes and have no social security or medicare. But it's up to you.
4
@Sophie
The only population to benefit from a “strong social safety net” under the so-called progressive agenda are illegal aliens....while we citizens pay for it.
2
Pardon me, but making education free and accessible to all who would make use of it doesn't reduce or "strip away" the value. In fact, we count on the system of free public education for K-12 to teach our children and guide them through their formative years. We don’t consider high school diplomas useless or invaluable. Access to knowledge should never be restricted to those who can afford it or those willing to burden themselves with a lifetime of debt. Shame on you for believing so.
Policies like free (or at least affordable) education, affordable healthcare, and paid family leave make the country as a whole stronger. We should all do a little more to give everyone a leg up in life and even the playing field. The American dream is one where you can achieve anything you put your mind to, no matter where you begin life. I cringe to see it become a place where your only means of achievement is whatever your fortune can buy.
9
So agree with Brett Stephens. The big, bold ideas that will not get through the Senate will leave the Democrats weakened and empower Trump. The Democratic debates so far remind me of the law of unintended consequences. Devise perfect plans that cannot pass, make Trump look like a plausible alternnative, because with the exception of Biden, no one thinks to talk about defeating him. If I were a GOP ad-maker, I would be in a state of euphoria. The Democrats just did his job for him: open borders and universal healthcare which eliminates private insurance. Watch for those phrases all summer on your TV screen.
9
I am a liberal and a democrat. Bravo!
2
There is no such thing as "Trumpism."
There is only the GOP party platform.
It's not up to the Democratic party to defeat it.
It's up to American voters to clean up this mess.
4
Note to Bret: seriously consider the Greenpeace job. You will take a nasty pay cut, but you will find enough side gigs to get by; besides, think about what you will learn about the earth.
2
Reading the comments here fully explains how the dems can lose to Trump a second time. Depressing.
8
You've got to be kidding. Stephens, long a member of the GOP, is telling us the Democrats have the responsibility to avert disaster? Where the heck was HIS responsibility (and millions like him) in allowing the Republican Party to become the cruel, racist, greedy, undemocratic entity it is? Where is the responsibility of all the Republican members of Congress, who refuse to stand up to Trump?
134
@Susan H
42 percent of registered voters are neither Republicans or Democrats -- we are independent or (in California) no party preference.
We are excluded from voting in primaries -- were only 13 percent of electorate voted in Republican primaries and 13.1 percent voted in Democratic primaries nominated the 2016 candidates.
We are just stuck with a choice between worse and worst.
Political revolution we need is stop the professional politicians in both parties from deciding who the nominees shall be -- through the manipulation of the primary process.
9
@Susan H - Agreed!
2
"But advocates of Medicare for All have no realistic answer to the question of how hospitals are supposed to stay in business when two-thirds of them already lose money on Medicare inpatient services."
The answer is that hospitals aren't supposed to be "in business."
114
@Steve Williams I wish I could recommend your comment 100 times.
7
@Steve Williams
Someone has to pay for hospitals. Even non-profits are in business to break even and not be a drain on society. Most Democrats have questions but no realistic answers. Stephen's is spot on.
19
@Steve Williams
Really? If hospitals aren't supposed to make money how do they survive? Who pays the bills? And if hospitals are not supposed to be 'in business', what about doctors, nurses and all the other people who work in an industry that is 16% of the US economy? Should all of these people be making a set wage ($15/hr perhaps) and just be happy they have a job?
16
As the old saying goes in politics, you can't beat something with nothing. As repugnant as Trump is, he's something. Right now, the Democrats have nothing.
2
Is Brett aware that CUNY when it was primarily City College, had free tuition during the 1st half of the 20th Century and produced a very significant number of Nobel Prize winners. Many public universities had very low tuition in REAL dollars back in the 50's and 60's. We clearly need some way of making Public universities and colleges affordable again.
2
Bret,
Too much hand wringing. Historically, all candidates in the presidential primaries, regardless of party, move toward their base (i.e., toward the extreme), and then come the general election move back toward the center. That is what is happening now with the Democrats, and we can expect more moderation after the nomination process. The only uncertainty is whether Trump can move back towards the center. Thankfully, that is truly unlikely!!
1
@paul5795 The problem with this election is that candidates are having to run further to the Left. The more extreme they go, the more difficulty they'll have moving to the center in the general election. The convention is still a year away, and the candidates' positions will be set in stone for the Trump ad blitz that is already making its appearance. He has a lot more money to spend than he did in 2016, and he'll have plenty of clips to choose from of Democrats promising billions of dollars in spending and accusing every voter to the left of them of racism.
The giveaway in this column is that Bret attacks Medicare for All without evaluating the much more reasonable and doable plan of Medicare as a choice for all. It is a classic straw dog argument to find the most extreme positions of a political party and then attack them as if they represent some sort of consensus.
The Green New Deal could be looked at as a goal to move to over time. It may not be feasible to implement all at once, but some progress toward achieving it may have great value in the same way that car mileage standards have been risen over time due to requirements established by the federal government. Car makers have adjusted to conform to them by primarily devising new technologies. We would still be driving polluting gas guzzlers if it wasn't for the political impact of progressives in our government.
And where does Stephens get the idea that Americans might take offense to Democrats accusing corporations of being un-American? American workers don't give a damn about corporations. They use them just like the corporations use American workers. Loyalty to the workers went out a long long time ago.
"When Warren accuses U.S. multinationals of having “no patriotism” and “no loyalty to America,” does it not occur to her that she’s taking a cheap shot at millions of potential Democratic voters, who might not enjoy hearing that they, too, are deplorable?"
Do you really believe that Amazon employees love and identify with their multinational employer to this degree? That's a field too far for me.
3
"I do not admire anyone embracing the bad idea of free college. The surest way to strip nearly anything of its value is to make it free."
Hm, I guess public education has zero value.
1
Most of the Democratic candidates are well on the way to the circular firing squad they've made famous.
There are good ideas (public option, progressive taxes, better education, expanded health care) and bad ideas (decriminalizing illegal immigration).
But the king of all bad ideas is attacking fellow democrats.
Color me disgusted.
3
I'm sorry Brett but you disqualified yourself for having a valuable opinion with your alternative solution to the New Green Deal.
Your understanding of the root causes of environmental degradation and the possible pathways to solutions is fundamentally flawed.
It is the very adherence to the mantra of "growth, growth, growth" that is the problem. It is the conservative confusion of conflating "growth" with "progress" that impedes any forward movement.
This is not just a difference of opinion. It is a fundamental fact of entropy in a closed system. A fundamental fact that standard economics ignores because it is inconvenient.
If you want to be taking seriously you are going to have to demonstrate some growth of awareness in just how misguided many standard conservative tropes are.
By all means, stay a market-based, small government guy.
But until you recognize how broken the markets are and that "small" does not mean "none" and that corporations actually are *much* more poorly run than government, you don't have a large store of credibility in the advice department.
It's time to grow up, put on your big boy pants, and accept the failure of most conservative orthodoxy (tax cuts, the invisible hand, the wisdom of markets, the role of skill in investment success, survival of ethics in the face of profit pressure, the ethics of corporate governance, the predominance of share-holder benefit in corporate decision making, the assumed inefficiency of regulation, etc.)
2
I am happy to say I think you are wrong, Mr. Stephens. We have three branches of government, each moderating the other two. The candidate need not be perfect (as far as I can remember one of those has never been seen anyway), but the responsibility of voters is to inform themselves and recognize none of the candidates is perfect, and none of them would be king or queen if elected. So cheer up, and try to choose thoughtful and intelligent candidates--the rest of it will take care of itself----if we can do that, my faith in our system will be restored, along with democratic principles which have endured the Trump wrecking ball since 2016.
1
On the one side, there's Joe Biden. He's running far better aginst Trump than anybody else, and it would be insane not to take that seriously. Yet his candidacy is brittle, in the sense that the other three leaders, while severally far behind him, together have at least as much strength as he does; so that his fate in part depends on whether there is a coalescence among them.
Well, in order for that to occur, two of the three would first have to go. I would suppose Harris is the most vulnerable of the three, her "prosecutor" persona having been turned against her. The real problem is that Bernie can't win but is too stubborn to leave. How and when is that going to change?
@Bob Acker You're right, and everyone knows it but Bernie himself.
Many of us were disappointed. Doubling down on open borders, trumps signature issue, was not only bad politics, it's bad policy. Had the democrats had some backbone etc when they were in charge rather than caving to the mass immigration lobby, we wouldn't have had trump to begin with.
2
Excuse me sir, american corporations, ceo and board, NOT EMPLOYEES, are certainly worthy of it, i only have a few minutes but 1, use our data, make billions from it , spend nothing properly protecting it. 2, go repeatedly to gop and get any special legislation you want , just throw some coins in r n c bucket, ps gop deserves worse. 3, Oppose all regulation that safeguards medicine food, clothing , medical devices etc.4, decide we are not making antibiotics anymore unless you guarantee us billions for life and no possibility of lawsuit, dont they have family they want to see healthy. we are totally in a zero sum game race to bottom which means nobody helps anyone else.
1
There are so many things I do not admire about Mr. Stephens piece. First - when Warren accuses U.S. multinationals, I fully believe that she is targeting CEOs and high level management, not "millions of potential Democratic voters." Not at all.
Second - to suggest that the solution to averting a climate disaster is rapid economic growth is pure capitalist folly - more of what helped get us into this mess. A solution may not be "palatable" any more than chemo is to someone with cancer. But fixes to big problems tend to include some pain or tradeoffs. At some point the choice will be more binary - live or die; choices we do not give an increasing number of species.
And so on.
8
@Linda Vigdor. Correct. It seems the nyts can talk about climate change as an issue, but just like the both right and left continue to see growth at any cost, population growth, continued boom and bust, in short business as usual, what got us here as somehow a solution. UNtil they get some backbone, guts and integrity and tell us what we don't want to here, that a whole new paradigm is needed not just a tweak, to fix what is happening, the co2 will continue to go up and our chances of saving ourselves and the planet will go down.
1
“Someone as extreme as Donald Trump ..” Are you kidding me, Bret? Are you saying that tackling our trade iimbalance with China, ignored for years, is extreme? Wanting to establish at least a personal talking relationship with North Korea, Russia, China, etc. is extreme? Tax cuts across the board, inspiring unprecedented economic growth, is extreme? Promoting border erection and acting to bolster our failing immigration laws are extreme actions? Please, Bret, why cant you just admit that the current crop of Democratic candidates look like amateurs next to the can—do president who now occupies the White House.
7
@Joe Gagen -
I can’t answer for Brett, but if you don’t understand why most Americans view Trump as extreme, here are a few examples:
- Alienating our allies, such as Canada, for no discernible reason.
- Openly expressing admiration for murderous regimes. Negotiating with North Korea is one thing; “falling in love” with Kim Jung Un is another ball of wax.
- Trampling on the constitution by bypassing congress.
- Declaring the press the “enemy of the people.”
- Using tariffs as a bludgeon. Actually, using tariffs at all, since they’re a tax on American consumers that rarely solve the problem.
- Ripping up agreements merely for being in someone else’s name.
- Caging children.
- Engaging in open racism.
- Generally behaving like a small child.
... just to name of few. And of course if you think the tax cut was “across the board,” you didn’t understand the tax cut. Not that tax cuts fueled entirely by more debt are a good idea anyway.
As for being can-do... that’s an odd characterization of a President who can’t seem to cooperate with anyone, and who hasn’t really accomplished anything other than a tax cut for the rich and a near-mindless trade war.
2
You screwed up your own party with bad economic policy, horrible wars and covert racist appeals. Now you want the Democrats to step in, take up your agenda and save you from yourself.
12
Some of Warren's and Sanders' policies need adjustments, but pundits who fail to recognize the imperative of a genuinely bold, populist Democratic challenger, passionately backed by people usually turned off by the political process, are a very big part of the problem. We ended up with Donald Trump by ignoring the devastating effects of a decayed system that's lead to such grotesque inequality that a recent MIT study concluded the US economy is equivalent to that of a developing nation, due to the percentage of our population without any economic security. The Democrats failed to read time three years ago: we are in a populist moment. To run a candidate who represents what's lead to this dysfunctional system is to meet Einstein's definition of insanity. Trump won not because of Russia, but because of the tragic influence of corporate money on the political process. Trump ran as a populist. Obviously, he is as fake a populist as one could hope to find; he's the P.T. Barnum of proto-fascist demagoguery. Many outside the bubble understood the likelihood of his victory; their warnings to Dems fell on deaf ears. They knew how screwed the American working class actually is. To cling to the rails of incrementalism as the Titanic slips beneath the waves is what the Democrats did last time, with tragic results. Track those who called the last election accurately. Michael Moore predicted state-by-state who would win. Then tell us our historic responsibility, Mr. Stephens.
3
Once upon a time (probably before Mr. Stephens was born), public universities had tuitions that were so low, they were, for all practical purposes, essentially free.
The City University of New York educated thousands of people for modest amounts without forcing them to take out loans. The education they provided then was not without value, nor would returning to those days change the value of education now.
To say that free education is without value is to damn our entire system of public education (but perhaps Mr. Stephens prefers to spend the $30,000+ per student that private school tuition averages in NYC).
My point: Once upon a time, before conservatives decided to commoditize all services, education and medical care could be had for a reasonable fee. Returning to such a system of reasonableness would cost some number of companies but would improve the lives of the vast majority of Americans.
9
Why do we care so much about the details each candidate proposes? We elect a president, not a King. Congress will moderate any proposal before it ever gets adopted. All we need is a thoughtful, moral person to replace the amoral huckster now pretending to be president -- any Democrat will do.
103
@HowardR because the president’s plan will shape the conversation we have in DC, because the executive branch is an entire third of our federal government and the cabinet will be tasked with shaping and enforcing federal policy, because the president appoints our federal judges that make critical decisions that continue to shape precedent for years after a president leaves office. Yes a president is not a King or Queen, but they have immense influence in this country. We, the voters, should know all we can about what policies they will support, what kind of people they will appoint, and make sure they have a plan for their four years in office. Yes, I’d support any moral, thoughtful person over our current president, but it is our responsibility and duty as US citizens and voters to research the candidates and policies, and yes that means the details of their plans. It’s a small price to pay for democracy.
4
@HowardR Details are essential. Democratic candidates are long on ideas but short on realistic solutions. The result will be that moderates will vote for Trump because a left leaning candidate with an unknown plan is not worth the risk.
3
@HowardR
Any of these `progressives' with their immature plans would lose to Trump next year. That is a problem for you and all others who want Trump defeated.
1
When Elizabeth Warren goes after corporations, she most definitely does not go after their workers. She goes after the CEO's and the wealthiest shareholders who profit on the backs of others. They do show no loyalty to this country, as evidenced by the fact that they lobby for laws that enable them to get away without paying taxes, even as they co-opt the instruments of government to negotiate trade deals that will favor them. Her purpose is to force them to behave. I haven't seen that any ordinary person feels she is calling them deplorable because the corporate behemoths are taking advantage.
4
The columnist writes, "The surest way to strip nearly anything of its value is to make it free." Do you think that fine art and classical music would be stripped of value if it were free and widely accessible? The values that are appropriate in the market aren't necessarily appropriate everywhere. My heart aches.
5
@Anonymous You're confusing items in limited supply, like a Rembrandt original, with something that would be explicitly available to all, free college. He is correct that if there were 25 million original Rembrandts just as there might be 25 million free seats in college classrooms, the value deteriorates immensely.
No, I'm not confusing anything. My entire point was that the value of education is not determined by supply and demand, a market norm. (Capitalism is insidious.)
I think that it'd probably not be a good idea to destroy some Rembrandts to drive up the monetary value of the remaining ones.
2
How sad that you do not value your access to public education. I had a great free* public education with great teachers. I value it highly.
*free: paid for by property taxes and sales taxes
I could not agree with you any more on everyone of your points. And now these candidates attacking President Obama. What will they not do to get the nomination?
And on reparations, you make an excellent point. Just yesterday I read about a Native Americans in the Pacific Northwest who never got a treaty signed, but still had all of their land taken away.
Do we really want 4 more years of tRump? That is the risk.
3
Bret Stephens says he does not «admire anyone embracing the bad idea of free college» and that «the surest way to strip nearly anything of its value is to make it free.» This may be true, but only in societies where education is considered a consumer product rather than an investment in the future for the individual and society. I am a citizen of Norway, where education is free, excellent and in high demand by both Norwegians and foreigners. I may not want to see a hairdresser who charges nothing (you get what you pay for) but I have complete confidence that the free higher education in is top notch; it is not a consumer good but collective good.
9
Mr. Stephens, you did a great job listing wacky ideas espoused by the Democratic party. I hope it occurred to you that this is why Trump won in the first place.
Trump voters already suspected that open borders was a core Democratic ideal. Trump voters also feared that Obamacare was the first step toward doing away with a private insurance market. Trump voters could already see the impact of stifling regulations and government interference on business. In fact, all of the most extreme positions these Democratic candidates are taking were felt sure to come.
The only thing shocking about current Democratic goals is that each of the leading candidates is embracing these goals so openly. No more slippery slope. No more hidden agenda.
All is finally out in the open. You are surprised because you, like most never-Trumpers, never figured out why Donald Trump, warts and all, resonated with half the country the way he did.
1
Says Bret:
"I do not admire anyone embracing the bad idea of free college. The surest way to strip nearly anything of its value is to make it free."
Seems to work in Germany and other European countries...
How did you get your advance degree(s) Mr Stephens? Not everyone has the leg up of being the son of an corporate executive...
4
@Nicholas F
Only the top tier of students get free college in European countries. They are carved out, for the most part, in high school and admittance depends on test scores.
You are mistaken if you think that free college is available to every citizen who wants to go.
Also, the European system is not that different from the way our top tier students are treated. Most in this country get full or partial scholarships based on test scores. Some states, such as Texas, offer free tuition to every person graduating in the top 10% of his or her class.
1
The New York Times is a cheering section for Democratic candidates. But it doesn't challenge its readers to think very hard. Bret Stephens has a point. Universal health care can appear to be an extreme idea.
The reason is population growth. Population growth makes a gradual evolution to universal health care impossible. As the population increases, more and more of the poor fall behind. I am living now in Washington State. A few miles from my home are homeless encampments. The local government tries hard to deal with this problem, with only partial success?
Why is the US encouraging the immigration of more poor from Guatemala when it cannot even take care of its own poor, including those who were born in the US?
How does "open borders" make sense when Americans are dying because they don't get timely cancer screenings or because they cannot afford their insulin?
Democratic candidates are simply lying when they say that America has enough resources to both provide universal health care and encourage unlimited requests for asylum from Guatemala.
Why is the NY Times so mendacious? Because it is clearly a lie to pretend that the problem is "children in cages" when the population of Guatemala exploded from almost 17 million today.
While Democrats sanctimoniously remove Al Franken from the Senate because of unprovable allegations by unnamed women, they don't notice that failing to provide family planning to Guatemalan women has caused our current border crisis!
3
@Jake Wagner Your comment is why 60 million people agree with Trump's claim of "fake news"
Well said.
1
"...some readers will discount this column as unwanted advice from a non-Democrat." Exactly! Spare me.
4
"Wah, we won't listen to you because you are a conservative! AND... FDR!!" Probably sums up many of the comments here today.
3
One more ejected and dejected Republican trying to tell Democrats how to be Republicans. Get over yourself and find some party that wants you.
6
The writing is on the wall Trump will be re-elected with a huge margin. Democrats don’t have a clear agenda and what comes through are the=-left ideology that very few Americans support. Trump is going to win without lifting a finger-the demo candidate do the job for him.
4
I assume this means you admit Republicans are utterly irresponsible.
4
Spot on!
1
Well said.....
Poor bret- trapped by his own baloney.
1
Are you afraid your taxes might go up and that poor people might get some stuff, Bret?
4
Bret tell us that, "The surest way to strip nearly anything of its value is to make it free." Does that mean our public elementary, middle, and high schools have no value?
4
We’re doomed.
More concern trolling from Mr. Stephens.
Please ignore him.
2
Please try watching the debates and going to the source rather than relying on gathering your information from op-eds like this one. Although CNN did all they could to turn the two night event into a reality TV show, some candidates managed to get more policy than drama into their sound bytes and it is really worth a listen and some serious thought. There are many politicians who are taking this campaign seriously despite the "schoolyard tactics" that have prevailed over the last four years in our political system.
Bret Stephens, however, is not helping in clearing the air and eliminating this drama filled arena, instead relying on Republican scare tactics to shut down well researched, well thought out policies that have worked in many states and countries (California has free 2 year college for low income students, most first world nations have an equivalent of "medicare-for-all"). Reading Stephens narrow views and those of other similar pundits rather than going to the source is part of the reason we're in this political mess. I am honestly disappointed in the NYTimes for their very clear slant through these primaries. Please do your research, read the policies, or at the very least watch the debates. It may take some patience but we could all stand to gain some.
4
If you want to know what should worry the lib-to-left crowd most, it’s that so many theorectically on their side can’t identify Stephens’ politics correctly, insist that he’s a Trump supporter, and woyld rather be eaten by weasels than pay attention to what he’s actually saying.
Not a good thing, folks, when you can’t take a intelligent critique as the fair warning it is.
1
Oy, gevalt! Stephens paraphrases Huey Lewis?? How Gen-X of him!
Having sojourned to Jerusalem, you'd think he'd munched on knishes at the Machane Yehuda while being enthralled by the "Yiddish rap" of Matiasyahu.
But, alas; he's apparently been inspired by--egad!--Huey Lewis. Which leads this writer to believe that Stephens, as well as countless other pundits working in Jerusalem, likely as not spent more than a few hours at the American Colony Hotel on Saladin St., quaffing Taybeh and listening to Casey Kasem's "American Top 40."
1
Wow, the Democratic party has really gone off the deep end, hasn't it?
Oh, if only they had a sensible moderate with a large lead over the rest of the field.
Um, what's that you say?
3
Democrats have shifted because of Trump, and it's no use wishing they kept their composure like Obama did so long ago. But fear and loathing afflicts both parties; the Republicans and Democrats are the way they are because the country is the way it is.
“I do not admire anyone embracing the bad idea of free college. The surest way to strip nearly anything of its value is to make it free.”
This isn’t what the Swedes think where college is free. Perhaps you should look at the New Mexico model for graduates from New Mexico’s high schools attending an in-state college. They have a practical and admirable program.
2
Come November 2020, I will vote for a hot water heater with a D on it. For now, however, I've had it with the infighting, the outrage, and the ridiculous number of haven't got a prayer candidates. I'll be there with bells on in 2020. Until then, I'm ghosting the lot of them.
3
Don't give up on that Greenpeace job, Bret. You never know what might happen!
1
Why does everyone forget that Don the Con actually LOST the popular vote by 3 million votes, and only won election because of 77,000 votes in the smaller counties of three midwestern states. Less-educated White men will never rejoin the Democratic party, and the "Working Class" is now almost entirely young millenials, people of color, or women. Appealing to "moderates" by being Republican-lite is a sure way to lose the election. Better to galvanize the forces of change with progressive ideals and plans, register new voters who feel left out of the discourse on America's future, and let Republicans twist slowly in the flatulence of Trump's tweets.
5
Stephens writes: "I admire Pete Buttigieg, but his proposal to add six more justices to the Supreme Court is a bridge too far even for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It’s also an invitation to reckless institutional revision by whoever happens to be in power — which, at some point, will be another president in the mold of Trump."
The assumption is that such an initiative would disrupt our unwritten constitition, i.e., the unwritten norms on which our democracy depends. Once that assumption is stated, it seems clearly open to question. McConnell broke a norm specifically affecting the Supreme Court when he declined to advance Merrick Garland for a vote. Trump breaks unwritten norms daily - with his continuing efforts to corrupt justice and national security only the most notorious examples.
Whatever its ultimate merits, Buttigieg is right that the norms have been violated and not just by Trump. The SC proposal would reconfigure the Supreme Court membership to function like an arbitration panel, i.e., with representatives of two parties selecting a third independent member for the panel. It may not be the best solution, but Buttigieg is right that we cannot ignore the GOP's assaults on democratic government and its norms and address the mounting crises our country must confront in a future that is coming all too soon.
3
"I liked hearing a candidate call attention to the fact that if we simply withdraw our forces from Afghanistan, we will invite a humanitarian catastrophe “that will startle and frighten every man, woman and child in this country.” "
Bret Stephens, do yourself a favor: Spend 11 months at war in Afghanistan, like I did ten years ago--in combat, watching young American men and women die for nothing--and then you tell me why we, the American people, should continue sending Americans to die for nothing in Afghanistan in 2019.
Americans who have never spent one day in combat in Afghanistan are so very quick to parrot the Pentagon/CIA line that we must "stand fast and things will turn around." After you have seen an American's brains in your lap because he got blown away by an IED that was paid with US reconstruction aid money that went directly from the hands of the Afghan government to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, you will think very differently.
The Afghans want stability and peace? Good. All the college students of fighting age in Kabul could volunteer tomorrow, grab a rifle and ammo, to save their own country.
But they aren't too keen on that. They haven't done that since September 11th. And they're not going to start now.
Meanwhile, 1,000 Jason Bournes in Afghanistan and Pakistan will end our troubles there very quickly. It won't take 18 years. More like 9 months.
Afghanistan is a clandestine war. So is Pakistan.
Don't send grunts. Send counterterrorists.
6
Bret Stephens is one of the few voices of reason at the NY Times, which has become too partisan, and simply encourages Democratic candidates without forcing readers to think too hard about what candidate promises might entail.
A big hole in the coverage of the NY Times is population growth. It is almost never mentioned.
Several of the Democratic candidates have proposals for universal health care. But open borders would overburden any universal health care system.
A vist to India would help explain why. Or reading the excellent book, "Beyond the Beautiful Forevers" by Katernine Boo which explains life in the Mumbai slums. Because slums is what happens when population grows too rapidly.
Politicians pass mandates for health care but the resources are just not there. People go to hospitals but there aren't enough doctors. Or medicine. So people die on the streets.
That's what will happen with open borders over time.
You want universal health care? You need to start by training more physicians. And that means smaller families (at most two children) so that there are enough resources to train the doctors.
The training of doctors needs to increase at the same rate as population growth. And if it doesn't, you need fewer children.
Population growth is the reason Guatemala is poor. And open borders will simply import that poverty into the US.
Over time, the population becomes less educates and makes worse and worse choices. That is already happening in the US.
3
@Jake Wagner: Nobody here wants "open borders", including presidential candidates, so your analysis is without any foundation. As for illegal immigrants, they already have access to health care, in the form of the ER, just like other uninsured people. We pay for that already and more than necessary when the visit could have been prevented in the first place with a timely visit to a family doctor or nurse. The Republicans don't want to invest in public education and women's health care. On the contrary, they want to close Planned Parenthood that provides family planning advice, contraceptives and if needed, abortions. Both education (of girls first of all) and easy access to family planning resources, would lead to better educated and smaller families.
3
"Hey, Mr. Grumpy Gills… " Stephens is down because he's spent his entire professional career supporting a political and economic philosophy which is a sham at best. May I recommend voting third party next time.
For all the many gripes and absurdities presented here I'd like to focus on two.
"Democrats did well in last year’s midterms thanks to vote switchers electing moderate candidates like Utah’s Ben McAdams."
Utah is extremely Republican but also highly anti-Trump. Trump did not win the majority in Utah. Ben McAdam's victory was the result of: 1) He's well known in the highly liberal Salt Lake County. 2) His district is the least gerrymandered of Utah's four. 3) Conservatives were seeking to repudiate both Trump and Hatch. And 4) Marijuana, Medicaid expansion, and gerrymandering were on the popular ballot bringing out otherwise dormant midterm voters. They all got approved.
"I do not admire anyone embracing the bad idea of free college. The surest way to strip nearly anything of its value is to make it free."
Bret obviously never learned about the present and future value of money. College is already "free." You don't need to pay anything to attend college. Your loans place the burden of payment on your future self. A person who is most definitely not the same person who attends classes in the present. People wasting small fortunes NOT graduating is a common practice today. Most of America attends some college. Only a third actually graduate. There's your value.
1
"reckless institutional revision by whoever happens to be in power"
Go talk to Mitch McConnell first.
5
@BretStephens you overlooked a comparatively viable candidate who is so institutional and competent that CNN ignored her for being boring: Amy Klobuchar! She sidesteps culture war issues and takes procedure-based positions on climate action, health insurance reform, and trade. She has much less baggage than Hillary in 2016 or Joe Biden this year, and as a woman she’d satisfy the Democratic yearning to make history. Maybe pundits are looking past Amy Klobuchar for being so conventional and prudent, but the Toyota Camry of presidential candidates deserves to be reviewed.
4
This is all just a media feeding frenzy. Too many candidates with too little air time trying desperately to increase donations and make the final cut. They all hate Trump. They all want to help the middle class and do something about global warming. (*I've actually been proud their efforts.) But notice what 'debate' moment that got the biggest media coverage: Harris going after Biden for a 40 year-old vote. Does bussing speak to Americans' current worries/problems? I guess it made for ratings friendly content in the endless post debate analysis but I don't believe people are worried about bussing (or that Biden is a racist.) Or, when people like Warren or Sanders try to articulate their policies in these tiny soundbites, pundits jump on them for being too left. I get it, because of the stakes (Trump) people are worried. I've decided to watch and breathe and wait until we have three or four viable candidates with the time to tell us their vision for America. Actually, given the way this has played out, I would have advised Biden to just skip this circus and say, "Americans know where I stand. I'll let the new comers have their time and then join the debate when I can speak for more than one minute."
3
You lost me with the bit about US multinationals getting alienated.
Are there really “millions of potential democratic voters” who are going to be offended by Warren’s comment?
She speaks truth. Corporations put profit before country. They pay no taxes. They move jobs overseas. To claim otherwise is very naive.
7
We've been in the Middle East for most of my life. It's long past due we got out.
5
I can’t trust Mr. Stephens because he repeats the same talking points without any semblance of a deeper dive into the basis for any of the policies he dislikes. And it galls me that he finds fault with Inslee, again repeatedly, for being unable to pass a carbon tax that the fossil fuel industry attacked mercilessly with millions of dollars. Who is thee real culprit here? Let’s not be so wedded to a narrow viewpoint.
4
First of all, no one "lost" to Trump. A candidate succumbed to the electoral college of this nation. The candidate who "won" garnered 3 million more votes.
Second, which employee of any corporation like Wal Mart or Amazon is saying "whoa, I'm living on the edge here, but I can at least take comfort that my company is looking out for me." Yeah, those days & thoughts ended in the 1980s. Employees of large companies know they are a bottom line.
Trump won the nomination, but the pendulum swing coming back will be fierce.....we've seen what can happen when the marginalized come out and throw a lightning bolt into the election.
It's very easy to see Warren or Sanders winning the primary (Sanders narrowly lost to Hills) and then going on to win the presidency. What happens after that & tomorrow is anyones guess.
5
@M. Amazon already increased its minimum wage to $15/hour, showing leadership over the candidates on this issue. Now Trump, who holds a personal grudge against Jeff Bezos, wants to go after AWS and its (potential) $10 billion government contract. If I worked for Amazon, I know where my loyalty would stand.
This was one of the most surreal columns by someone who's opinions I usually respect if not agree with. On the issue of healthcare for all, our country already pays for it in the form of emergency rooms across the country that are required to treat all comers. So what is extreme about trying to pay less for healthcare than we already do and get better results? Absolutely nothing. This is what the rest of the modern world does because otherwise good healthcare becomes only for the rich, which is indeed an extremist position.
7
If your only goal is to see Mr. Trump lose the next election, not that I endorse such a position, then please seek a credible Republican challenger so that you would not have to list all the areas of disagreement you have with Democrats. Perhaps that would be an easier task than designing a Democratic candidate you are in perfect agreement with.
2
Brett - whille you might no like some of the solutions that are put forth, some are baed on tried and true solutions that have worked well elsewhere and it is not beyond question to try to adapt them in the US. This compares to the utterly Baron Von Munchausen whoppers that have been told by Trump. Remember the " I will get rid of Obamacare and my plan will be less costly, more will be covered and it will be cheaper", When he shilled his actual health care program, fourteen million Americans were kicked of the health car they had. A socialized insurance program is no pie in the sky fantasy, it seems to work very well with out friends accross the border. Our system is way more expesive and covers less , in large part because of a bloated and unecessay middle man. Far from this system being pie in the sky, there have never been in the history of the world a socalled "free enterprise" health system that worked. I have to laugh about the so called delays in the Canadian system when living in an area with very good insurance and great medical facilities, I had to wait about the same time for knee replacement surgery in Boston that right wing politicians wail about when they attack the wait time in Canada for a similar procedure. Change is not easy but to criticise politicians for trying to go three steps forward, even if we initially go one step back, is short sighted and unhelpful.
4
Didn't take much trouble setting up these straw men, did you Mr. Stephens?
Can't help but wonder how many hundreds of thousands who benefitted from CA's virtually "free" college education in the days before Reagan found it of no value.
Similar questions about the benefits of the corporations who created the conditions that Trump took advantage ofl, supplied the money for his campaign and now have more than 350 corporate lobbyists and officers installed in his administration.
Yeah, they do supply the jobs, but worker share of profit has declined significantly in the last forty years, also thanks to the cororations you so trust and admire.
4
@Ken Winker
Sorry that I can only give your comment one up vote
At the end of this essay, Bret Stephens admits that he is not a Democrat. Too bad politics has become so polarized that we cannot accept good ideas from Republicans as well as Democrats.
Republican politicians sometimes deny the importance of global warming. Democrats on the other hand do not see that the primary driver of global warming is population growth. World population has doubled since about 1972.
In 1972, the book Limits to Growth appeared. This should be required reading for every person who claims to be interested in long term political strategy for the US. Aware that much of the future is unpredictable, this book described various outcomes that might occur if the world continued on the path of population growth.
It studied the possible implications of running out of resources and environmental destruction, but did not exactly predict global warming. But global warming is clearly one implication of too much population growth.
Democrats also seem to believe that resources are unlimited. That's simply not true.
Universal health care would be possible for Americans but not if we continue to support open borders.
I voted for Trump in 2016 because I simply could not support Hillary Clinton who seemed to argue for open borders.
We need to stop illegal immigration to afford universal health care. Bernie Sanders seems to at least acknowledge that we need to address poverty in Guatemala.
If elected he might help Democrats come to their senses.
3
Speaking of coming to one’s senses, this just in: Trump has attacked every single pop control and contraception program that exists, wnd chopped their funding to boot.
I always find Bret so fascinating in that he recognizes that his party is completely broken yet he doesn't look to himself to ask what role HE played in its demise as well as why is he not working to fix his party RATHER than look to the other party and insist it fix itself up to be palatable to him.
Unbelievable.
3
If Trump wins it will be because of Republicans, just like it was last time. They were the ones who allowed him to run as their candidate despite the fact that many of his core beliefs are not Republican beliefs. Republicans did it out of a fear of losing the presidential race believing that if they let him run as an independent he would steal too many votes. Republicans support him out of fear of losing power which is the only thing they care about.
All you do, Bret, is spread fear. This whole column is "I'm so scared and you should be too." The Democrats are not Republicans. Even if Karl Marx became the Democratic president, if his policies defied the beliefs of a Democratic member of Congress there is a good chance they wouldn't vote for it because it will make the President happy. Democrats are truer to their constituents than any Republican who appeal to their sensibilities, use them for their votes, and then vote the way of their owners.
And yes, Bret, most of the owners are multi-national corporations who set the value of the plurality of the American citizenry, as you pointed out. It is painfully clear that they value their stockholders and executives far, far more than their employees and the general public as evident in so many different ways. And bringing up "deplorables" to raise that specter of indignation was a nice touch.
It is valid to fear Trump because of what he has done. To fear ideas that a Democratic president might pursue is childish.
2
"Democrats are not up to their historic responsibility?"
Give them time, Bret.
After all, we're still only at the pruning phase.
3
Gee. Extremes sure worked for Trump.
3
"I realize some readers will discount this column as unwanted advice from a non-Democrat."
I don't. I'm a dem and I agree with everything you said.
We're a 2 party country where one party is the party of white nationalism, racism, and fiscal irresponsibility and the other party is a party of socialist bleeding heart liberalism and fiscal irresponsibility.
What do we do?
Where do we go?
2
@joann Right, one party takes care of the world's rich, the other takes care of American workers & the poor. I know where my best interests lie, do you?
1
Brett, don't sell yourself short -- you would do a great job as director of Greenpeace!
1
Basically Trump is campaigning as a fascist but is not using that term to describe his agenda. Trump has not invented anything but he has a crazy personality which translates well to television which thrives on the bizarre as does social media. The only candidate that Democrats have to match Trump in craziness is Marianne Williamson who peddles bogus medical theories for a living by selling books filled with nonsensical ideas. She might be the one Democrat who could definitely defeat. She may be more bizarre than he is and television will eat that up.
How about Andrew Yang, Bret?
"It's not left, it's not right. It's forward."
Bet you did not anticipate that one.
You are high on Buttigieg, but you only rated Yang's performance in the second debate a 4/10.
Yang is not reinforcing stereotypes about Asian guys and math. He is reclaiming the stereotype in order to circumvent the received stereotypes of Left and Right and the orchestrated attacks on individual politicians that ensue.
You, on the other hand, are stuck in received political categories. You would relegate Yang to a backroom position as an Asian number-cruncher when you casually suggest he would make a good ambassador to the World Economic Forum.
Yang's "math" is his shorthand for his calculus of socioeconomic vectors in service of improving the standard of living and quality of life.
How refreshing!
1
You are a Republican. You have been your entire life. Why would any Democrat care at all about what you think is best for the party? Consider writing a column on Mitch McConnell or Donald Trump. Maybe ask them to appeal to people to the left of them.
5
Making college free devalues it? Tell that to my generation in the UK. College wasn’t just free they gave you a grant to live on. It didn’t devalue the experience. In fact I’d say it did the opposite given so many of my age were the first in their entire family to go to university. Get real. Would ‘free’ healthcare devalue it to? None of this stuff is free. It’s all still paid for.
This paper is turning into a Murdoch rag I’m afraid.
3
We aren't trying to please Bret Stephens
5
This hard right Republican ideologue gives himself a delusional measure of credit. Not merely “some readers” are resoundingly rejecting this piece as a complete waste of limited column inches. Like the claimed purity of a particular brand of soap, the accurate figure is 99.9%
3
Why don't the Never Trumpers try to drum up some real Republican opposition for the primary instead of trying to get Democrats to be Republicans? Actually, that's what happened to your party anyway. Once Clinton claimed the center, balancing the budget, etc., etc., the Republicans moved so far to the right they elected the baby Mussolini wannabe.
5
When the name of a recent Democrat president shows up on the list of convicted pedophile's roster -- Jeffrey Epstein-- it becomes increasingly difficult for Democrats to claim to be occupying the moral high ground in comparison with the blatantly nihilistic Donald Trump. I fear for America's future when its citizens regard endemic corruption with a simple shrug of shoulders.
3
I as a liberla left democrat who was a long time member of the DSA agree with everything you say. You know how to get more Democrats to listen? Renounce your membership in the Trump party as George Will has done and join the Democratic Party. If you remain in the Trump Party, I dont want to sully the name of Lincoln by calling this neo-confederate party the party of Lincoln, then you will be ignored. You can't create a party of the center right anymore than anyone could have created such a party is Germany in 1932.....help us create a party of the center left. Our lives,our democracy depends on this.
2
The Republicans have descended into white nationalism and fascism. Democrats and the rest of the civilized world do not think providing health care for its citizens is extreme. Other countries have been able to care for their citizens and provide prescription drugs that they can afford instead of sending them to some other country to buy their meds just to stay alive. That is extreme.
1
Bret,
Are you against free high school as well?
1
This is pretty much a Fox News right wing extremist talking points editorial dressed up as independent thought. Single payer health care is not extreme, it's normal. No one has even defined what "decriminalizing the border" even means. But it plays well with the racist GOP, because you know, all Dems are for Open Borders. Ask for 6 more Supreme Court justices, compromise on 2. And on and on. As someone else so succintly stated recently, "I'd vote for Bozo the Clown before Trump." Those who do vote for him are just your garden variety American racists, with Fox pushing the talking point lies as cover.
3
Bret needs to convince me he speaks for anyone other than a few dozen NeverTrump guys in Northern Virginia.
2
Good grief! Why should Democrats care what a Republican columnist wants in a candidate? You're unhappy with your party's leader, we get that, but the antidote is not my party's candidate being a Republican-lite white man who makes you feel good about voting again.
3
You need to stop pretending you are not a Republican. You are a neo-conservative. You need to understand that the president is titular and you and your party put him there. You may not like that fact but it is nonetheless, a reality. Donnybob is stacking the courts exactly the way the Republican party wanted. And the Republican party is successfully doing what they have preached forever reducing a democratic constitution and drowning it in a bathtub. You are part of this Mr. Stephens please stop pretending you are not.
4
Neither is Brett, but you don’t hear people complaining... oh wait
Rubbish! The country is so far behind the rest of the developed world that the issues discussed by the Democratic Party's most "radical leftists" would have been brought up in 1969 had Humphries beaten Nixon. We're fifty years behind where we should be. When would be a good time to begin to join the rest of the world?
3
Will you please run for president?
@Neil Grossman
As an independent (& Civil War buff) I disagree with your politics but you’re spot on with the Abe Lincoln/John Brown comparisons of the more leftist Dem candidates. The radical ideas of open borders and “free”..you name it “promises” from self-righteous so-called social justice “warriors” makes for decent “feel good” talking points...but will not play in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and/or Florida. Mr. Stephens seems to have actually stepped out of the NYT echo chamber and actually listened to some less blue Americans.
The debates are turning into a bizarre season of Survivor. My money is on Trump, who isn't even a participant.
1
Hey Bret, I'll have to respectfully disagree that, if we withdraw from Afghanistan, every man, woman, and child in this country would be affected at all. For one thing, it seems like most people that I have known or met in the US, are very lacking in World Current Events. What they might or might not know about Afghanistan would come down to knowing someone whose brother went to Afghanistan and now has PTSD and cannot work. And I'd say, for the most part, Americans don't care anyway.
2
Best comment was Tim Ryan's that, sadly, came after the debate when he remarked that outlawing private health insurance would result in the Democrats losing 48 states, and he was at a loss to determine which of the two remaining states they'd win.
This pandering to a real or imagined base, detached from thought or reason, is indeed suicidal. And it's robbing a genuine majority of people distressed on multiple levels by the current administration of their energy and optimism.
5
I just watched a chilling documentary about the Weather Underground. Initially, part of the SDS, they broke away to take a more violent approach. They were so pure that they became irrelevant, and devoured themselves from within - a phenomenon I see happening today in the Democratic Party. Nobody learns from history.
3
With one exception, I agree pretty much with everything you say.
Biden does not espouse any of the fringe looney policies. We must unite behind the one experienced candidate who is moderate and who can take on Trump.
Biden, 2020.
1
If (I hope, when) the Democratic nominee wins the 2020 election, it's likely that he or she will have campaigned on a platform of extravagant progressive poetry. But, faced with many goals and problems, but limited means, isn't it most likely that he or she will govern in pragmatic, centrist prose?
1
Climate mitigation? Hmm. I can just hear the oil and gas industries ten years from now justifying business as usual because, after all, there are all those people out there planting trees.
3
The Democratic candidate will be decided by Democrats- that's how primaries work. The 'never Trump' Repubs here (and in Washington Post) do not represent a significant constituency. The Democrats will not choose a `Republican lite' candidate because that's what YOU want.
You can focus on getting your party to run another candidate, or on breaking up the Trump cult. Or be helpful by sticking to the facts (eg like Jennifer Rubin). Explain the range of what different people mean by 'free college' (since some states are trying to implement it). Explain the range of what different people mean by Medicare for All (how will the balance of paying more in taxes but less in premiums work out).
And for goodness sake, talk to some actual people who have hourly wage jobs at major corporations and see if they 'love' their jobs and their private insurance.
Just lecturing Democrats to be more like pre-Trump Repubs is disingenuous.
4
Unbelievable, and outrageous. We have in my view a very smart group of patriots running on the Democratic side, each ready to restore our democracy. It is the deep hypocrisy and irresponsibility of the Republicans currently in power that is at the heart of our mess -- in race, environment, inequality, healthcare, world standing.
4
Here is a history lesson for Mr Stephens, as well as corporate Democrats.
The Democratic Party lost the election not to "Russian interference" but because the Democrats offered more of the same. Clinton was clearly the choice of Wall Street and the Hawks. She was the "responsible" Democrat candidate. No substantive changes to Obamacare or the social safety net at a time US society is hurting (even in a period of economic growth)
Candidates like Bernie Sanders gives the US electorate an opportunity to vote for a social democratic government for perhaps the first time it its history since FDR.
While that may be horrible to millionaires in the corporate media, it isn't for the communities that suffer from a lack of investment in infrastructure, that are fragmenting from deindustrialization, lack basic health insurance, and are sick of hundreds of billions going to fund a hawkish military policy abroad and a surveillance state at home.
It's high time that American capitalism run amok is reighned in.
Sanders is listening to the Democratic Party base and giving them a voice. Maybe so should the rest of the Democratic Party leadership.
5
The Middle Ages were largely corporate. But America is not a corporate state simply because it produces massive companies that dominate the world—which provide jobs and goods to the common people. Some of us want reforms so that powerful, deep-pocketed, well-organized interests don’t dominate the legislature. That’s something different than attacking successful corporations as such.
The criticism of corporations from the Chomskyites is really getting tiresome. And the implication of the context wherein you used the word “capitalism” implies that it’s something only millionaires benefit from, which is trash. Free-market capitalism has done more to lift people out of abject poverty than every for-the-People revolutionary who ever lived.
As for wars, we live in a globalized world with many who simply share neither our humanistic values nor our concern for accountable democratic government. Which superpower in history ever had a Danish foreign policy? Indeed, it is our raw power that has allowed Denmark to become Denmark in the first place, or at least to remain so. The Left has a worse grasp of the world than Alabamians listening to Rush Limbaugh every day.
The craziest people on the Right are the most uneducated; on the Left, the inverse. And this is quite worrying for the future of the Democratic Party, considering the growing influence of people like you. There is a perverse part of me that hopes leftists succeed so they can stew in their own juices, so to speak. Good day.
@David L, Jr.
Ironically Mississippi is one of the US states that gets far more in US Federal dollars than it pays in Federal taxes. So MS is more a freeloader state than a free market one.
Yet, what does MS get for all of its "free market" ideology. It's second worse in the union on education, health care coverage and economic performance.
It is a little tiring getting lectures from ideologues who only have failure on their resumes.
Let's talk about the successes of US military policy in the last 25 years. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, East Africa. Explain to me how the world is safer. Are the Kurds safer, are the Taliban defeated, are all the "strong men" gone?
Really. And as for do the millionaires only benefit in the current growth, the answer is yes. Since 1990, the top 1% of the population have increased its share of wealth from 23% of national wealth to over 40%. If you think this is a sustainable model you're entitled to your opinion. But the facts disagree with you strongly.
4
Mr. Stephens:
Institutional revision - like when Mitch McConnell decided the president doesn't get to nominate supreme court justices if they don't belong to the same party as the senate majority leader?
Full-scale catastrophe at the border - because the people are making the decision to leave their homes and make a long and dangerous journey to a foreign land based on their understanding of USC Title 8, Section 1325?
Medicare for All will bankrupt all of the hospitals - because we can't adjust the rates to make sure hospitals and health care providers are viable while still cutting out the profit component of the privatized system? Because every other country that has adopted single-payer health care has bankrupted their nation's hospitals?
Supporting wealth redistribution and addressing income inequality is being against the common employee of the multinational corporations that are making billions of profit off of the labor of those employees while failing to provide meaningful wage increases - can you spell nonsense?
Because slavery reparations would naturally lead to reparations for Native Americans - the first logical thing you've said!
I appreciate that you admit you are not a Democrat. Given that you don't believe any any of the core principles of the Democratic Party, it is wholly appropriate that you are not.
10
As a physician, I am so tired of hearing people who, frankly, know nothing about medicine claiming that Medicare for All will bankrupt hospitals.
Mr. Stephens, if you had ever attempted to see how a hospital actually works, instead of just bloviating about it in your inimitable sniffy way, you would have seen that armies of people in every hospital spend their time doing one thing - dealing with insurance companies. In fact, currently in the US, there are 10 hospital administrators for every 1 physician! If there are no insurance companies to deal with, these people will not need to be employed, and hospitals will save a huge amount of money.
Not enough to be in the black, you say? Okay, fine - then we will simply have to do what every other advanced country does: Regulate medical costs. Do not permit pharmaceutical companies the obscenely high profit margins they routinely generate. Prevent physicians from making the huge salaries they do today, out of synch with salaries in every other country. And, perhaps most importantly, cap the pay of hospital executives, many of whom make millions of dollars a year in a supposedly “helping” profession, often at the head of supposedly “non-profit” institutions.
If we eliminate the pathetic waste of effort that is the modern American health insurance system, and move medicine away from the rent-seeking money-churn it has sadly become, you will not have to worry about hospitals going belly up.
332
@Wesley Clark, MD, MPH Excellent and succinctly stated about the glut of administrators in our hospitals today.
26
@Wesley Clark, MD, MPH Thank you!
24
@Wesley Clark, MD, MPH
Can you be a bit more specific regarding which physicians’ salaries you propose docking? .... The orthopedic surgeon who earns $800k+? The primary care doc who earns $190k? Both?
8
Once again, I am tired of ex-republicans criticizing Democrat candidates. We honestly don't want your opinion on the issue. Please attend to your own party, we will attend to ours.
5
National healthcare is extreme?
Only for those in living in a regressive 20th century conservative bubble, Brett.
Every industrialized nation on the planet has had national healthcare for over half a century.
On average, other wealthy countries spend about half as much per person on health than the U.S. spends.
American exceptionalism or exceptionally foolish Americans?
6
@guy veritas
All part of the plan to cull the noisome masses. They include disenfranchised white blue collar sorts condemned to an early death with 'food' laden with high fructose corn syrup. And let us not even consider the fate of inner city minorities who are fatalistically left to their own devices with a criminal subculture allowed to prosper to keep them in check, too.
1
We need to wait until the field is much reduced in order to draw any conclusions. However if my choice is between someone who proposes:
1. Action on climate
2. Moving towards universal healthcare
3. Reducing debt and servicing costs for college students
4. Women's reproductive rights
5. Reducing wealth inequality
6. A higher national minus wage
7. Sensible and humane legislation on immigration.
..... and someone who opposes all of those things, then I will support that candidate, whoever they are and in whatever way they propose achieving those ends - and my guess is, come November 2020, so will every Democrat and a good number of independents.
There is nothing unrealistic or unachievable here. The only threat to a better America is the gullibility of the electorate which will be faced, once again, with lies, scare tactics, and any number of devious propagandist devices originating from the crony capitalist incumbency that currently runs the country, ably assisted by the oligarchical media outlets, including the NYT who insist on going on and on about ho pathetic all the candidates are.
1
I am not a big fan of yours, Mr.Stephens but you've made some good points here. The way to remove the stain in the White House is with actual policies and not posturing or theatrics.
The Democrats on display are not impressive and while all are more human and decent than the unspeakable one in office they will not win against him without real content. The GOP has already officially given up its soul, heart and mind. If the Democrats can't win this election than they don't deserve to and the world will continue on it's rapid downward spiral. Tell me it ain't so, please.
There is no difference in foreign policy between the two parties. That is very sade, no honest debate about the military budget, the wars or any Israel politic.
Democrats are progressive concerning domestic issues and even there anything but extreme.
The extremists are on the right, with or without Trump. The nation is more likely to be fascistic than social-democratic.
Trump is the product of American culture and education.
What Bret wants is a reasonable Republican party backing each of his well thought out center right policy points. He really needs to work on making that happen. Then we will have two actual parties again.
3
@Renaldo Morocco
Indeed! Then we can have a reasoned discussion about why their policies are awful, rather than having to waste all of our time and effort dealing with their people that are awful.
3
"I liked hearing another candidate acknowledge that the only realistic way to get to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 is to “innovate our way out of this problem.”"
I like hearing that too, but this is obviously not true. It is one of the possible ways to get to zero carbon emissions, but certainly not the only way. No, "innovating your way out of the problem" over 30 years is the ideal outcome. Unfortunately, reality may not be so kind as to comply with such ideal goals. I can picture some alternatives, from the more optimistic "innovate less, implement more", which posits that the solutions exist, we just need political and personal willpower to implement them, to the outright dark, such as famine and war downsizing the global economy.
Alas, just reading the headline of this column, I knew I didn't need to read further. Why has the Democratic Party become such an ineffective force? It has lost all direction and leadership in my state, as well in the nation. Were direct primaries a good idea? Did we do better when the party had to develop a structure, from the bottom up, and validate leaders? And better when candidates had to fight it out at conventions? Did President Obama do a disservice to the nation by not paying attention to building back the party from the grassroots level up? Did the Clintons serve only their own ambitions and help destroy the party?
And, once again, why are Democratic Party leaders not focusing on the Senate?
3
I’m 69, graduated with a BA in history (with honors) in 1972 before going on to grad school (Princeton), where I got a masters (not in history).
I started college (undergrad) in 1968–the University of California at Santa Cruz (Stevenson College), then much in demand among. (A very different era.) As a UCSC student I spent my junior year at Edinburgh University in Scotland studying art and art history.
As I recall, tuition cost me (not my parents) about $200 a quarter. I went to school 3 quarters/year for 4 years. If I’m right about the tuition being about $200/quarter, and I’m pretty sure I am (since I wrote the checks), for a BA from a reputable—and certainly an accredited—university, excluding room and board, I paid a total of about $2,400.
College doesn’t have to be free, but it dies have to be affordable for any student with the grades and test scores to get in.
Nobody but nobody should have to forgo a college education for lack of dough to pay for it. Nobody in America, if America’s to be great (again).
4
I went to Brooklyn College in the late fifties-early sixties. It was virtually a free school, as were all the other city colleges in NYC. Hearing talk about free college being a radical idea makes me angry that we cannot even remember our own recent path.
5
Oh, right, something "extreme" like, free education tuition. Let me tell you something..I went to school nearly tuition free - cost me $5.00 (five dollars) per class for the two-year college and then about $2,000 per year tuition for 4-year college. Note that "free" does not cover room and board or expenses - which are significant - paid by working half time. I got out (in 1978) with $1,500 in debt, got a good job and paid that off in a year. Since then I have supported the economy substantially and paid loads of taxes to support our society. And that is the benefit of "free" education - and it should be any sort of education past high school (barring the grossly over-priced mills that Devos proposes -mostly worthless degrees for extortionate payments).
Free tuition for post-high school education of any sort is not extreme. Indeed, it is perfectly rational and a huge benefit to society. The payback is enormous. Anyone thinking this is "extreme " is simply clueless.
Brett, you can educate yourself as to the benefits. Please do so, and you can then stop being clueless.
5
Brett: You are so close to the truth in your analysis, and its discouraging to anyone who wants Trump replaced by a rational candidate who does not want to get ahead by publicly demonizing anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him. Yes, the Republican Party has become horrible to many of us who cherish Ronald Reagan. But it seems clear from these debates that the only party worse than the Republicans are this latest version of the Democratic Party.
This Democratic Party has come a long way from the days of JFK (strong foreign policy; tax cuts; civil rights) and even LBJ (Vietnam, voting rights & Great Society). This Democratic Party has evolved from its roots as a white supremacist and agrarian populist party to a politically correct, nationalistic, identity driven, mish mash of ideologies in conflict with traditional American values. No wonder any right thinking person looking for an alternative to Trump is frustrated by viewing these debates.
That is why it is so important for the Democrats to nominate someone like Biden or one of the other moderates that those of us in the middle can support. Two important words for the Democrats to consider: McGovern & Mondale!
2
Even more important FDR and LBJ
1
If you support Biden you’re not in the middle. You’re a Reagan democrat. The middle has shifted so far right you’ve forgotten where it started.
1
Yes Obama warned the dems of circular firing squad and sure enough the egos of the candidates decided to attack Obama the most popular democrat president since FDR. Reality of the electoral college deciding the race with midwest states calling the shots and understanding those voters are moderate not coastal liberals . Hoping and wishing they were far left liberals will not make it so and attacking other democrat candidates as opposed to the enemy Trump makes little sense. Do they realize that Trump with no shame and loudest megaphone in the world will lie and distort any fact he can and with FOX NEWS STATE TV echoing his distorted lies they best get together to fight Godzilla of the media or we will have dictator Trump in 2021.
1
You wonder "how hospitals are supposed to stay in business when two-thirds of them already lose money on Medicare inpatient services."
I don't know the full details of the candidates' various "Medicare for All" plans, but hospitals should not be "in business" to make a profit for shareholders or private owners or the government or anyone else. Until we make medicine a not-for-profit field, we're going to be stuck with a bloated and prohibitively expensive bureaucracy.
That's exactly what's wrong with our existing healthcare "system": It is driven entirely by for-profit insurance companies. Everything a hospital does -- how it bills, what it charges -- is determined by accounting rather than by the practice of medicine. Too much of a hospital's resources are devoted to gaming insurance regulations rather than providing the best medical care.
8
I can only reluctantly agree with your final analysis that some of the Democratic party candidates platforms can backfire with much of the electorate and keep them with Trump, however, the reasoning lies not with the audacity of the Dems platforms, with the exception of the green new deal which is a bridge too far, but the lack of sophistication and knowledge of much of the electorate. The US pays on average twice as much as other high income nations that already have socialized medicine for all. There is no real reason other than powerful lobbyists and the GOP that keep us from the realistic goal of have medical coverage for all at LESS than what we pay now. Free colleges, CUNY was free for qualifying students for over one hundred years up until 1976. Multinationals feel no responsibility to the citizens of the US unless they happen to hold shares of their stocks. These multinationals are far from millions of voters, they are a handful of individuals with completely disproportionate power over the economy.
If we are the greatest nation on earth, we should be able to do much better.
2
Someone else explained calmly and rationally that the current democratic process is a Primary process where the nominees are selected by democrats, some or a lot of which are liberal and prefer dealing with the issues facing us instead of taking a safe middle ground.
It always seems that conservatives need to explain what the democrats should be doing. Heal thyself, Mr. Stephens. Your gang has lost its way.
Once the primaries are over, the party will coalesce and move to moderate and liberal policies.
Everyone should just give it a break and let the candidates campaign.
2
To some extent, the Democrats are enacting a version of Newton's Third Law: To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is understandable.
But the majority of the voters want incremental change, and the candidate best qualified to implement that is Joe Biden
I would prefer Bernie or Liz, but I don't think that will happen.
I am a student who just recently graduated high school. I have four siblings, all four of which my parents have to put through college after me. As a student still trying to figure out how I'm going to pay for school, I fail to see why making college free will make a degree any less valuable than it is now.
Instead, it will give more students of lower income families and minority groups the chance to get a college education and better their family's and their own lives. It will give me a chance to be able to pay for graduate school after earning my BA and it will prevent me from being in crippling debt during the ten years after I finish school and am trying to establish my career.
Somehow it seems that most other developed countries are able to offer free higher education. Why can't we?
5
Stephens made a fool of himself in November when he excoriated Dems for winning only 28 net new seats in the House. When all the votes were counted, however, it turned out they had actually won 41. This is someone whose political advice should be taken seriously?
How many times have I heard conservatives urge Dems to be more . . . well, conservative. I wonder why? At any rate, the Democratic Party is not his party. Neither is the GOP, of course. Most GOP voters have turned their backs on many of the things Stephens has supported. But he seems to have given up trying to persuade them otherwise. So where does that leave him?
5
So far no Dem has proposed anything close to extreme - especially compared to the Repubs who's proposals and real actions include working towards total destruction of government agencies, gutting of environmental protections (health) and safety regulations, putting kids in jail for coming across the border - and so incompetent they cannot figure out where their parents are - lying to the American People on a daily basis, Trashing all our allies and supporting all our enemies (the definition of treason). In short, ANYONE voting for Trump or ANY Republican is voting for the destruction of our government and our country. THAT is extremism.
Compare that to Dems proposing an actual health care system (not a non-system as we have now), strong environmental and safety protections, treating people humanly, helping people, not corporations. Anyone thinking these proposals are "extreme" is a hopelessly sociopathic right winger.
3
Stephens: "Please stop my party's evident radicalism by acting like a lesser version of my party, instead of the party i think is radical because it isn't my party."
Physician, heal thyself.
3
"I do not admire anyone embracing the bad idea of free college. The surest way to strip nearly anything of its value is to make it free."
I am no fan of free college, for a variety of reasons. However, the idea that making things "free" means stripping them of their value is ridiculous. It sounds clever and true, but think about it. Do K-12 public schools, free to families, have no value? Or do food banks have no value to those who use their "free" food, even temporarily while they get on their feet? Of course, nothing is really free, including "free" college.
1
Rather than aggregate the faults of all 20 people into one theoretical problem candidate, consider each candidate on his or her own. No matter who becomes the Democratic nominee, a few problematic policy positions or character flaws won't look so bad in a one-on-one matchup against a man who has an overflowing conveyor belt of them.
3
People ask how we are going to pay for Medicare for all.
We already are paying for it. We just aren't getting it.
All the money we spend with private insurance would instead go to Medicare for all.
And we would probably save money.
It is so disingenuous when people ask if they are will to raise taxes for Medicare for all.
3
It is ironic (and an oxymoron) that Bret Stephens is counting on the liberals to stand for the conservative values he espouses. Why should they? Why should liberals be expected to espouse conservative values SO THAT they can get the votes of conservative voters who hate Trump (which is probably 100 people in total, all conservative opinion writers)!
No. Instead, Bret must focus on convincing all conservatives to vote for a democrat, no matter what, no matter how liberal they have, as a duty to the nation; to protect the nation from the demagogue running the republican party today.
4
" But I want Trump to lose next year as much as anyone. "
Sure, so vote him out in the primary and put in a reasonable candidate for the GOP who can represent your values and also not be a nut case. And really, maybe he should represent all us actual moderate Republicans who while we may not have changed our registration are very unlikely to vote for Trump or for radical candidates who might primary rational candidates. Basically, we will vote Democrat. Maybe we will register before the Democratic primary so we can pick someone who matches our level of progressiveness for the primary.
2
I can occasionally agree with Mr. Stephens but his remark about free college "I do not admire anyone embracing the bad idea of free college. The surest way to strip nearly anything of its value is to make it free." is absurd and leaves me perplexed. Does he believe public school education up to and through high school lost its value when it became free? Of course it's not really free because it's paid for with our taxes. Why shouldn't our taxes also go to more advanced education beyond High School? That's what the jobs are going to require in the future. Academic or vocational, that's an investment needed for the future.
After 8 years of relentlessly railing against the debt during Obama, the only significant legislation has been the 2017 Ryan / McConnell / Trump tax cut.
The deficit is going from $600 Billion to $1 Trillion. The projected 10 year increase in the debt is $12 Trillion which is $80,000 per taxpayer.
Every Republican senator voted for it. Not one Democratic senator voted for it.
Mr. Stephens remains quiet about that. Just let the Democrats come in and clean up the mess.
Again.
6
Any hope that people like Mr. Stephens embrace the vaunted self-responsibility they're constantly criticizing others for not having?
Here's a hint: democrats are not responsible for the election of Trump; nor will they be responsible if Trump were to be re-elected. Trump's Republican voters are. Stephens doesn't get to run away from the monster he's created.
8
Really, Mr. Stephens? Pete Buttigieg is too extreme for you? He has good reasonable policies on every issue except, (perhaps), expanding the Supreme Court, which would be unlikely to ever be enacted. Are you saying you'd rather vote for Trump than someone who has 95% of what you're looking for?
7
" But I want Trump to lose next year as much as anyone. "
No Bret, you don't. Because if you did, you would be writing nothing but columns pointing out all the awful things Trump does, and spending all your effort to convince all Republicans, all conservatives that this time, they had to vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is no matter what. It shouldn't matter if the eventual Democratic nominee supports free college, or thinks the Green New Deal is great, or has advocated changing the makeup of the Supreme Court. All of those ideas are part of the normal political debate we have every election in this country, and they are subject to discussion and debate. What is not subject to discussion is the fact Trump is a danger that we have never faced before. If you don't agree, then you absolutely don't want Trump to lose as much as anyone, you just want Democrats to nominate someone who is comfortable for you.
10
No, it clearly does matter what the Democratic nominee believes in policy-wise because that is central to their election. To say otherwise is side-stepping an obvious potential issue for the general election. Also, "only write articles about Trump being terrible"? He wouldn't have a job, and also, that's currently not what his job is. There are other columnists to read if you would like that perspective, but you will obviously quickly be bored by the continuing continuity of his blasphemous cahracter. That's not persuasive or good journalist work because it's boring, and misses the point of the Democratic primary altogether. Please put more thought into your responses and stop insulting people for inane reasons just because you do not agree with their political perspective(s). That is what Donald Trump does.
Many of the proposals I have heard in these debates require building on President Obama's achievements that Trump has already stripped away, or is working on dismantling. It makes me think of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs when I hear multi-trillion dollar plans like Sanders' Medicare for All when we have Trump stripping away the foundations of Obamacare. And I'm tired of the cheap shots. Showing how strong you would be taking down Trump by tearing down your fellow Democrats is like practicing taking down the school bully by going after your family.
1
Mr. Stephens wants the Democratic party to be what the GOP claims to be. We have been doing things in the country your way since the 1980's and it has shifted the entire political landscape far to the right and dragging it back towards the actual center is not "radical."
4
The political landscape has clearly shifted left since the 80's except for the aberration of Trump.
1
Sorry, Bret. The Democratic Party isn’t obliged to become the Republican Party you wish existed, just to please you or your pundit prognostications about electability.
4
These aren't "pundit prognostications about electability". The Democratic party as a whole is polling that electability is the number one concern, in fact one of the questions in the first night's debate, posed to Warren, was that a majority of Democrats would vote for electability's sake and subvert some of their more progressive ideas. So it's actually more central to the issue at hand than progressive values. Not to mention the fact that being a modrate Democrat isn't remotely the same thing as being a Republican, and you should really stop trying to alienate people from the party directly before a general election because, once again, that is a central issue to the current primary debate.
All of this begs the question of whether the people who voted for Trump are absolutely correct -- that the lunatic fringe (I know they're out there) has taken over the democratic party. All of the issues mentioned by Bret should be fringe ideas, but dems seem to have embraced them as rational. It would be one thing if this were posturing by a few candidates, but I know too many dems who are walking around, apparently sane (on the surface) that believe these same things.
Trump and the Repubs are not right on everything. But I would rather have them running things now than democrats trying to remake our society. Many of these policy ideas that Bret listed are rooted in emotion rather than rational thought. It's like the idea -- pushed by this paper -- that racist white cops are hunting and killing Blacks. It's a bogus idea, easily debunked by anyone who takes the time to do a little research -- and the following article (which cites recent scientific studies) shows this. Most of these inane ideas the dems adhere to now are easily debunked.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-reality-check-on-racism-and-urban-decay-11564526888
The dems have gotten so looney that I'll never again vote for a dem for any office. They are guaranteed to lose in 2020 if the candidate they put forward runs on these ideas.
2
It’s obvious that any Democrat would be a necessary replacement for the nightmare that is Trump and his administration. That is all that need be written, Brett.
3
Your penultimate sentence is nonsense: You do not want Trump to lose as much as anyone else. Except for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, every policy position you indicate the Democrats should adopt is the same position that Trump would take. As he has proven to be uniformly wrong on EVERY matter that requires informed judgment, how can you be so blind to the possibility that you are BOTH wrong on these issues? Clearly, many of us find his long-term effect on the world to be much more troublesome than you do. Your advice must be discounted accordingly.
5
Bret Stephens could have saved so much column space and time by simply writing a column saying that Democrats need to nominate Joe Biden, or else.
1
"I do not admire anyone embracing the bad idea of free college. The surest way to strip nearly anything of its value is to make it free."
The idea of free college is just horrifying. Next thing you know the Democrats will want to make grades K-12 free, too.
4
Mr. Stephens, while you're giving advice, any advice for Mitch McConnell and Republican senators?
100
The Republicans are the only adults left in politics. The socialists are fighting a war they have already lost, but they are too dumb to figure it out. Mr. Stephens is likely to be put on paid leave with a column like this, and be sent to a Democrat re education camp.
Great article, thank you.
Most Democratic politicians are still talking to the American people like we lack the understanding of our own needs and expectations. They lack a connection to us since none of them have been making less than $15 an hour, they have good healthcare, they haven’t personally dealt with the gap between wages and the cost of living for a long time. Try living with it for decades. So please, don’t act like a wizard who’s going to swoop in and “fix” everything without including the reality of votes needed in a Republican-held Senate. We’re afraid, we’re angry, we know what we need, but we expect less, and hope for more.
The country is at its most vulnerable with enemies from within. Where’s a candidate with the kind of intelligence, intensity, and perspective of the Jeff Daniels speech on Newsroom. Someone who’s seen this democratic crisis coming and knows what we’ve lost. Anyone?
2
I was particularly disappointed in the three CNN moderators.
Both days, they seemed more interested in creating conflict than finding out what the candidates positions were.
Just selling advertising time.
And as others have said, this format is not going to work to give us the kind of information about their plans.
clearly you are our of touch with the Democratic party.
1
The Democrats seem to think that if they act like Trump and appeal to their base, they will win the election like Trump did in 2016. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, "You are no Donald Trump".
Donald Trump won because of the arrogance of the Democratic contender thinking they could win without Midwestern and labor support.
I agree with Bret Stephens completely and I am a lifelong Democrat. My candidates (Bullock, Klobuchar and Ryan) are polling in the 2% range and recieve little media attention as their views are moderate and don't stir the bloodbath the media is trying to incite as it tries to sell newspapers and increase ratings.
My wish is for the moderate Democrats and Republicans to come together and field a candidate who is decent, not divisive, will defend America and not buy votes with "free stuff" that we will all be paying for.
1
typical bombast from the white patriarchy, your time is up
3
What a huge, steaming, crock! “I like you, and I like you, and I don’t like you”. 460 days til the vote and our team, with the support and encouragement of the ratings hungry media, is turning the starting line up into a political piñata. We do not need this! We do not need this! The only winner’s here are Trump and the Strumpets. I am more convinced than ever before...if there’s a single path to getting blown away in 2020, the democrats will find at least three of them! Ahhhhhhhhh!
1
Speaking like true republican, don't you Mr. Stephens.
I would like to know if you admire this from your own paper>
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/us/politics/ronald-reagan-richard-nixon-racist.html
Did everyone missed this news/audio from 1971, this beyond repulsive exchange between two american presidents...
Except for Ari Melber no one talks about this newly find facts from presidential archives...
Why complete radio silence when we once again have racist in a WH.
Reagan & Nixon casual phone chat...
"The previously undisclosed exchange took place after the United Nations voted to expel Taiwan in order to seat representatives from Beijing, a move that the United States opposed. Delegates from Tanzania celebrated with a victory dance in the General Assembly hall.
“To see those monkeys from those African countries, damn them,” Reagan said, to laughter from Nixon. “They are still uncomfortable wearing shoes.
In other recordings, Nixon went on to recount his conversation with Reagan to others, describing the African delegates as “cannibals” as he sought to blame them for the United Nations vote."
No one should wonder how we got a raging racist in a WH.
Maybe now we can all finally face it!!!
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/ronald-reagans-racist-conversation-richard-nixon/595102/
Ronald Reagan’s Long-Hidden Racist Conversation With Richard Nixon
2019...Racist history is still in full play.
2
Yeah, let's not talk about the Republicans and their historic responsibility to not nominate a fascist gastropod for the highest office in the land. Let's talk about how the Democrats are screwing it all up. Both sides do it, amirite, Bret?
5
@Riktor This should definitely be a Times Pick!
I am pretty Damn Blue- an Old Blue. To my fellow Dems reading this op-ed-
Don't kill the messenger because you don't like the message.
1
Until the New York City fiscal crisis in 1976, tuition was free at the City University, including at its highly regarded senior colleges. Until about the same time, tuition was free in the University of California and the California State College systems. Until 2014, tuition was free at Cooper Union. We the recipients of these excellent educations valued them greatly, and so did the outside world of employers, governments, academic institutions, et. al. The money spent was returned to the economy many times over. I suppose that once a free high school education was a radical new idea.
Mr. Stephens seems to be good at telling Democrats how to save the country from the mess Republicans have given us.
Mr. Stephens does not seem to be so good at telling Republicans how to ave the country from the mess Republicans have given us.
4
The thing that worries me is this: Stephens is a lot more knowledgeable about little things like Medicare than most of thepeople currettmyl shouting at him, and closer to where average voters are at as well.
Speaking as a lefty, I’d say take yer fingers out of yer ears, and quit squeezing yer eyes tight shut and chanting “LALALALA I can’t HEAR YOU!!”
Doesn’t mean he’s right. Means he has a point.
1
'Moderation? It's mediocrity, fear, and confusion in disguise. It's the devil's dilemma. It's neither doing nor not doing. It's the wobbling compromise that makes no one happy. Moderation is for the bland, the apologetic, for the fence-sitters of the world afraid to take a stand. It's for those afraid to laugh or cry, for those afraid to live or die. Moderation...is lukewarm tea, the devil's own brew."
-- Dan Millman
when problems have become radical, complex, & out of control, moderation by those who are afraid to climb down off the fence & take a stand will not solve them. When the problems are so severe, as they are today, only radical new solutions stand a chance of fixing. The moderate is afraid of radical changes to the current system, even though tweaking the system around the edges does nothing to address the root causes of society's dysfunction. Democrats have given us moderation since Bill Clinton in 1992. What have they given the country to compare to the radical new solutions of FDR, JFK, & LBJ? They led the people to accept the radical ideas of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, theFDIC, OSHA, the War on Poverty, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Peace Corps, Keynesian economics (which created the stable working classes & middle classes), WIC, SNAP, federal education funding, immigration policy, space programs, the Clean Air Act, food stamps, were all called "too radical" by the moderates. Where is that leadership among today's moderates?
@Beartooth for every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, obvious and wrong. This applies to all the solutions presented by socialist dinosaurs such as Sanders and Warren. As for FDR, this was a long time ago and in a different century. We need a new vision now and nobody presents it except outliers and mavericks like Andrew Yang.
"I realize some readers will discount this column as unwanted advice from a non-Democrat..." at least you are aware of it!
Democrats need to entirely discount republican talking points - which are so embedded in our psyche that the notion of a more efficient and cheaper health care scheme is called 'radical' over and over again without anyone even questioning it! All I want is a few solutions to some very big problems. Republicans are entirely off the ranch at this point and show ne signs of ever returning. Every two years we go through this exercise of right-wingers lamenting that the Democrates don't appeal to them. You have your party, and trump is the leader. I'm sure there are any number of suitable conservatives who would love your vote. Find one and vote for them! Leave the Democrats to the positions favored by Democratic voters.
2
Ah, Republicans. "We can't do that, it costs too much!" Unless, of course, it's a tax cut or more funding for the pentagonal money pit.
2
And, you, Bret Stephens, are not up to your responsibilities as a columnist. As a previous person commented: put the blame where it belongs: the GOP and all the enablers therein.
5
"I do not admire anyone embracing the bad idea of free college. The surest way to strip nearly anything of its value is to make it free."
Will this is simply stupid reasoning-- you don't just pay money to get a degree. You have to, um, take classes and learn stuff and earn it. Moreover, it's not like the only criteria for admission in the first place is money. You think that the value of a degree from Yale is gonna plummet if, say, Yale became "free"? No. Of course not. Now as yourself why.
Now extrapolate that reasoning.
Word of advice for Bret: Go Preach to your own choir; they are in dire need of a Mount-Sinai-Moment:
1. Thou shalt cease obstruction
2. Thou shalt cease being the party of greed
3. Thou shalt cease blocking legislation
4.Thou shalt cease waging war against our global friends
5. Thou shalt cease packing the courts with inept justices
6. Thou shalt cease harming the environment
7. Thou shalt cease...
8. Thou shalt cease...
9. Thou shalt cease...
10.Thou shalt cease...
Sincerely; You Know Who.
5
Wish List for President
1) Mentally stable
2) Not a pathological liar
3) Not a nepotist
4) High school level or better understanding of civics
5) Focus on basic things like getting a scientist back in charge of our nuclear power plants, getting our diplomatic corps back up and running, healing the rifts with our allies, making sure we don't have babies dying and kids in cages on our border.
6) Avoid loony tunery (free college, open borders, etc)
Why is this so hard?
1
Republican dislikes Democratic proposals. News at 11.
3
How do you mean? The CNN sponsored Democratic Party’s “gangbang” of the American taxpayer? It was Vice President Joe Biden’s own phrase. Just the same, it was a hysterical bidding contest, pledging freebees─ in an attempt to out- promise fellow candidates. It was all at the tax payer expense. It’s was the same formula that made Detroit and Baltimore, Flint, Oakland, and many regions of urban America such devastated places. But it guaranteed power for the Democratic Party and fostered their political colonialism. And yelling Bernie Sanders and screeching Elizabeth Warren hoping Americans will fall for all the free stuff. Thus to make our dysfunctional and costly government bureaucracy as three times large than it’s now. And fill up the bureaucracy with your supporters and the shackles of union’s control─ so you can get elected again and again and stay in power for forever. There were no new ideas or “real” sustainable solutions that would make American lives better. But do not despair my friends, President Trump will help save the Democratic Party too ─from the ash-pile of history by defeating the Democratic Party’s Kamikaze extremists─ and their blatant plan to rip off the American taxpayer. That project too is included in his plan to Make America Great Again!
1
"I have written so often (and so recently) about the ways Donald Trump’s G.O.P. makes me sick that I won’t repeat myself here."
You have written so often over the past twenty years to pave the way for the little-p party of Trump....and the spineless McConnell destroyer of democracy tribe. Examples? The blatant suppression of any honest criminal investigation in a SCOTUS appointment. Brett NYT 10/4/2018" "I’m grateful because Trump has not backed down in the face of the slipperiness, hypocrisy and dangerous standard-setting deployed by opponents of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court". So now you Dis them Dems? Wait there's more: I’m grateful because ferocious and even crass obstinacy has its uses in life, and never more so than in the face of sly moral bullying. I’m grateful because he’s a big fat hammer fending off a razor-sharp dagger." Brett? Bud? BFHTrump?
1
And Republican politicians are not up to their moral responsibility of at least denouncing Trump's comments as racist. let alone the man himself as a racist.
3
Fix the Republican party. Stop trying to changr the Democratic party.
4
Bret, have you considered running for president?
Bret Stephens doesn’t like progressive policy ideas. In other news, cats don’t like dogs, kids don’t like broccoli, Yankee fans don’t like Red Sox fans, and water is wet. How long is the NYT going to continue to let him beat this extraordinarily dead horse?
3
The way to defeat Trump is to vote for literally ANY candidate no matter what they stand for because any of them are ten times better than this insane and evil man. Not to mention that the odds of any of these proposals passing is very slim. I'd vote for my pet goldfish to be President over our current dictator wannabe.
3
Bret, I take it you have never lost your job and then gotten an illness. Lucky man.
1
Agree. Are the leaders of the DNC on vacation?
If Stephens is right and that the dems must nominate someone that he, a conservative and republican, would vote for, than what's the point? Are opinion columnists so jaundiced by hubris that they believe everyone should line up with their sensibilities? There's a reason Stephens is a republican and it's the same reason why democrats should do the exact opposite of what he suggests. You don't think like me. Your values and worldview are not even in the same ballpark as mine. Please stop telling me how I should think or what candidate I should get behind.
2
Fix your own party, Bret, then we (Democrats) will listen to your advice.
2
Bret, you don't have a say in how the Democratic party operates because YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN. You're not even remotely left. The Democratic party has precisely zero obligation to address your concerns.
Instead of wasting your time telling us how to run our party, maybe you should devote your energy to fixing up your own house. I get that you want to abandon ship, but you can't just walk into the DNC and start barking orders at people.
2
" The problem is that too many of them advocate terrible policies, ruinous schemes, discredited notions and crackpot ideas."
The REAL problem is that that is exactly what Trump, his minions and the GOP are doing right now, in spades and to the detriment (and shame) to this country and the Earth.
If you think, Mr. Stephens, that the Dems notions, schemes, policies and ideas are worse than what is being foisted on us and the world currently you really are not seeing past your ideological blinders.
1
As an enabler of Republican thought development , what is your Historical role in this development. Instead of asking individual Democrats to constrict their choices to a moderate when the times produced a Trump, why not ask never Trumpers and ordinary Republicans who held their nose and voted for aTrump to just vote no. Don't throw the blame on the Democrats for two generation of Republican nonsense and ante deluvianism.
2
It's hard to take anything serious from Bret Stephens who is not known for his balanced world view.
2
Blind Faith in free markets, and not a word about the "historic responsibility" of Republicans to pull the country out of the death spiral they've initiated. Pathetic.
3
Your delusions that any of the Dems moderate or progressive can beat Trump 2020 is what is holding you back from winning .If its no to opening the border,no to free health care and no to free college what do you have left if you cant bribe the electorate and playing the race card may buy you 10% of the votes but it will lose you 40% . So unless you can do better than this and I doubt it Trump will win 2020
1
Mr. Stephens, like many of his highly educated, elitist ilk, simply believes there is no sense in listening to anyone who isnt similarly educated. Those tawdry commoners in the peanut gallery chanting "Make AMerica Great" and "Lock her up" and "Send her back" seem incapable of putting more than three coherent words together......with a wave of the lace hanky from the DNC board room.....Be gone.....Be grateful for what you have....Have some more cake.
....
This is a terrible mistake from the self-imagined leadership of America. America remains the most welcoming, tolerant, productive, progressive, inventive, prosperous, healthy places on the place......despite all the Doomsday rhetoric from the DNC Corporate Boardroom necessary to keep the commoners safely corralled within a creaking Status Quo Bureaucratic System.....circa 1932.
....
The phenomenon of Trump is not that he's destroying America.....he is not.....once an individual turns off NPR during the morning commute and/or takes the NYT yellow pressism with a small grain of salt...opens their eyes, ears, minds to objective reality....its clear......Trump isnt destroying America..
Trump is destroying the Republican Party....mission accomplished. And in the vaccuum, people, real everyday people, are starting to realize that the Democrat Party isnt doing them any favors either. The Democrats will survive......but all this nonsense being sprewed forth during last night's DNC Telethon for Campaign Donations is futile.
"the Democrats failed to elect a progressive like Floridas Andrew Gillum". Nice sound bite, but the man was submarined by vile, racist messages from his republican opponent, and of course the racist voter suppression that Florida is famous for. So in a "fair" race, Gillum wins hands down. Write about voter suppression and try to even the playing field .
3
Brett, why didn't you get behind Hillary Clinton and push a Republicans for Clinton movement instead of lock her up chants?
1
Blah, blah, blab, another article on why you can’t get behind a Democrat. How about what the rest of us can’t get behind, how corporations pay lobbyists (est.2013 fig) 6 thousand a month to 20 thousand a month to undermined Americans. Can’t get behind how our last election cost over 6.5 BILLION dollars. Can’t get behind 1 in 5 of us getting cancer, mothers going without dinner so there kids can eat, hospitals closing and businesses moving out of small communities, parents cutting their medications in half. Which brings me back to this chicken little article, nothing is etched in stone so as Warren and myself say either dream big or go home Bret
5
Donald Trump is no orange-hued SuperMan that Bret fears - we dont need some subtle super campaigner, philosopher boxer to beat him - just wait for the fool to play out his folly, heck he has another 14 months of chaos ahead of him - the American electorate will come back to their sense of smell .
The problem with Bret Stephens is that he lumps all these "extremests" together. They're not the same. The Republican extremists are extreme bigots, racists and corporate stooges. The Democrat extremists are extreme in their desire for health care for all and for a just society. how can you not see the difference in this?
3
Stephens is one confused puppy. So he doesn't like the Trump aura but he seems to support (although inadvertently) the Trump policies and actions. Seems to be a severe case of NYT-itus, isn't allowed to say a single positive thing about Trump. And yet he can make all sorts if weak excuses for the Dems.
There is no way in the world to make Donald Trump the non-insane candidate for president!
2
"I do not admire anyone embracing the bad idea of free college. The surest way to strip nearly anything of its value is to make it free."
The abysmally vulgar stupidity of such a meme should not be allowed either of Bret Stephens or of NYTimes.
Stephens want all Dems covered into moderate GOP sheep. One wonders that he does not simply get bored to tears and early retirement by his own tiresome banality
1
Yeah, but you lose your cred when you demonize the Green New Deal as you did. It's a statement of principle, that's all.
1
Great article!
We've all made our minds up about Trump--but, whatever the horror of the woke left, the Orange One has not reached into the daily life and pockets of any but the most over-caffeinated progressives. He is now moving in some interesting ways--importing drugs from Canada--who have thunk it!
Yes, Bret, he's a monster--but he's the monster we know. It's the monsters we are getting to know that worry us.
Trump wins, absent recession or another stupid war. Two mistakes he isn't gonna make.
Brett, where is the "historic responsibility"--as you put it-- to have your party, the Republicans, NOT once again blindly support a racist, lying buffoon for president?
Your columns deriding Trump but then castigating the Democrats for trying to address big issues that need addressing are tiresome.
We're at a pretty important crossroads, don't you think?
I await your column announcing you are leaving the Republican party because it has become a cruel joke.
2
I will donate to anyone who dismantles twitter. Unplug, shoot the twitter satellite down, something, anything.
bret is just spouting his "opinion" with nothing to back it up. why waste time on him and his thoughts.
Let's be realistic. All of these ideas can be part of a national conversation if a Democrat gets elected. And most of them will get blocked by our two party system. Unless a Democratic wave takes the Senate, all any Democratic president will be able to do, is (like Obama) tinker around the edges with executive orders, appoint more liberal justices and regain the trust of our allies. Most of the candidates are qualified to do that, and that's all they'll be able to do.
The debates and the primary campaign are a huge waste of resources that would be better spent registering voters and, as a party, developing a united and convincing message as to why people are better off with any Democrat than any Republican. Given our current political deadlock, policies are only relevant in whether they help or hinder the ability to beat Trump in 2020.
I would like to vote for a candidate that refused to campaign in the primaries and promised only three things: to sign legislation passed by a Democratic congress, appoint ethical and liberal judges and undo as much of the Trumpian executive branch damage as possible.
I urge my fellow voters to focus their energy on electing as many Democrats to Congress and state/local offices as possible.
Take a deep breath and give it some time. We are a long way from the nomination and further still from the election. Someone once said that Democrats run for President like they play the violin- they run with the left hand and govern with the right. Actually a bit of both. At least whoever they nominate will not be an ignorant, racist, embarrassment like Trump. I’ll vote for any Democrat that wins the nomination.
112
@Chuck Zebrowski Yeah, democrats never put party in front of what's the right thing to do.
I think this column and all the discussion about degree of leftness misses the point on two counts.
First, it is a Trumpism talking point (no need to call anyone a Republican anymore) and as such should be avoided. The first rule of martial arts is do not fight according to your opponents fight plan.
Second, and more importantly, the historic challenge is creating a platform for America to have a chance to redefine itself. Policy debate in that regard is all noise.
Are we going to assert that we are a nation of laws?
Are we going to assert that though we are a nation struggling to address our racism; we struggle because we reject racism as acceptable, even as we continue to come to terms with its presence in our DNA?
Are we going to assert that we are a nation who is a reliable and constructive ally to the rest of the free world?
Are we going to assert that we are and always have been a nation of immigrants?
There is more but that's a good start. Whoever can prove themselves the most effective leader in making those assertions is the correct candidate. Regardless of relative position to the center.
Focus people, the fate of the world is in the balance.
1
Agreed, and it's already too late to change the already too long list of candidates. There is no credible leadership in America, because the nomination process is a reality show spectacle. If the constitution wisely requires a minimum age for Presidency, why not also require a minimum level of experience in senior level government positions? Trump should never have been qualified even to enter the race. It's not uncommon for senior level positions in other occupations to require 10+ years in related work. Why not the presidency?
1
Thank you Bret, it's an interesting piece.
I know a few people like yourself in my personal life. They want the Democrats to nominate some boring center-right moderate like Biden, so they can vote for him instead of Trump.
I understand the argument and it may be the right path. However, it's also possible these people will ultimately vote for Trump no matter what. For as much as they despise his style and approach and the things he says, they don't have much quarrel with what he has actually done.
So why should the Democrats nominate someone to appeal to these folks? And in doing so, do they risk losing the energy of the left and not drawing in some voters who will otherwise stay home?
It's an interesting question. I'm leaning heavily towards the Sanders/Warren approach, but I do appreciate the dialogue.
1
I can't imagine anyone voting for Trump again. Every time he opens his mouth he offends someone or some group. He works night and day to divide the country. His policies never resolve problems. Venezuela, North Korea, Iran and Yemen are just some of the problems he tackles and never gets resolved.
You have a choice. You can vote for Trump or vote for a democrat who espouses policies you don't like. Or, you can decide to not vote. But, here is the thing. You have a choice between a person who will not do a thing to curb pollution, climate change, white supremacy, or racism. Or you can vote for a democrat who wants to curb pollution, climate change, white supremacy and racism. Just the makeup of those who are running to become president shows this party understands the United States stands for diversity of race, gender, and religion. Not so the republican party.
3
“I do not admire anyone embracing the bad idea of free college. The surest way to strip nearly anything of its value is to make it free.”
So, Mr. Stephens, you’re against public K-12?
1
Dear Mr. Stephens, David Brooks, Max Boot, Thomas Friedman, George Will and the wide assortment of the Tsk-Tsk Never Trumpers: If you're still resisting forming a coalition with "extreme leftists" at this stage of the game, then I guess things are just not that bad for you then.
1
"I do not admire anyone embracing the bad idea of free college. The surest way to strip nearly anything of its value is to make it free."
Sorry, but I think this is such a silly argument. K-12 education is free (i.e., paid by tax dollars), isn't it? Do children and their parents not value their education? Why would they subsequently not value a free college/university education?
So why would Democrat’s listen to a disgruntled Republican advise us on who our nominee should be . Especially when the top picks are more Republican than Democrats. Ms Williamson hit the nail on the head when she posed the question at Mr Stephens Fab 3 “ why are you Democrats “ . I was thinking the exact same thing. .
Things fall apart, the center cannot hold, as Yeats said. If the Democrats go with silly radical ideas like Medicare for all — which will strip 170 million people of their health care, cost $3 trillion a year, raise taxes, and destroy 500 thousand jobs in the insurance industry — then the vital center won’t prevail. Trump will be re-elected and anarchy will be loosed upon the world.
1
Seems the historic responsibility lies with the Republican party or, dare I even suggest, with the American people?
This sounds all too much like "I would vote for a woman, but just not that woman" being restated as "I would vote for a Dem, but just not that one" as a means to dismiss alternatives and rationalize a vote he claims he doesn't want to make.
It says so much about who we have become that people are willing to vote for a person who acts as a criminal, even if he has managed to skate on the edge of actual indictment, acts against the interests of the US even as he claims to be acting for it, who appoints people who destroy what they are appointed to serve and loot for themselves, stands against all that we are and incites violence against others rather than any alternative because of some issue. That that issue is more important than the country and the people of the country says it all.
Its like people electing to stay on the Titanic because they don't like the personality of a rescue ship's captain or the color it is painted, or that the rescue accommodations lack a first class cabin. Talk about missing the bigger picture!
Favorite Bumper Sticker:
Any Functioning Adult 2020
1
Since when has “health care for all” become synonymous with extremism?
1
Democratic extremism?
And on the other hand you have a Republican Party which fervently believes these moderate things:
Climate Change is a myth.
We need prayer in schools
We need to get rid of any law controlling any type of firearm.
All abortion should be unlawful.
We should destroy Obamacare.
We don't need public transit, only more cars, and big cars and SUVs.
We have unlimited public money in the trillions to spend on military.
We should lower taxes on the rich.
Deficits are bad when they are used for poor people's needs such as food stamps.
We must stop any and all immigration into the United States even though much of our nation is underpopulated or losing inhabitants.
We must understand any and all irrational and lying tweets from our President.
4
America has two parties. There are no extremes. The Democrats are based in the axiom "We hold these truths to be self evident............." all the debate is focused on the minor details. The Republicans reject the axiom and believe liberty is about rejecting the belief that the Creator endowed " all men the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
This has been the debate since America began long before 1964 when Goldwater's speech where "Extremism in the defense of liberty" drew the line in the sand.
There is no moderate position they are not complementary philosophies and America is not the only country having the dilemma of deciding but the decision is collective and will define the countries.
When Canada decided access to broadband was a human right there was no major national discussion on what was monumental moment in defining my country. It is 2019 and America has a long way to go before it can decide if broadband access to the internet is a right or a privilege.
2
I read somewhere I do not remember (maybe this column) that the Democrats have a secret plan to foil the Republicans’ secret plan to lose the 2020 presidential election.
Once again Bret Stephens proves that he is one of very few commentators with a hint of common sense and perspective. Bravo Bret! Brilliantly said. This coupled with Glenn Loury's spot on piece today slamming the Dem's love affair with the wretched con man Rev Al, is a good warning for the Dems to clean up their act and wake up. It was very sad watching the debate last night as each mediocre candidate strained to move further left. From some bizarre pedantic pledge to "school" white women on privilege by one of the emptiest suits on stage, Kirsten Gillibrand, to the Christopher Lloyd in Back to the Future wacky mad scientist award winner, Jay Inslee, I was completely underwhelmed. No one on stage including Joe "Floyd the barber" Biden will stand a chance against this economy and Trump's machine. The insane rush left with absolutely no evidence that the mainstream electorate wants it, is a suicide pact - indeed as Bret asks where is the Democrats sense of their place in history - where is their responsibility to the greater good? Lost in a rush to serve the whim of the moment I suspect.
2
Why do Republicans expect Democrats to save them from the nightmare they created? Republicans seem oblivious to the fact that their policies, much more than those of the Democrats, got us to this place. And, the Republican Party has lurched much more to the right than Democrats have moved to the left.
2
It’s simpler, in a sense, than Stephens suggests.
Trump doesn’t tell the truth. He sometimes can’t tell the difference between truth and untruth, or between what he wants to believe and a fact. A lot (if not most) of the time he just lies. The GOP is complicit. It goes along with him, and often back him up.
The world knows all this.
So, truthfully, all the Dems will need to do to beat Trump in Nov 2020 is tell the truth. Of course (a key point), it ain’t so easy. It starts with knowing the truth, especially about oneself. Only then does telling it like it is become remotely possible, psychologically.
The Dems have a long way to go in this regard. They’re like children—good kids, fairly smart kids, but not exactly self-aware kids (as a party). They don’t (maybe can’t) own up to those aspects of themselves that are part of the problem.
Of course, the GOP is utterly incapable of doing this; indeed, it seems to be completely and permanently lost when it comes to looking in the mirror and acknowledging what’s there.
The Dems are probably our only—that is, our last—hope.
That they aren’t up to it is, for me, profoundly dispiriting. (Maybe they could start by admitting as much?)
Joe Sestak has the goods to be an insightful leader. Unfortunately he has been shut out of the debates because he didn’t declare until June.
As always, Mr. Stephens’ points are spot on. There is only one goal in 2020, only one thing that can save the Republic from devastation and that is to make the most reprehensible human being to ever occupy the Oval Office ( Clorox, please) a one term president. Moscow Mitch and his flunkies need a giant wake up call. It is so frustrating to me that, at age 66, I have lived to see a racist, hate baiting, crook in the same office as LBJ and President Obama. I disagreed with most of George Bush’s policies but I miss his decency every minute of every day.
This 79 year old was once was a democrat and now independent because the Dems have failed us with their so called "incremental plans" to have some kind of economic fairness in this country. The disparity in wealth is abominable and mean and cruel and corrupt. Corrupt because the disparity occurred by the elite/wealthy paying off our congress and the rest of the government. Capitalism is a failure and any 30 year old can see that. It causes pain and suffering because of the regular, very regular "adjustments" which wreck people’s lives although the wealthy usually make it through just fine. And capitalism is hardly "free market:" no such thing. Capitalism lacks true democracy because we know who is making the decisions and it certainly is not the worker. It is the tiny little board of directors who control everything: very horrid democracy. An article here recently described those in the board room; the sociopaths. Very perfect name. Capitalism has one goal, one value; money. And the heck with everything else. Joe biden is with the corporations, the board members and the elites who corrupt everything. He is not what we need nor what the country wants.
2
"But I want Trump to lose next year as much as anyone."
Really? I don't buy that. If so, you would vote for a Democrat regardless of your concerns about policies they support. Nothing that any of the Democrats have proposed could cause the kind of damage to this country that Trump has. It's people like you who will fair just fine regardless of who is president who are the problem. A person can vote for Trump only at the cost of their soul. Really.
3
Why doesn't Stephens, a neo-con and Republican, share his thoughts on how to to reform the Republican party?
I'm not really interested in Trump refugees attempting to take over the Democratic Party.
And Stephens, per usual, argues in bad faith. Whatever one might think of reparations to African -Americans for slavery AND Jim Crow, it is a fact that reparations HAVE in part been paid to Native Americans. Stephens' own employer ran a recent story talking about what worked and didn't.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/19/us/reparations-slavery.html
So Stephens can stop with the inference that he cares about reparations to Native Americans and isn't , like most whites, simply opposed to reparations to African-Americans.
1
The Democrats are not up to the challenge. First, there are too man candidates and a precious few have a clue about what should change if they take the position. None are really outstanding to me. There are only two or three that seem to have that much credibility. For some reason, I think that if the Democrats will, it will by a Pyrrhic victory, I would pay more attention to house and senate seats and neutralize Trump that way.
A middle of the road non controversial candidate even with great name recognition , will not be enough to defeat Trump. The candidate must offer vision and some inspiration ,not just tinkering at edges of our sea of troubles.
I find little to disagree with in this op-ed. Stephens clearly recognizes that most of the radical left’s proposals are gimmicks to get support. If these are the candidates that appeal to the highly educated suburban voter, then what constitutes being “highly educated”? Oh well, we only have 15 months of this nonsense left until the re-election of Donald J. Trump. America, you have seen nothing yet. Cheers!
3
Mr. Stephens can make a choice: vote for a Democrat that espouses a radical agenda that probably not be enacted, or continue under the "leadership" and toxicity that is an unbound Donald Trump. THAT is the extreme choice.
I agree that reparations is not yet ready; I agree that market incentives must be used to deal with climate change, at least partially; I agree also that Medicare for All may be too much for right now. But I will vote for these ideas, in order to move the needle forward, and would vote for them repeatedly so as to not re-elect Trump.
Lastly, the point of representative government is to have government represent the people. If enough people vote for Medicare for all, say, then guess what? That's what we can do. It is our choice as a people, and if we work for it, we can have it.
A logical way to raise payment %'s for Medicare/aid would be to decrease spending elsewhere in the Federal budget. Namely military spending. Medicare and the Military are the two largest items in the federal budget, and the conservatives have somehow co-oped the military into constituents with a wink-wink about always increasing military spending. Or at the very least treating military spending like a sacred cow directly related to patriotism.
On a separate note, I would think there would be substiatial cost reduction for hospital systems by not having to run an insurance body of their own. I'm not sure that translates into an answer for your point on profitability (i'm assuming its just a cost-to-reimbursement analysis). However, reducing overhead for hospitals also seems like a way to reduce cost, not to mention taking out/reducing the profits of medicine.
The problem with Bret's take, as with all the other center-right folks who are Never-Trump-Unless-The-Democratic-Nominee-Says-Anything-That-I-Don't-100%-Agree-With, is that the "moderate" program they'd like to get back to is the erosion of worker's rights and redirection of wealth to the very top of the pyramid that Reaganism (carried on by both Bushes and Bill Clinton when the DLC ran the Democratic Party) has produced. Yes, it was presented in more polite terms, with the racism and nationalism mostly expressed via dog whistle, but the overall result of decades of Wall Street-friendly policy has been the widespread anxiety that Trump has been able to misdirect towards his white nationalist project. While I don't expect a Warren or Sanders presidency to actually succeed in making college free or fully nationalizing health care, starting out with some maximalist demands is the only way to start the pendulum swinging back towards a less economically polarized society.
4
I have to ask: if extremist ideas will drive people away from the Democratic Party, then why does Sanders beat Trump repeatedly in head to head matchups? I’m not a particular fan of Sanders, but this does suggest that voters are not automatically repulsed by “socialism”.
I believe most voters base their decisions on an amorphous set of standards like familiarity, attitude, personality, and maybe a core issue or two. Why else would Warren, who espouses nearly the same beliefs as Sanders, do much more poorly against Trump in these same matchups?
Again, not to suggest these polls are dispositive, but this is a problem for the thesis that left leaning positions will, ipso facto, drive voters to vote Republican.
1
It is unfortunate and saddening how often Mr. Stephens seems to miss the point.
On college: "The surest way to strip nearly anything of its value is to make it free." - the value of an education is not its exclusivity; it is that you emerge educated and skilled. Would Mr. Stephens suggest that we teach fewer children to read so that literacy becomes a more lucrative skill?
On corporations: When Warren says corporations have "no patriotism," she is not criticizing the individual managers and CEOs for not behaving better, she is acknowledging that they have an incentive system that forces them to put prophets first. They have a legal obligation to their shareholders to maximize income. If you want to encourage ethical corporate behavior, you have to use regulation to tie their hands so that they have the option of behaving better. That Mr. Stephens doesn't understand this nuance makes me flabbergasted that he has a career analyzing society. Maybe he does but is being deliberately dense.
On the Green New Deal: "a problem that can only be solved through rapid economic growth...and dramatic technical innovation." - what, if not that, does he think the Green New Deal is doing?
Do better, Mr. Stephens. You have a privileged soap box. This op-ed wastes that privilege.
2
@Ben Kopit You are absolutely right on education. My entire education was state funded. It was ,however, highly valued because the academic entry requirements were stiff and the standards were rigourous. State funding vanished very quickly if students failed to perform.
A bachelor's degree counted for a great deal.
For those whose skills were more practical there were plenty of other courses ,also state funded which were excellent .They were not called degrees.
The house is on fire. We need someone to put out the fire.
Period.
Progress will have to wait, which is just one of the many sorrows of Trump -- but a better one than another term.
1
As they say, "all in moderation". Even the most brilliant idea, revolutionary instead of gradualist reform, for us humans to adjust and make it the new normal, may become 'reactionary' if it fails to materialize. For instance, who wouldn't want affordable quality universal health care, even at the cost of paying a bit more in taxes? Similarly for education, where we pay according to our means but not to the exclusion of those too poor to afford equal opportunities...without some assistance. The only hope some of us have is that, once the 'primaries' are over, those proposals too extreme to merit support, will accommodate to gain voters' favor. And any accommodation shall be worthwhile, as long as it can beat despicable Trump from re-assaulting the presidency in 2020. On this last point, we all, rational beings, seem to agree. And, hopefully, those driven emotionally by a despotic demagogue, may see the light...and help us send a con man to where he belongs, oblivion.
Democrats have a responsibility to win, and also a responsibility to not be "sore winners". This means not demonizing all the people (and voters) who do our medical billing or keep our lights on. M4A and GND are not only political suicide, they seem unnecessarily disruptive and shut out any hope for bipartisanship.
That said, one of the most dishonest arguments against M4A is that there is no profit in Medicare patients. If M4A passes, the rates can be changed to adjust for this. Maybe there are higher rates set for patients under 65 to mimic the current system. M4A has issues, many of which are largely political, but this is not one of them.
Agreed. Elizabeth Warren would be appealing if we were in a recession AND people got a chance to hear her out... but currently the majority, who are not constantly on twitter or are aware every outrage committed by Trump, have no reason to suddenly accede to the dramatic changes she proposes. Trump is only interested in winning (the electoral college) her idealism will be easily mocked and dismissed. In short, we are DOOMED
1
It sounds like what you want is for the Democratic party to nominate a Republican. Sorry, no. It's not our job to carve out a space in our party for the GOP. It's their job to rehabilitate the utter disaster of their party, assuming they want to.
This is a generational inflection point. We've tried "centrism" and "moderation" (aka center right) for decades. It's failed. It's only dragged our nation ever further rightward, with the collapsing quality of life and environment, and the soaring wealth and income inequality, that entails. I'm tired of that. More to the point, our nation and the planet can't afford any more half-measures and tepid edge nibbling. I want my generation's needs to finally be addressed (and for those wanting to infantilize, I'm pushing 40). We need bold action on climate, on healthcare, and economics.
2
I was around back fifty years ago, and the people who think this country was way further Left back in that day are totally clueless.
1
I think anyone who has been paying attention recognizes that as we've pushed education for all, the standards have been lowered. Most of high school is a waste of time. Much of college is a joke, and many degrees from many schools won't get you a job. If we make college free and invite everyone to attend, the standards will be lowered even more, which will force more and more people to go to graduate school in order to obtain a credential that might show some expertise as a bachelor's degree won't have much value -- except in STEM courses.
what we should focus on is making high school and college standards tougher and encourage employers to offer more training programs to those they hire.
And who believes that everyone is really capable of doing college level work?
Conservative columns like these always end the same way: I abhor Trump, but the Dems need to nominate a Reagan-lite for me to vote for them. I'm an independent, but even I see that's not how it works. The GOP is responsible for Trump. Republicans need to remove the plank from their own eyes before pointing out the specks in others.
5
Reading the comments, I realize those within their bubbles are ubiquitous. While we are well aware of the lack of mirrors within the Trump domains, it is also evident many "progressives" are a lost cause. They are wrapped in ideologies which coddle, infantilize and centralize economic decisions. They have paternalistic, pessimistic world views which many Americans will never adopt. It is the Independent thinker and voter who sways general elections. They are the ones who will quietly listen to common sense, and ponder the plain points Stephens communicates. As for the typical "progressive", I always remind myself of this quote by a renowned psychologist: “It is difficult to remove by logic an idea not placed there by logic in the first place.”
4
It seems the Democrats are falling all over themselves trying to be the opposite of Trump. As George Costanza from Seinfeld could tell you, doing the opposite in the hope that it works better is bad plan.
Free college? One of the worst ideas, although making it more affordable, more accessible for those who don't have a family history of college attainment are righteous goals. Free is dumb.
Wiping out private medical insurance provided by employers? If it ain't broke, break it?
Decriminalize the border? Why? Both Trump's excesses and any changes need to be considered against the potential for one million, or ten million people, to be pressing against the southern border in a future time. This is not a momentary problem but one that could exist 100 years from now. We need to deal intelligently with the current situation and have plans and laws in place to address the future need for a measured flow of immigrants, not random border jumping and visa overstays. (There is no "crisis" now.)
Pack the Supreme Court? Awful. We need to set term limits of 12 or 15 years, staggered, so that no one president and no one party has a realistic chance of grabbing power through the Court.
Climate change? All we need to do is wake up and admit the problem. New technologies can solve part of it, changing old habits a lot of the rest.
Is there anyone out there who can speak boldly but act moderately restoreing decency and restraint to the White House? Right now, prospects are dim.
4
This is why I support Jay Inslee. He’s very well qualified as a two term governor and 6 term Congressman. He has a unifying theme of addressing climate change at a time when its dire consequences are becoming alarmingly evident. Climate change will impact every part of our lives from the economy to international relations. Young people especially respond to this message. After a Trump, the nation could use a unifying message. As to health care, in Washington state they’ve already instituted a public option. Republicans have no solutions for improving health care. I’m ready for competence and dignity in the White House.
Has it ever crossed Mr. Stevens's mind that at this time, maybe his ideas of what works and doesn't are wrong; hence the lack of support by the majority of Americans unless coupled with the Republican scare tactics and cheating through voter suppression.
Actually, this piece is a sweeping indictment of the Republican Party (and their voters). Brett (and seemingly) the rest of the mediashere expects little-to-nothing from the GOP- because there is no "there" there. So, the entire burden of bringing sanity to America's political functioning rests solely on the shoulders of Democrats?
Since this is the consensus, there is no need for the GOP.
3
I agree with the tone of much of what Mr. Stephens says, even if I might disagree with a few specifics. I am a Democrat, just not far left.
In discussing Medicare, most candidates and pundits are focused on talking points. Very few of them--or commenters here--have read much of anything about the problems with converting on such a massive scale.
Some of the best reasoned arguments--not focused on judging by theatrical performance or partisan preference--take a lot more reading: https://catalyst.nejm.org/redesigning-medicare-coverage-everyone/ ("Redesigning Medicare to Work for Everyone," 29 May 2019, New Engl J Med). That essay mostly favors a gradual approach, not that politicians running for office will listen; nor will their Twitter followers.
1
These days I honestly have to keep checking the top of the page to remind myself whether I'm reading Mr Brooks or Mr Stephens.
1
Interesting how liberal ideas floated decades ago have been reframed as extreme.
3
You know Bret, I bet if you were around in the 1940s, you would have said about FDR and Harry Truman (the latter, of whom, last year, you called a Centrist when he was an unabashed liberal), that they too "advocate terrible policies, ruinous schemes, discredited notions and crackpot ideas."
4
You may not be a Dem, but when you're right, you're right. And you're correct.
2
We're watching a fascist President destroy America right before our very eyes and Bret Stephens is constructing a rationale for why he won't vote for an alternative. Then he'll write a scold column after the election saying "I wanted Trump to lose as much as anyone. . . ." Earth to Brett Stephens: You're not in a candy store. There are only two choices. It's time to pick the one that won't kill us."
6
Bret, you may want Trump to lose next year but it's obvious that you don't want a Democrat to win. The policies you deride in this column are part of the Democrats' DNA. Who did you think was going to show up at the debate? Jeb Bush?
4
The right has descended into full on fascism, and it's architects opine daily- "Why are the Dems so extreme?"
Every other first world nation with "extreme" policies like a public health plan shake their heads in bewilderment.
272
@MikeyR Liberals are always bandying about terms which they do not understand. I could write volumes about Donald Trump's failings, but neither he nor his party are fascists. Here is the dictionary.com definition of fascism:
"a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism"
Trump is not a dictator--not even close. He has faced greater opposition from Congress and the courts than any of his recent predecessors. Neither he nor his supporters are forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism. The only people trying to forcibly suppress free expression are Antifa (whom Democrats refuse to condemn) and leftists on college campuses. It is the Democrats, not the Republicans, who want to regiment business and commerce. Trump can be accused of emphasizing nationalism, but it really isn't that aggressive by historical standards. He is not invading other countries--unlike all of his recent predecessors. He can be accused of trafficking in racial innuendo, but many of his opponents are much more explicitly obsessed with race. He has done nothing nearly as fascist as Democratic Party icon FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans or Democrat Woodrow Wilson's imprisonment of critics of his World War I policies.
6
@MikeyR: Not only as a Canadian enjoying Medicare for all I shake my head in bewilderment, but If I follow the logic of Brett Stephen, the Conservative Party of Canada supports Medicare. Therefore the Canadian conservatives are supporting an "extreme" policy. Go figure!
19
@MikeyR...THANK YOU!! My argument for months now, but Bret is frightened by change. He writes as if his generation will never die. Watch out: the kids and we feisty older Americans are aiming for a redo of our government that excludes Fascism and worshipful awe of those who give us employment as they climb into their gilded aristocracy and under pay us.
12
As I often do, I appreciate Mr. Stephens' thoughts. I have not watched the debates, having determined long ago that this modern format is more about attacking, gaining soundbites, and trying to score points than it is about debating the issues. I would much prefer to have them follow the Lincoln/Douglas format, although I'm relatively sure that the networks would not broadcast such, nor would most people actually listen. Further, it is hard to know how some of these proposed plans would actually work. I would not espouse free college education, although I do wish we could find a way to make it affordable for the majority without burdoning graduates with lifetime debts. I don't know that extreme conservation plans would work, although I would like to see something a good deal more than our current administration's denial. I'm not sure that Medicare for all would work, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. Mostly, though, I worry that those who would make the best presidents aren't running. Our modern campaign process, epitomized by these debates, with their schoolyard tactics are such that would make any relatively sane person think twice about becoming involved, as would the knowledge that even if one could get elected, the gridlock in our national government suggests that even the best plans would likely founder on congressional rocks. We live in what seems a period of ascendency of small minds, and no democracy has much hope of surviving that.
101
@James Quinn:
You are a thoughtful, rational person in a world gone mad. If most voters thought like you, there might be hope for this democracy.
6
@James Quinn Dear James...agree. It is all too depressing for words.
4
@James Quinn
Watch the debates instead of reading this guy’s hysteria. You may learn something about outstanding politicians we still have in this country. Bernie and Liz. Brilliant and honest.
11
Green New Deal is to climate change what an old-fashioned phlebotomy would be to pneumonia.
I would have left that comparison blank on my SAT.
Maybe Republicans should have been up to their responsibility and not nominated and then elected Trump. Stop blaming Democrats for not stopping the catastrophe that Republicans started. Isn't the GOP the party of personal responsibility?
There is all this hand wringing from Never Trump conservatives over the lack of a moderate candidate. I too want a moderate. But we had a moderate Democrat. His name was Barack Obama. Republicans hated his guts, and the ridiculous and sometimes vile stuff routinely spewed about him in the conservative media helped make Trump possible. Trump was not some out of the blue moment. It was the culmination of a slow steady decline in thought, discourse, truth, and facts in the conservative media. I know pundits like yourself try to ignore conservative media and only focus on "serious" thinkers, like at the National Review (bT - before Trump) or the Weekly Standard (also bT) or other "serious" publications and think tanks, but the talk shows on Fox News do much more to drive public discourse and opinion, and now Fox News is propaganda. That's right, the most watched news channel in America, the backbone of conservative politics, routinely peddles fanciful exaggerations (Obama is "worse than Stalin" - heard that one a lot), unwarranted and harmful character assassinations (see above) and discredited conspiracy theories (Seth Rich, Uranium One) as "news". This decline has been a slow process, but you did nothing. You looked the other way.
5
Re: I do not admire anyone embracing the bad idea of free college. The surest way to strip nearly anything of its value is to make it free.
And do you have any admiration for free high school? College is the new high school. I suppose the GI bill was also a big mistake.
And what value does a high school education have?
Compared to a radicalized GOP that gives tax cuts to the rich (when we have $1 trillion deficits) and wants to take healthcare away from 20+ million people (on top of 30 million uninsured, unique in the developed world), even the Lefty policies of the Democrats are moderate in comparison.
2
I hate to break it to you, Brett, but the Democrats are going to nominate a Democrat.
No matter how nicely you ask, they're not going to nominate Mitt Romney.
4
It is difficult to accept the “historic responsibility” of the Democrats to rid this nation of Trump, without even a mention of the historic irresponsibility of the Republican Party to continue its unquestioning support of a deranged, deeply incompetent and tragically flawed President — hands down the worst in our national history.
4
There's nothing 'extreme' about demanding that our purportedly 'representative' government and our tax dollars are dedicated to the common good - not to facilitate the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few, while public's Treasury slips into bankruptcy.
"Conservative" Republicans have robbed America blind each and every time they have grasped the power to do so -- and as we have seen, they have grabbed power by hook and by crook. Since 2000, two Republican "Presidents" have been elected by a minority. Republican majorities in Congress are the product of manipulation (i.e., gerrymandering, purges of voter rolls, limited access to voting locations in selected districts) and a structural flaw - the fact that two senators represent 500,000 Wyoming residents and two senators represent 40 million Californians.
"Conservatism" takes our tax dollars and turns them into private profit. That would be a smidge less galling if those dollars were used to provide services we desperately need, like health care, child care, education, food and housing for those who can’t afford it, security in old age. Instead, it’s mostly welfare for the wealthy, like private prisons, agribusiness subsidies, and the Mother of All Boondoggles, a $750 billion military budget. Breathe a word of using those tax dollars to meet the real needs of the 99%, and it’s 'extreme,' ‘socialism’ and ‘un-American.’
Utter nonsense!
These are not normal times for a regular political comentary on policies that the majority of Americans agree with. In the age of Trump, where is YOUR historic responsibility as a citizen? Your constant harping about the Dermocratic party is not helpful at the time when the party - however imperfect - is the only real political force that stands between Trump and the survival of the Rule of Law, the Constitution, and the Democracy itself. Are you ready to hold your nose and VOTE for a Democrat next November? Are you ready to talk to the right-of-center friends and readers to do the same? Talk is cheap, and that's all the Never Trumpers have done so far.
When, a couple of years ago, during regional elections in France, it appeared that the Le Pen's neo-faschist party had a chance to win, the center-right and the left parties reevaluated their candidates, dropped the weaker ones, and then combined their resources and volunteers to support their mutially endorsed joint candidates. They successed in stoping the neo-faschist march to power in France. That's what I would call a test of citizenship and political maturity. Your complaining about a percievied leftward movement of the leff-of-center party is not only ridiculous, it is harmful as it depresses and misleads potential voters into thingking that there is an option to sit out or vote for a third party out of protest next November.
I suppose there won't be any shortage of this nonsense between now and November 2020.
trump and republicans have zero plan for healthcare and the idea that Democrats have to have every detail of Medicare for all planned down to the littlest one is ridiculous. The statement that it would bankrupt two-thirds of hospitals was given four Pinocchios by WaPo and rated completely false by Kaiser Health.
Any one of the top five Democratic candidates could beat trump on nothing more than "I couldn't do any worse." And the idea that they couldn't govern better than this administration completely laughable.
3
Sorry/not sorry that the Democratic party is not the centrist republican party Bret Stephens craves. Bret’s real problem is the depths his own party has sunk to - not just under Trump, but in all the years prior when Bret was happy to make excuses for all of the bad behavior, extreme partisanship,
dishonesty and race baiting.
2
Amen. If we want a president with no regard for political norms and no interest in reasoned debate based on objective realities, well, we already have one of those. I'm not excited about just replacing him with a similar model of a different ideology.
BTW, people like Delaney are not moderates. They are conservative Democrats. Big difference.
"I do not admire anyone embracing the bad idea of free college. The surest way to strip nearly anything of its value is to make it free."
Let's engage in a little thought experiment. Suppose Harvard University, with its $38 billion endowment, went to a full-scholarship model. That is to say, the tuition is zero —if you are good enough to get in. (Which is a pretty big "if".)
Does anyone doubt for a second that Harvard would remain a first-rate school? If anything, the competition to get in would be _harder_ , as poorer (but nonetheless excellent) students wouldn't be put off by the sticker price or the bureaucratic nightmare of financial aid applications.
There was a time, not so long ago, when many of our state universities were tuition-free for in-state students, including elite institutions like Cal-Berkeley. There is no reason (other than being cheapskates) that we can't do that again.
1
Dear Mr Stephens, You say you don't want Trump. You say you are a Republican. Republicans support President Trump. Choose. Some of the proposals put forth by the Democrats may not work as originally conceived, but what is certain is that Trump is a threat to our democracy. This election is about one thing, and one thing only: A repudiation of President Trump. The Republicans have no way to walk back their support of Trump. None. They are cornered, and therefore extremely dangerous. This election is the most important election in our lifetime. So like I said, choose. A few potentially flawed policy decisions attempting to address serious and complex issues, or 4 more years of Trump?
Shorter Bret Stephens: The Democrats need to take political advice from Republicans like me who allowed Trumpism to take control of their party.
3
I am a registered southern-born Democrat and an unabashed liberal, but I have to agree with much of what Mr. Stephens postulates in this piece. There is no way the majority of heartland and deep-south voters -- be they independent or otherwise affiliated -- are going to vote for a Democrat who bends to the left as far as most of the current crop seeking the party's nomination. No way. The freebies and the border decriminalizations are losing propositions with those voters and it's crazy to think otherwise. If Democrats go down that road, they will lose to Trump. Period.
3
The far left deems the risk of re-electing Trump to be worth the chance of being elected. Where will the rest of us go after Trump wins? The discontent with Clinton after she lost will likely be nothing compared with those of us who will be forced to endure another 4 years of Trump.
"The surest way to strip nearly anything of its value is to make it free."
What?? Does that apply to health care, fire departments and roads?
An example would have made this statement less ludricous. And don't quote generalities like "the tragedy of the commons."
3
All this misses the target. Democrats have only one thing to beat in 2020...the electoral college. Trump supporters and republicans will show up in all the right states. Independent and democratic voters have to win the right states so they cannot not vote. Trump will not get those votes, but if the democrats do not because the devil they know scares them less than the devil they don't know...four more years of trump will happen.
As a voter who leans left, I agree with nearly everything Stephens said in this column. The main point is that we can't defeat Trump with an extreme leftist platform and defeating Trump is the most important thing in the 2020 election. If we lose that election, all of the progressive goals will be dead for at least another 4 years anyway.
I would quibble with some points. Criticizing large, multinational corporations for their greed, their tax evasion and their purchase of peddled influence doesn't mean criticizing the people who work for them. It means that we have to have a system where they can't buy the laws they want passed to stack the deck in their own favor.
4
Left/right/middle, this policy or that, is less important for Dems right now than the emergence of a leader of sufficient presidential poise and presence to command the attention of the US and world stage. So far, none of the so-called candidates has what it takes. And please, no 70+ year old gray men candidates.
1
"I liked hearing another candidate acknowledge that the only realistic way to get to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 is to “innovate our way out of this problem.”"
So the realistic way to zero carbon emissions is inventing technology that doesn't exist yet and implementing it on a mass scale in ~30 years. With global corporations fighting legislature, invention, and gutting the EPA, at every step. Yes, let's put all on money on the proverbial grasshopper, and tell the ants that they're crazy.
1
We're four debates in. This race will crystallize once candidates start dropping out.
Interesting that Mr. Stephens fails to mention Joe Biden in his rundown of the candidates. I thought Biden acquitted himself quite well last night.
As for healthcare...Single-payer does not play well in the states Democrats need to win to take back the WH. A public option, or what Mayor Pete calls "Medicare for All who want it," is the common sense plan to build on Obamacare and move toward affordable, universal coverage.
Think about it this way: If single-payer is as feasible and popular as left-wing candidates suggest, this will be borne out when people turn out in droves to sign up for it. However, if many people are satisfied with their employer-based plans, as polling suggests, then Democrats won't be cause unneccessary disruption to their lives. I think Democrats would be foolish to take away this choice from people.
1
Once again Mr. Stephens is telling the Dem`s, to not be so ardent in our disgust of the Trump crime wave, emboldened by the entire Republican party. Maybe we should worship at the alter of the corporate titans who got bailed out in 2008, then bonused out in 2009 and are now enjoying the largest transfer of wealth (from the tax payers to the one percent) in history. I`m talking about the Trump tax bill of course. I do not need Republicans to tell me that my party should bend to the will of the current criminals in office and to worship the stays quo.
Maybe Mr Stephens should be more be more supportive of alternative ideas that could actually get us out of Trump World. But alas all we get is the condescension.
I'm going to vote for whomever is nominated to beat Trump, but Bret Stephens is spot-on. The moderates with no chance in the first debate did a great service calling out Bernie and Warren on their fairy tale solutions. My hope is that this counter-narrative stands even as these marginal candidates step aside. My fear is that the candidates left standing are either too old and establishment to mobilize voters (Biden); advocate positions that are neither realistic nor sufficiently vote-getting (Sanders, Warren, and Castro); or are setting themselves up to be painted as flip-floppers (Harris). I've been tracking Harris, and it's still early, but I am beginning to think Buttigeg may be the candidate with the best chance of beating Trump because he's a compelling speaker, has a compelling personal story and experience, and a politically viable platform.
4
Could we maybe consider getting rid of this term "native Americans"?
Native means someone born in a specific place. All of us born here are therefore native. The first Americans, the original Americans, are also immigrants to North America, having gotten here somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000 years sooner than the European settlers. Are they therefore "more native" than the rest of us?
As far as I can tell, the term native Americans has its roots in the academic world. It was born out of the realization that calling these peoples Indians was dumb and perhaps insulting. What can we do? Let's give them something more honorific, something that fully recognizes their role in North America ahead of those who came to settle and to fight over who could own and use the land. The term is now falling out of favor among professional historians.
The background, of course, is a deliberate misreading of our national history which places the white man at the center of an evil enterprise to take away native lands and, as an ultimate goal, genocide. While there are elements of truth in this indictment, it is by far not the whole story. Bending everything to one conclusion is not historical analysis, it is historical distortion.
As for repatriations in regard to the original Americans, many billions have been spent to date. The wrong has been recognized and, while the solutions are inadequate, it should not be used as a consideration of what has been done to African-American citizens.
1
Mr Stephens,
While I appreciate that you dislike Trump, I find it hard to believe that an ex member of the editorial board of the WSJ will every be aligned with the Democratic Party or its policies.
Indeed, the fact that you dislike these policies gives me a lot more faith that the Dems are on the correct path.
1
Please, please make this required reading for ALL democrats, especially the ones advising these candidates. It is a must for the future of this great nation of ours. It is now or never folks.
3
You are being relentlessly negative. Here is the real story: Donald Trump barely won Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, with significantly lower turnout from black voters than in 2012 and 2016. Do you think that is going to happen again? Especially after the last couple of weeks? Trump has already lost those states. Donald Trump is the best weapon the Democrats have.
Almost any of the moderate candidates can beat Trump. I don't think that Bernie or Elizabeth Warren will be the nominees. And you are cherry-picking the most extreme positions, 90% of which won't be in the eventual candidate's platform and which will be far more nuanced and compelling than the way that you portray them. And none of the more extreme policies would be enacted anyway, by the next, Democratic president of the United States.
1
Bret,
What you are saying - and I concede, quite correctly - is that the Democrats think (again) that "anyone but Trump" will win the day. Not only is that wrong, but it fails to account for the fact that in 2016 the Dems figured to win in a landslide because the nation would be terrified of what lunatic Trump would do as President. Now, four years later, that fear has largely subsided, because we have all survived (and many have thrived). Trump must be so delighted with the prospect of facing Sleepy Joe and a Socialist in the general election.
5
On the contrary. if Trump took over the power with lies and abuses ,it is because there was a political void.
Politics are not marketing. It is not about selling something.
Politics are ideas . There is absolutely no political imagination.
The so called nation of Liberty is the least free and the most alienated by mercantilism.
The problem with the author is that they refuse to accept the Ancient Wisdom, “You cannot step in the same river twice.”
The problems of America, today, can be placed into two overlapping buckets: (a) Kitchen Table and (b) Future. In Future, we see jobs dependent on traditional technology going away fast - mostly due to automaton and less due to globalization. This is beginning now. US Manufacturing is going higher and higher while “traditional” manufacturing jobs are disappearing. This affects today’s kitchen table.
Only Andrew Yang addressed this and no one listened!
Health Care: This problem has been solved in all major countries. Pick one from Germany or Japan or Sweden or Australia. They have the best systems. Implement it in toto. Do not argue and debate. Just do it. It is a past issue. And while you are at it, open up free trade for generics and remove the AMA market engineering of doctors and nurses
1
I won't even bother to read the other comments. I know, knowing NYT readers, that they will rip Stephens to shreds. Unfortunately, pretty much everything Stephens has written here is on point and on the money.
I'm a registered Democrat who's voted in every election, including primaries and local contests, since 1978. But next year I may just sit on my hands. I've watched first one major party, then the other, march off the extremist cliff.
I'm a Biden supporter, but I think he would make an effective president, not necessarily an effective candidate. Aside from his not being a great public speaker, he is a realist, and the current crop of Democrats are dwelling in various regions of Cloud Cuckoo Land, with bad old ideas -- free stuff! pack the Supreme Court! socialism! - with a new, thin coat of blue paint. They are all strongest on what they're against, i.e., Trump. And that will not be enough no matter who the nominee is.
3
Trump and the GOP win elections by stirring up fear in voters. All political policies or issues are based on values, which are emotional and non-rational. Build the wall, clean the swamp, lock her up, make America great. These are not policies, they are emotional triggers that speak to the fears of voters. If Democrats want to win elections, they have to appeal to voter's fears by showing that Trump is dangerous, the economy is rigged, climate change can hurt you, etc. Details dont matter until after the election.
1
I do sympathize with Stephens in one way. The current state of the GOP has left principled conservatives politically homeless. But I'd suggest that they try to wrestle their own party back from its thralldom to Trump rather than complain that the Democratic party is too liberal for their tastes.
4
I sympathize with those readers who chide Mr. Stephens for offering electoral advice to Democratic candidates despite his well-established conservative principles. But my sympathy is tempered by the realization that sometimes people are "blinded by proximity," as a former boss once phrased it, so that our opponents, with the perspective provided by distance, may be more acute observers.
Politics, as the saying goes, ain't beanbag. It's hard, bruising work that must aim at a clear set of prioritized goals, attuned to both current capabilities and historical context.
I submit that given current capabilities and historical context, there is one paramount goal in 2020, namely, defeating Donald Trump and as many of his enablers as possible. Having done so much damage already, he and they pose genuine threats to the survival of this democratic republic. All the policy proposals being floated by Democratic candidates, however intriguing, are as nothing if Trump is re-elected. The Democratic Party must coalesce around and achieve this goal, and not allow itself to fritter away an historic election by indulging in ideological sideshows.
7
@John I couldn't agree more.
There is nothing extreme about ending private insurance. Not one candidate is telling workers to take over their workplaces and essentially fire their boss nor is anyone talking about ending capitalism as we know it. Has the Overton window shifted so much to the right that basic reforms to capitalism are seen as extreme?
3
In a word, yes.
1
American Exceptionalism was really a thing after WWII. Since we weren’t bombed like most of our allies our infrastructure was intact and our industrial sector quickly segued to making products for a worldwide market. Europeans admired FDR’s social policies and modeled their (obviously slower) economic recoveries on our democratic ideals. This golden period unraveled when we revealed our racism and imperialistic bluster during the sixties. When Reagan convinced the greedy conservatives we had a spending problem rather than one of revenue, our democracy was doomed.
It bears repeating that Medicare isn’t free, and is inadequate without supplemental private insurance. Taking the profit out of healthcare will be either a gradual process or cause immediate chaos. It would require some salaries (surgeons) and costs (drugs) to decrease and progressive taxation to be reimplemented. If we can find a way to work together we have a chance to restore our exceptionalism instead of continuing our Roman Empire decline.
The Reagan Democrats held the door against progress and are just now realizing that Conservatism really was that selfish and unpatriotic. At least I hope they are. Vote Democratic, please.
2
Climate change "a problem that can only be solved through rapid economic growth"? A capitalist solution to a capitalist problem? Too late for that, the world will be uninhabitable before that happens. It's like JFK would have responded to the Sputnik Moment by saying "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and my administration is planning to encourage the entrepreneurs of America to develop a rapid program towards this goal by allowing them to reap vast financial rewards from harvesting unlimited amounts of moon rock". Instead we embarked on a massive tax payer financed program.
6
@Tom
It's more than "science". How are countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Finland going to survive without oil? when the EU and USA block the sale of coal fired power plants and refuse to mine cheap coal how will the developing world respond.
We ought to know industrial development means a lower population. China will reduce it's population by 400 million by the end of the century because of modernization. What's the alternative quota's on how many children can have designed by western politicians?
@JoeG
Finland? By 2018 statistics Finland generated over 32% of the country's energy consumption from renewable sources and 22, 5, and 8% from oil, gas, and coal, respectively. The numbers (2017) for the US were 37, 29, and 14% for oil, gas and coal, respectively, and a mere 11% from renewables. That's the problem with people who put science in quotation marks, they are ill informed and can't get their facts straight.
@Tom
Finland, Norway I can't keep those Scandinavian countries straight.
So answer the question of how do they survive?
You make some good points Bret, however you lost me when you stated that rapid economic growth and technological innovation are what will "cure" climate change. Isn't rapid economic growth what everyone everywhere is always looking for? You make it sound as if it is something that could happen tomorrow with the right leadership? Please. You are talking about a fix that would take years - that we don't have.
As for technological innovation - again, isn't every government and almost every corporation working on technological innovation, already? Are you proposing that the right leader could wiggle their noses and create the innovation that will save the world from climate disaster?
Which comes to the scope and complexity of climate change. Yes, we can still do things to slow and eventually reverse the disastrous path we are on, but there would have to be a myriad of techological innovations put into use all over the world, very quickly to stop the disastrous path we are on. Other than outright nuclear war (which we Trump seems set on inching us closer to) we have never been faced with the problem of degrading our habitat to the point of unsustainability.
You do your readers a disservice by minimizing the most all encompassing problem the world has ever seen.
1
The green deal is a bad idea? Look at the stock market today. Fossil fuel companies are tanking while alternative energy stocks are soaring. What is the market telling us? Second, this administration has turned it’s back on any aspects of global warming not because of cost but from a position of none believe.
3
It’s ok, Brett. The candidates are just trying to find what resonates with voters. Political leaders are elected to represent the views of the people. In other words, they are the last to know what’s actually going on—they are public servants, not visionaries.
The public will let them know what works. But that’s only if the media doesn’t embroil us and them in a “Survivor” style reality show, and the media actually follows and reports on how the populace is reacting.
You, and other conservatives, do not get to dictate the terms of this primary.
If you and the media can remember this, it will be ok.
3
Bret, I think you are demanding perfection from a necessarily messy nomination process. After all, the Republican Party considered nominating Michele Bachmann, Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich well before you considered leaving it. The overriding fact today is that Joe Biden, the most reasonable and electable candidate is leading. I was also very impressed with Steve Bullock, who has only recently entered the race.
4
Attacking the most popular president since Roosevelt and Clinton is no way to ingratiate yourself with the Dem voters. With so many issues that the GOp is going after, anyone attacking Obama's policies is either smoking something or hurling at terminal velocity towards the political ground. I for one will not vote for anyone who does this.
4
Never Trumpers are a useful tool in the election of anybody but Trump. Period. Full stop. They don't get to pick who Democrats put up to do that task. They don't get to impose failed Republican policies on Democrats. Stephens is a life long Republican responsible for saying little as his party used racial, and economic division to win power. Trump is just the logical conclusion to a cynical strategy that uses any and all corrupt means available. If he said he would change parties and vote for a Democrat he increases his credibility. If he condemns Moscow Mitch that would help. Until then his only real function is to try to preserve his party for the Trump aftermath.
3
Bret Stephens nails it again.
1
@Mariko,
Again?... I fail to remember the first time.
We are in the infancy of this campaign, and I believe nearly 7 or 8 candidates could beat what we have in the WH right now.
Some of the positions are untenable, but they will be reshaped as the year grinds on, and anyone who thinks that any true Democrat who won't vote for
whoever survives the primary is sadly mistaken.
3
Oh, come on! Look who got elected. Policies, thoughts, crackpot ideas - none of that makes ANY difference. Proof? Look who is president. Personal and political history = meaningless.
Politics is pure show business. Never think any different. Proof? Look who got elected.
Nothing matters in the election except show business.
Douthat and Stephens, we thank you for your concern about the state of our party. But let me just say that your concern would feel a lot more legitimate if you were prepared to make the following pledge: “I will vote for any democratic nominee over Trump.” All I’ve really heard from you two so far is who you wouldn’t vote for, largely because they’re TOO progressive. I’m sorry, but in my view, no Republican has the right to complain about our nominees unless they take the above pledge (heck, ditch the party while you’re at it). There might be a lot of infighting, but the Dems still are the party of the common good with a set of identifying principles. Republicans are just the troll party. If you enjoy YouTube comments, join the GOP. No principles required.
For the record, I’m definitely on the progressive wing, but I’m prepared to cast my vote for any nominee, because I understand getting trump out is priority number 1.
2
Why are Republicans expecting the Democrats to nominate a Republican for them? Clean your own house.
2
As a liberal Democrat I praise your article. Defeating Trump is the prime objective. Trump's deplorable racist, homophobic, sexist, science denying and generally disgusting conduct pushes Democrats to the opposite extreme, a natural reaction. They must resist the pressure. Nominate someone who commands respect, who is Presidential in character, who has political experience and tho presents an image of decency and concern for America. Trump has been so horrible that no true Democrat can fail to vote for any Democratic nominee. The challenge is to attract the swing voter, the moderate independent who is so disgusted by Trump that he/she will swing to the Democratic candidate provided that candidate is not too radical.
3
I think you're wringing your hands and twisting your pearls a little early Bret. A majority of Americans will vote for the Democrat next election and it's only about how many votes the GOP can steal that will make the decision. But the Democratic candidates are a pragmatic bunch. If their far-left stances hurt their chances they'll change them. I believe Americans aren't the gullible chuckle headed rubes like you do Bret. People know when they've been conned.
The Democrats make me sick only a little bit less than the Republicans. Trump is worse than any Democratic aspirant for president but none of the Democrats are exactly inspiring. I would vote for anyone vs. Trump but without pleasure, just as I voted for Hillary in 2016 holding my nose in a line of upscale suburban white voters who all seem to have voted for Trump. I am ashamed of my country and both political parties. I am reading a biography of Jefferson to see if we were better two hundred years ago or not. I suspect not.
3
I'd vote for a doorknob over Donald Trump.
But the Democratic lineup is pitiful. Me Too? Reparations? Health insurance I'll give you, but my cousin-in-law in England doesn't have great doctors no matter what Bernie Sanders, whose angry shouting and perpetual scowl are pretty idiotic, would say. She has just saved up enough money to go to a private doctor for an illness stretching back years.
And capitalism is not to blame for our inner cities; uncontrolled capitalism is, perhaps, partly to blame, but you'd find crime disappearing pretty quickly if young women used birth control and young men stayed in school and studied in libraries after school; you know, like poor Chinese kids with non-English speaking parents working three jobs.
Migrants need to leave their children back home with wives or grandmothers, get papers, work and send home money, and then bring their families over. This business of trekking one-year-olds across the border just to game the system is foul.
Rape and abuse are not reasons to ask for asylum. Women in America are raped and abused by husbands and boyfriends and strangers all the time; that's why we have shelters everywhere, at least here in New York City.
And for those women raped and threatened elsewhere in America, where are they to flee to? Who will grant them asylum? Norway?
4
Oh, do you mean the responsibility of cleaning up the horror show left by each republican administration they have to follow?
2
Thanks for the advice. ‘Sorry that we progressives haven’t won your admiration. You are aware, of course, that you have done nothing to win ours, even though the ruling class that you represent has had ample opportunity and resources since WWII to end poverty, protect the environment and ensure universal healthcare and post-high school education for every single American. The very model of complicit corruption, you and your “Republican” friends have lined-up behind an unAmerican demagogue for short term financial gain while he speeds our descent into post-constitutional crisis, planetary catastrophe and the violent chaos these will ensure. We progressives couldn’t get it more wrong than you have!
4
Great column, as always.
Defeating Trumpism means opinion pieces headlined
"Republicans Are Not Up To Their Historic Responsibility"
When will that column be published?
6
Thank you for the thoughtful article. I always learn something new. I especially agree with the sentiment on “demonization of corporations” and intent “to tax the rich into non-existence” (my contribution to your article). I see the everyday benefit I derive from the rich. Here is how my day goes…
I wake up and while in bed I open up my iPad (thank you Steve Jobs) and Google the News (thank you Larry Page and Sergey Brin). I then open Facebook (thank you Zuckerburg) to check on friends and family. In the office I open my Dell desktop computer (thank you Michael Dell) and look at email through Outlook (thank you Bill Gates). I answer a call from the client on my iPhone (thank you Steve Jobs again). Get a text on iPhone from daughter (How are you doing Dad? Good – thank you Steve Jobs again). Mom calls on iPhone – Hey, can you get me some vitamin supplements? Sure Mom. Minutes later I am ordering from Amazon vitamins to be shipped to Mom’s address (thank you Mr. Bezos). Etc., Etc.
These people are unique, 1 in a billion. They should appreciated not vilified.
1
Republicans, especially responsible and intelligent ones, are not up to their - your! - historic responsibilities.
1
What about Republicans' "historic responsibility"? What utter nonsense.
3
"The surest way to strip nearly anything of its value is to make it free."
Did Bret's mother make him pay for her love?
(Or did I just uncover the problem.)
5
What a shame those ten scientists from City College who won the Nobel Prize couldn't get a decent education from a tuition-free school.
4
Why are only Democrats responsible for saving the country?
4
Let's think fourth dimensionally. Picture Trump on the debate stage doing 'his thing' with someone other than Hillary, a candidate many viewers wanted to lose, and with a four year track record of failures. Almost any Democratic candidate will fare well with him because he can be flustered. Picture the Democrat saying "You said 'No puppet, no puppet.' then let the world watch Putin pull your strings." All with Hillary glaring at him from the front row. He can be flustered "Mr. President it is a pathetic and damnable lie that you said you were 'down there' with the 9/11 responders. Just like Vietnam you were nowhere to be found." He can be flustered.
1
Right on ALL points. Thank you.
Gosh, Stephens likes the worst of the Democratic candidates. Quelle surprise.
2
Yeah, Bret, unfortunately Warren G. Harding isn't going to be on either the GOP or the Dem ticket in 2020. Bully!
Democrats, just show up, even if to vote for a turnip. At least a turnip would do no harm and that is the platform from which to rebuild the country. What’s the first thing that docs do in an ER? They stop the bleeding. Can we just stop the bleeding?
1
Mr Stephens: You did such a great job calling the midterms. I guess you got the upcoming vote all figured out too.
1
“Vital parts further south” refers, I assume, to certains parts of the male anatomy that females lack. As Mr. Stephens applies this (what he considers to be a) bon mot to the “(Republican) party” and not exclusively to the Senate majority leader nor to the House minority leader, his comment is sexist and exclusionary of every female Republican Senator. Shame!
1
So,... you don't like Democrats because they're not Republican enough for you?
4
If asked, this is the column I would have written. It represents exactly my position. If the Dems think a registered independent like me is going to vote for free college and decriminalization of illegal immigration, they are badly mistaken. The DNC cannot be this stupid, can they?
239
@RuntheBackBay,
what people like you don't realize is that these are just candidate aspirations- in an ideal world. if this is the starting point from one side, in actual governance it will probably end up closer to the centrist democratic plan. whatever the case may be, no one, including republicans and independents, would be able to survive another tRump term. I at least am planning to someday host my climate refugee family in CA here in the sweet spot, near lots of fresh bodies of water.
PS: I used to live very close to it and would run the back bay regularly. let's hope it survives.
14
@JA
But voting for someone like Trump poses no problem? Independent largely of morals and ethics, it would appear.
63
@RuntheBackBay Then vote for Trump. I don't understand what the problem is.
20
I am looking at the performance of our current President, at the people who want to replace him (some of whom want to go from a mayor to President in one step), and the performance of some of our past Presidents and thinking that we are going about this all wrong. The President of the United States of America is the hardest job in the world, and we let anyone apply for it. You wouldn't let someone remodel your kitchen who had never picked up a hammer before, yet that is what we are doing now. Trump had zero governmental experience, his business expertise includes six bankruptcies, a failed football team and Trump University, yet because he has a way with words and the total collapse of the Democratic and Republican Parties, he is now our President. His performance to date reflects his lack of skill and knowledge.
I think it is time for us to establish some qualifications to become President. I would suggest experience in government at a senior level, experience leading a large organization in either business or government, a record of success in positions of increasing responsibility. All of these are things we would look for in any job interview, it is time we applied them to hiring for the toughest job of all.
1
I could not agree with Bret more. Too much of what has been said in the DEM debates has been statements that may play well to the democratic base but will never win an election. Bret is right it is time for all of us Democrats to realize that the base cannot get a person elected as POTUS.
And unlike the criticism of this column I am am a registered Democrat, I did vote for both Clintons and Obama and I am disgusted that the Republican Party nominated the orange man, that the country and my state voted him into office.
3
Weird... I can't find many columns from Bret criticizing the GOP for moving too far right. There are columns complaining about Trump, sure, but that's just the symptom of the rightward shift that's been going on for, well, decades.
Bret's mantra of criticizing the liberal party for not being conservative enough for him is tired and worn out. His points are weak -- McAdams won by fewer than 700 votes while Gillum lost by 40,000 (roughly 0.4% margin). To quote Bret, that difference is "considerable." It seems pretty clear to me that Bret can't even cherry pick data well to fit his personal vendetta's conclusion.
It disappoints me that columnists like Stephens, Brooks, and Douthat are the best the NYT can provide for a conservative outlook. If this is the intellectual elite of the right, our political system is in a world of trouble.
2
What????
"I do not admire anyone embracing the bad idea of free college. The surest way to strip nearly anything of its value is to make it free."
I graduated from a free Brooklyn College in 1961, attending in the night and working in the day, and and then went on to a free PhD. Give me a break. The free City Collages of New York produced numerous alumni of "value!" One of the worst things to happen them was the introduction of tuition in the early 1970s.
5
@Anthro Bill And let us not forget the GI Bill after WW II that transformed American Social Structure, allowing the once former poor to attend Harvard and other "elite" institutions, some later entering the National Academy of Sciences.
Bret's premise that we will somehow get out of global warming mess through rapid economic growth and dramatic technological innovation with zero impact on our comfort is quite ludicrous.
Global warming is the perfect problem that humans are unable to solve because of its dynamics - the symptoms are not severe enough until it is too late to prevent the catastrophe. The most difficult part will be waves of hundreds of millions of migrants from Central/South America, Southeast Asia, Middle East and North/Central Africa because their homelands will become uninhabitable due to drought and high temperatures.
Kids, get ready to get very, very uncomfortable. Unless you score that ticket to Mars with Elon, Jared and Ivanka, you are screwed.
4
Buttigeig only said that he would consider expanding the court and that he would appoint a non-partisan committee to look into that possibility. You should not just dismiss that idea. The commission may come up with other ideas to improve our courts. When I see all candidates, Buttigeig is the only one who passes basic tests to be a democratic nominee for president. Hope he gets it.
2
Nonetheless, the SCOTUS is ripe for corrective measures. Let's get going!
Where's Bill Weld? Why don't you talk him up? How about picking a favorite Republican Senator or two and encouraging them to step up and save your party...how about Mitt? He's been in the arena before; now he's one of those Republican creatures who finds it hard to get out of bed for fear his leader will blurt out something atrocious, yet again, that he'll have to minimize or apologize for, but it doesn't seem to bother him all that much to do it. Maybe you can prod his conscience a little and get him to be a Republican challenger to Trump?
I have a lot of interest in Medicare for All. I also have a lot of interest in these federally backed student loans that end up costing kids more to maintain than they actually make as a result of the 'for profit' education they got conned into getting for themselves. I'm tired of corporate profiteering that sucks the vitality out of our middle class in the name of 'freedom.'
Many things need fixing in this country--social infrastructure as well as our literal infrastructure. You may not like how some of the more progressive Democrats are talking about the issues--well, at least they're talking about the issues. With Republicans it's more like 'what issues....things are grrrrreat!'
Your party embraced Trump believing he'd be 'okay' and you could all somehow get him to come around to being a decent human being. You couldn't, and now you skewer Democrats because they're not doing your job for you?
2
The author is correct. A ten person debate or a twenty person race is not a debate or a contest of ideas, it is a battle for attention for everyone but the leader. If Trump was in a 3 or 4 way race from the beginning, he probably would have lost in the primaries. Extreme ideas and contrived gotchas get attention, so everyone but the front runner will be tempted to traffic in them.
Even in that light, the cheap shots at Biden were deeply disappointing. Another lesson from Trump's election is "you said x once" attacks have zero impact, but that apparently has not sunk in with people who lack the wisdom to think long term before they use such tactics.
Any candidate pushing GND or M4A will lose the general election with near certainty. The ACA had a huge political cost and barely survived. The GND would also get voted out in short order after it leads to massive waste and fraud. Global warming is an international problem and has to primarily be solved that way.
This only leaves a few viable candidates, and only one of them has had any success in the polls. My biggest wish is that someone like Klobuchar or Bullock qualifies for the next debate in case Biden gets hit by a bus.
3
Tragic is the appropriate word. Dems are playing to a base just like Individual 1, rather than to the swing voters, the no trumpers, independents, and those elusive suburban women. What gives? It's almost as though they don't want to win.
3
The constant whining and carping of the Never-Trump Republicans against the Democrats and their candidates is starting to wear thin.
For starters, where were they in 2016 when Trump easily took over their party? Having failed to keep Trump from capturing the GOP, now, using their disproportionately large media presence, they presume to tell the Democrats who they should nominate.
Bizarrely, such as in this column, they in effect are asking the Democratic Party to nominate a center-right Republican to be their candidate in over to win over the Bush Republican vote.
If the Never-Trump Republicans really had the courage of their convictions, they would be using their power and influence to fight back and to regain control of their own party from Trump, instead of taking the easy way out and using their op-ed perches to take free potshots at the Democrats.
Or alternatively, following their hearts and passion, they could have recruited and run their own third-party centrist candidate against both Trump and the Democrats. Instead, they have chosen the easy way out of their dilemma by sitting on the sidelines and complaining about both parties.
Then after the 2020 election, they will be perfectly positioned on the 50-yard line to continue criticizing whoever is President. In short, the Never-Trumpers are not playing a constructive role in our political process.
1
Bret hit it on the nose when he pointed out that the Democrats have somehow managed to make Trump....yes, Donald Trump....the sanest voice in the room. I thought Trump got lucky in 2016 because Obama pushed the country too far left and Hillary was a historically bad candidate. But this crop of radicals is the Democratic Party going total Thelma and Louise. Remarkable.
4
Bret Stephens: As someone who was a Republican for a long time and carried water for them in elite newspapers, YOUR historic responsibility NOW is to address yourself to other Republicans and conservatives as to why THEY should support whatever Democrat is nominated in order to beat Trump.
Trump did not come out of nowhere. His successful candidacy was the evolutionary result of five decades of Republican backlash politics. And that includes your sainted [sic] Ronald Reagan. His campaigns and presidency were premised on coded racial dog whistles. We now know—thanks to the release of a Nixon tape—that Reagan dispensed with the dog whistle when talking behind closed GOP doors.
Who are you to lecture Democrats like us? You want to remake our party into the more genteel (fantasy) GOP of your imagining.
If you truly believe Trump must be defeated, address yourself to your own conservative peers.
1
After the first paragraph I completely agree with Bret. Bullock, Hickenlooper, and Delaney won the first debate because prior no one was acknowledging the loony fairy tale economic nonsense spewing from Bernie and Liz.
When asked how hospitals could survive Medicare rates Bernie shouted (why is he shouting?) they'll save so much on paperwork. Seriously? Has he ever dealt with Medicare? Has there ever been a government program that reduced paperwork? And how does that make up for drastic cuts in every reimbursement? It doesn't, honest people admit that.
Paying off student debt is regressive taxation, not that we have a trillion dollars lying around. Honest people admit that too.
But don't say suddenly everyone has to be enraged Trump told someone born in Somalia to go back, R Paul even said he'd buy her a ticket. Why wasn't Brett and the Democrats equally enraged when Omar said the entire US Congress is bought by Jewish money? I know she sort of apologized, but then she blamed AIPAC which as far as I can tell has every right to petition the government as per our Constitution. The Democrats just piled on.
Then Omar said Jews such as myself are guilty of dual loyalty, after 5 generation of my family fought for this country. No one-not the Democrats, not Brett, not the NYT-thought this deserved condemnation unless we also condemned hatred of the transgendered too. So stop with the fake outrage.
Nominate someone reasonable or the reasonable will vote Republican.
4
Mr. Stephens you enrage me as you keep wishing for a DINO (Democrat in name only) to run against Trump. No the party is not going to let you off the hook-you are going to have to show some real courage to vote against the President. No throwing away your vote on some Libertarian. Frankly I don't think you have the guts. Democrats stand for government programs and policies that directly help citizens with their biggest challenges which include healthcare, the cost of education and impending climatological catastrophy. You will not just need to vote against a sexual predator, tax cheat, and racist but for someone will proactively want to help the struggling amoñg us. A tough choice for you maybe but not for me.
Why bother quarreling with Bret Stephens? He purports to be what one might characterize as an enlightened conservative. Yet, he comes up with a reason to oppose every single proposal that might do people some good. I will just note that his comment about free college education is such total nonsense that he ought to be embarrassed. Until Ronald Reagan declared war on the University of California and started cutting its budget, no one would have thought free college education was a nutty idea as Stephens does. I, myself, received a free college education in the 1960’s. My mother and father received a free college education 30 years before me.
I find Stephens’s statement that this is a crackpot idea and that my education should be considered to have been stripped of its value because it was free to be offensive in the extreme.
In fact, I suggest he is an arrogant, obnoxious, pseudo-intellectual who is, himself, a crockpot.
@Robert
The problem is many of those proposals are designed to win votes far more than they are to work well for several decades.
Kind of makes me sick to know that 15,000 Americans died last year because they didn't have access to health care.
2
@Jon Kent
You honestly believe that?
Every doctor I've ever known takes care of anyone who needs care. I've practiced for 20 years, took care of illegal immigrants in the middle of the night. Everyone has access to medical care. ERs can't turn anyone away.
No one in this country is denied access to medical care. There are people without insurance but they can purchase it if they wanted it subsidized.
Feel better.
Bret Stephens: "I do not admire anyone who would make college free. The surest way to devalue something is to make it free."
So I guess then that my 1966 B.A. From the University of California, Berkeley was worthless and so too my M.S. from San Jose State University. And so too the degrees of all those other millions of people who found educational opportunities in California in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s and went on to build the wealth of the State. At the time it seemed that through the California Master Plan for Higher Education instituted by Governor Pat Brown and a farsighted Legislature the foundations for making a more productive economy and a better society were being laid through investment in education and technical training of new generations of its citizens. They believed that education was not just or primarily a ticket to individual advancement but a way of improving the whole society. And they were right.
3
Mr. Stephens, you are right. I don't know what to think when I see these people selling such hare-brained ideas that might make even Trump look sane. And except for Biden, the most popular candidates are the worst in terms of opportunism. Or naivete, or some combination thereof.
I fear for the fate of our democracy if we have to choose between Bozo and The Joker for our president. Democracy? It works fine as long as the people are not bamboozled by crackpots and dictators. Once that happens, bye-bye democracy.
1
Just one example of Bret Stephens narrow minded approach to “advising” the Democrats might be understanding the idea that milllions of people who work for Corporations would be angry with candidates attacking their employers...conveniently inserting the deplorable talking point...could not be further from the truth. Admit you want Republican “light” which used to be called simply Republican.
Question: how is the US going to pay for all these “progressive” ideas when Trump’s tax cuts added trillions in debt? And when an economic slowdown is looming?
The truth is many of the Dem candidates are like Trump: they espouse ideas they know (or should know) are not feasible, like children expecting their parents to pay for anything they want. And, like Trump, they posit against an enemy, usually people who are rich.
I despise Trump. He is a disgrace and dangerous. But the truth is the Dems are acting like populists, not pragmatists and policy makers. Populism is the virus that propelled Trump to powered.
1
How to Doom the Democrats in 2020
1. Reframe Joe Biden's clearly visible ineptitude into anything called "adequate."
2. Listen to media pundits who refuse to acknowledge the obvious: Joe Biden persistently fails at the most basic political tasks.
3. Avoid discussing that he publically failed this week to not ramble incoherently, drift off when delivering *pre-rehearse* talking points and basic campaign contact information.
Great job dismissing a whole succession of caricatures and straw men!
Conservative and so called moderate pundits (and voters) are setting up the classic scenario familiar to anyone who has been in a controlling relationship.
The narrative: Do it this way- no- not right. Now look what you made me do. I have to vote for Trump or stay home - and it's all your fault!!
The NYT might consider asking its conservative Republican commentators to concentrate on fixing the GOP. After all, they contributed to what it has become. And then let Democrats and progressives sort out another path for this country. I am tired of former Republicans trying to take over the Democratic Party. You destroyed the GOP and are taking the country down with it. Now you want progressives to think like you do. But you failed!
Democratic voters relying on your opinion of our candidates is about as likely as republican voters relying on Gail Collins opinions of theirs. Stay in your own backyard.
1
Mr Stephens, you are right and you should save your breath. Trying to communicate logically with those who embrace the politically stupid and fiscally impossible proposals you enumerated is a waste of time. They and their supporters do not listen any more than do Trump and his apologists willingness to listen to anything but ideological orthodoxy.
Sheep enjoy the company of sheep.
The republican sheep are the social conservatives who are willing to turn a blind eye to the republican malfeasance in order to nurse their guns and their grievances.
The democratic sheep are the socialist wannabes suffering from guilt or grievance and willing to spend any amount of other people's money to assuage their guilt.
Neither flock is worthy of the awesome privilege and responsibility that comes with our foundational liberties.
Shorter Stephens: "If only Democrats would endorse policies that Wall Street Republicans like me like, they can beat Donald Trump, because my own party is too unprincipled and cowardly to do anything."
The surest way to strip nearly anything of its value is to make it free.
Is that how we are to take Bret's 's advice here. The cost is way too great.
1
I dont think many adults these days understand the historic path of US Political Parties.......
There's really only one Party.....the party of stability, the party of "Stay the Course", the Party of Status Quo, ... the Democrat Party. Founded in 1800 to resolve a serious constitutional conflict in how to elect both a President and a Vice President.....with the solution becoming a constitutional amendment to create "running mates"......Thomas Jefferson becoming President and fellow Democrat Aaron Burr becoming VP, after Alex Hamilton manipulated the Congressional vote......and later being shot by said Aaron Burr.
Since 1800, the Democrat Party has promoted the Stable Status Quo,,,,which included slavery(until it was no longer needed), Tammany Hall style govt patronage(continues to this day), Jim Crow NORTH(needed to secure jobs for immigrants), and lately the "old" New Deal,still represented by a fossilized Military-Industrial-Welfare Complex(1968).
The Democrat Party has faced numerous weakly organized opposition and challenges.....and the Democrats themselves often seem to shift from one Status Quo to the next......Whigs, Know Nothings, Communists, "Independents" and lately Republicans.
WE forget that the Republican Party rose out of......California. Eureka! John Fremont almost immediately after making California a state. 1856. And since that time it has been so-called Republicans that force the actual progressive agenda that breaks the Status Quo.....every time.
@Wherever Hugo
Republicans of 100 years ago are not Republicans of today. Same with Democrats.
But, if we limit ourselves to recent Democrats, it seems to me that LBJ and FDR were Democrats, so I don't really know what you're talking about with your 'actual progressive agendas' being born of Republicans.
1
It really makes me scratch my head why the Times dedicates so much opinion space to anti-Trump GOPers telling Democrats what to do. Obviously I disagree with their prescriptions, which tend to be very repetitive in any case. And I agree very much with those commenting that Stephens should target his ire and calls for reform at his own party. But what I want to know is why every day there’s some fresh tirade scolding me for being too “far to the left,” and never any opinion pieces that would help your readers understand where people like me are coming from. Diversify your slate of columnists please, this stuff is getting stale and it is a long election season. Since Stephens, Brooks, and Douthat are folks without a party, then perhaps they should also be folks without a weekly column.
1
Warren is a moralizing ninny and I would never vote for her. Unfortunately I'll never have the opportunity not to. Her chance of being nominated is somewhere between one in 32 and one in 1,024.
Well written, the only thing as bad as a demagogue like Trump is an extreme identity obsessed social engineer on the left.
Both of them are extremely dangerous because they bring out the worst in us that always hurts our country ie the limo liberals of the past or the wanna be limo liberal Hillary serving up the ego maniac demagogue Trump to us on a silver platter.
1
And Stephens and Brooks and McConnell and Graham and Ryan and McCarthy all denounced candidate Trump as unfit, depraved, idiotic, and unelectable. It’s so absurd for them to offer advice to Democrats. They do not have a clue. They are afraid.
Socialism is a very successful means to address the necessities in any country. Healthcare, education, housing, nutrition are necessities, but Republicans don’t care about necessities except as profit centers. Republicans want to exploit everyone and everything. Even when all the evidence points to the fact that America is isolated in its exploitation of human frailty and mortality. Only Republicans hate funding education. Republicans rely on greed, resentment, hatred, racism, male supremacy, and fear to stay in office. Trump tore the veil away.
1
Shorter Bret Stephens, lifelong Republican:
"Not my job."
1
I don't even have to read it. Bret the Democrats need to be Democrats not Republican. Go get your party back. You cant have ours.
After the last 4 debate nights, I am disappointed and angry at my Party and the 20+ self-serving candidates. It seems increasingly likely 45 could win. If I thought Congress could get him out via Impeachment, I would support it, but a Republican Senate will never convict. To the DNC, “Wake up! You’re losing!” To 19 or so candidates, “Get out! Find your next job, which won’t be President, on your own time and dime.”
On no, my friend, not unwanted advice in this registered Democrat’s view. It’s Democrats that are now the party of the special interests. Who will represent the left-handed vegan gay unicycle riders! In addition to being a registered D, I am a George H W Bush-type Republican. I will vote Republican here and there. Maybe I am a textbook “swing” voter? I remain in the center, and my party has abandoned me. Like Bret, I can’t stomach the incumbent. But where can I go? As a 59 year-old White guy, nobody wants me anyway - except Trump... I ain’t going there.
Bret, Bill Clinton has no place in the new Democrat party, and ironically Trump's predecessor is their nemesis as well. And yes, the new Dem party *will* go after Israel if they get power with Warren already salivating at the prospect, for instance.
“ I have written so often (and so recently) about the ways Donald Trump’s G.O.P. makes me sick that I won’t repeat myself here.”
Defining “often” and “recently” with two opinion pieces should not make you sick. It should make us sick that you don’t write them every single week.
2
Any Democrat “staying home” because they don’t like a moderate is both a fool, and is essentially casting a vote for Trump.
I’m sure progressives will object to this column because they don’t like it. When will people learn that there is no correlation between like and reality.
Please read and heed to defeat Trump in 2020!
1
@kaydayjay
I'll vote for any Democrat who gets the nomination...but I will not let the likes of Bret Stephens tell me I'm a fool for my progressive beliefs. He will get pushback each and every time.
‘Experienced Democratic hands think the party will have a giant political problem if it nominates a candidate too far to the left. That’s probable but not certain. ‘
Then go for it. Run a socialist ticket, see what happens. Except the Dems won’t because they know they will get roasted.
Problem is, if you run any one else, they are still assured to loose.
You have a bunch polling under 2%, you have a pair of socialists far removed from reality, a few wannabes that fizzled already, and one dude that not even the party likes, but might be your best bet.
So yea, at this point, run any one. Who knows, maybe they will pull a miracle, but I hardly doubt it.
"Democrats Are Not Up To Their Historic Responsibility?
So. Are you implying—Republicans— ARE?
Stop with the clickbait. ANY ONE of these candidates would be better than the incumbent. Our country’s values are being diminished and you are trying to make sure we have a close race so you can sell advertising. Stop fear-mongering.
Bret is a Republican who worked for the WSJ.
I rest my case.
5
I'm not quite sure why Democrats fear the word socialism when literally anything they say, do, and propose will at some point be called socialism by the boy cried wolf, one trick pony Republicans.
Obamacare taxpayer funded subsidies for the purchase of for profit insurance? Republicans called socialism, despite supporting the very same plan in the 90's, and in their ill fated repeal/replace attempt in 2017.
Public option, giving people the option of buying into medicare, and to compete alongside private insurance? Republicans deemed socialism.
Heck, remember when Republicans pushed the Simpson-Bowels commission deficit reduction plan back under Obama, thinking they were going to catch Obama opposing deficit reduction measures, only find that Obama actually was okay with the plan, prompting Republicans to oppose their own plan, and start calling it socialism?
Here's a list of other things Republicans have called socialism: Social Security, Medicare , negotiating drug prices, public schools, Medicaid for the elderly, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Equal Opportunity Act of 1972, every labor law in the US including workers comp and overtime rules, every environmental protection in the US, etc.
Keep in mind, nearly all of these policies are in place...and guess what...Corporate Profits are at record highs, as are stocks...so socialism appears to work well it seems.
Bret Stephens take back the republican party. They are the extemists you allowed into the system. They are the infection conservatives pushed forward.
The answer is not to pass your infection to the Democrats. We don't need to be the party of dog whistle bigorty and letting people die from lack of healthcare. We are more decent than that.
Make your party, the one you say you have left, but fight every day for, better. But don't blame us for your personal shortcomings.
The Democratic Party is not here to enable your addiction to bad policy. We are not in a co-dependent relationship with you and your party. The one you just can't quit.
1
I'm sick of the NY Times' conservative columnists who for years have propagandized on behalf of the GOP despite its dog whistle racism, its class warfare, and its Trump lite policies. Now that all these elements of GOPism are out in the open, like a festering wound, they tell us they are repulsed by what they see the GOP has become, oh and by the way it's time for the Democrats to step up and become the Republican party of Mitt Romney. Bret, the GOP is a fringe, white nationalist party. And the Dems have already moved noticeably to the right. It's time for the Dems to reclaim the center and the left.
1
Blaming the Dems as usual. Huh. What responsibility do Republicans have? None, one might conclude.
Sorry Bret, but you can't expect us to believe that the few Democrats who you happen tolerate - all white guys - are going to get us out of a problem caused nearly 100% by white guys. I can't help but think that your motive is actually to have a week Democrat in office for 4 years until your party can offer up another gem.
No, Bret, it isn’t that you present “unwanted advice from a non-Democrat”, so much as it is that your advice is so deeply rooted in the type of Republican propaganda that helped elect Trump in the first place. If you actually want Trump to lose in 2020, start making the case in your columns for what has gone so terribly wrong in your own Republican Party and why it is necessary for the future viability of America and democracy to vote you out of power. How did you and your Party lose all morals, patriotism and common sense, or were those just Potemkin values to begin with? That could be the subject of your next dozen columns. Help clean up the moral and political fetid morass of your own Party’s making instead of trying to force Democrats to join you in it.
Mr. Stephens makes the point, alluding to the congressman from Utah, and it can't be made enough, Democrats won in 2018 thanks to level-headed, pragmatic candidates flipping R districts in the suburbs: Horn in Oklahoma, Spanberger in Virginia, Hill & Rouda in California and so many others.
Using health care as an example, a good bit of those Democratic suburban voters, who have plans they're satisfied with, want their fellow Americans to have access to affordable insurance and prescriptions, but when you have candidates like Elizabeth Warren who wants to disrupt their lives by pile driving a government-run health care program down their gullets, well, it may cause them to rethink their political allegiances or just check out altogether.
Compounding this is the bile from the Warren and Sanders supporters who view those who want careful, thoughtful augmentations to the current ACA law as selfish ignoramuses who should be shunned from the party. Yes, the Medicare for All supporters are insistent their plan is better, but really, are they certain? They can invoke Canada, New Zealand, etc all they want, but they are not the US. They aren't as big and their economies are not as dynamic as ours.
But this may all be a moot point even if Warren or Sanders is elected. The votes aren't there for Medicare for All, and no, Warren and Sanders will not be able to bend those suburban Democrats to their will.
1
Mindlessly promoting 'rapid economic growth is like advocating leukemia as a cure for breast cancer. Of course, people who, in much of the world and indeed the US, live in poverty need to rise to lives of physical dignity. But our country's economy, based as it is in rampant, thoughtless material consumption needs a dose of restraint, not growth.
2
Mr. Stephens, I guess the only thing you and the rest of us can hope for given your dismal assessment of the Democrats, is for Trump to commit some sort of heinous crime that will convince the GOP not to nominate him for re-election next year.
In my book it's a good sign that so many Democrats are running for the nomination. I hope that they don't lose their focus and self-destruct but that's another column entirely.
1
I think it is the time for the progressive democrats to be politically clever. They should get one of the centrists elected and use their influence to get the new president to take up (or at least try out) some of these policy initiatives. Some of them may stick , some may not. In any case, this would be more palatable for so many moderate independents and republicans rather than forcing a revolutionary candidate on a skeptic electorate.
2
I feel Mr Stephens's pain. He wants Democrats to forget who they are – actually, they've done a pretty good job for some time now – and think and act like Ben Sasse or Mitt Romney, because that's the historically responsible thing to do.
1
As a Democrat, I am concerned about how the party and its candidates are approaching 2020. But don't you dare blame the them. Republicans elected DT, defend DT, and by any means necessary will seek to reelect DT, in complete disregard to any damage caused our country and its citizens.
2
Mr. Stevens: I’m genuinely interested in knowing why you think climate change can be solved, in part, by “rapid economic growth (that makes environmental action in the developing world affordable)”. Please unpack this idea further. I’m especially interested in understanding how rapid growth can be achieved, as it’s practiced according to our current economic model, without a severe environmental cost. (See: China) And if you reply with the magical “innovation” card, that would be far too easy and pat of an answer. One of the things that talk of innovation does is to overlook the need for plain ol’ changes in human behavior and resource consumption.
5
@Matt yes, we need to keep calling people out on this. Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too- a pristine environment, no carbon emissions, and we will create jobs and grow the economy. Sorry, physics doesn't work that way. By definition, work requires energy and creates waste. We are going to have to reduce our lifestyle, work less, control our population. Looking at the past 300 years history, innovation on the whole has pushed us closer to extinction, not saved us.
1
If the past is any indication, the nominee will become more moderate by the time the general election rolls around.
Also, with regards to Buttigieg's supreme court plan, he isn't advocating that the president should be the one to add these additional justices. Rather, he is saying that the JUSTICES should choose 5 additional justices, which doesn't sound like a short-sighted idea at all. This is not something that whoever happens to be in power can manipulate.
To be clear, I do think there are other problems with his idea (e.g. that there are republican and democratic justices) but the core idea is solid.
2
Mr. Stephens’ reason for opposing free college, that it would no longer be valued, logically applies to high school as well, and even grade school. Perhaps he will explain whether he favors turning all schools ( and parks and beaches and libraries and trails and sidewalks and streets and even friendship and love) into for-profit costly enterprises. Or was that just his own personal brand of dreaded “extremism” coming out in a column one can read for free?
Stephens’ specific gripes are not the same thing as a coherent practical reason to oppose any of the candidates should they face Trump in the general election. We all will have areas of disagreement with whomever the candidate eventually is. On election day the only extreme act would be to refuse to vote for any candidate who has a chance of beating Trump.
Sometimes after returning empty handed from an auction that turned out to be only offering 2nd tier stock, my small rancher step-father, when asked how it went. would tell us, "Pretty puny pickings boys, pretty puny pickings". About sums up my feelings regarding the recent debates.
Looks to me like someone, somewhere with-in the Democratic fold with a Blue Ribbon pedigree, a fire in their belly and love in their heart (and perhaps a best selling book behind them) would look this situation over and decide that it's time to put country over reticence and step forward to throw their hat in ring, before it's too late. And you know Bret, who I'm talking about.
1
When will the media accept their historic responsibility to sensationalizing every piece of garbage that comes out of Trump's mouth 24/7? You got him elected this first time. Instead allow someone like Keith Olbermann to villify Trump 3 times a week and then just shut up. Instead, tell the public that anybody else is an improvement and then just shut up. The debates and the media have become one and the same. A collection of so called "ideas" that mostly will never become policy nor relevant to the lives of Americans. I long for the days of smoke filled back rooms and Walter Cronkite. Bill Maher is more effective than the blogosphere at the rest of it and even he takes a vacation.
2
... because Hillary’s message of ‘no we can’t’ was so inspiring last time?
We have big things to do.
Just as FDR had big things to do.
Let’s have the courage to do them before it’s too late.
Bernie2020
2
No, dear Bret, you do NOT want Trump AND his Collaborators to “lose as much as anyone”. Why ? You are a wealthy, straight, White Male. You are NOT on his personal hit list. The people having the most to lose, and fear, are Women, Minorities and the Poor. The usual GOP targets, with a special cruelty sauce and topped with spite sprinkles.
Sad.
2
It’s impossible to defeat Trump by imitating and embracing his extremism. If you do it, you are just his follower!
Trump was telling those congressmen to go back to their districts---to leave Congress. He said nothing about "countries of origin", and two of them have ancestors in the US (Puerto Rico is part of the US) who were here before Trump's.
1
@Jonathan Katz Um, no.
You are so right, Stephens. We don't want your advice on a candidate. If you want to save American democracy you would be wise to focus on your party, the party from under whose rock t rump arose in the first place.
republicans have been running on extremism for 40+ years; the party has spent the last 10 years trying to take away the ACA from people who are insured for the first time in their lives;
they have spent the last two years silent on the idea of ripping babies from their mother;s arms;
they have spent the last 40 years pretending that if they give the keys of the Treasury to those who have it all in the first place, somehow magically that money will get back to the rest of US;
they have spent the last 20 years telling US that we can defeat extremism in the Middle East with extremism from the West.
The real extremism I see the last 10 years has been the actions of Moscow Mitch; going so far as to ignore the Constitution regarding Supreme Court Justices.
Stephens, corporations are not, I repeat NOT, patriots. The economic system in our Nation has been subverted to the point that we cannot fill our pot holes, let alone build the infrastructure necessary to keep America great.
Bold ideas are needed.
And bold ideas are coming from only one side of the aisle.
6
Agree with you on every point.
And I am a Democrat.
1
First of all I'm sick to death of individuals like Mr Stephens, who have been Republicans and now want to tell the Democrats how to run their party. Please Mr Stephens, apparently your beliefs and your advice the Republican party went unheeded and we're stuck with Donald Trump. There's nothing in the Republican's foreseeable future which indicates that anything will be different. So let me fill you in on a little fact. The Democrats at these debates are not auditioning for the general public vote. They are auditioning for Democratic primary voters. You are not one of them, unless you register as a Democrat and you live in a state which has open primaries. Most do not. So, in order to secure the Democratic nomination, these individuals have to give heed to principles that the Democratic base wants to see implemented. That's the long and the short of it. It's not that complicated. When the general election comes around, then they will pivot and they will have the opportunity to sell their ideas to the public in general. Perhaps the ideas of Sanders, Harris, Warren, and others do not survive the primaries. That is fine. That's what we hope the primaries do is to weed out the worst candidates. Yet, I am not willing to let the Democratic party suddenly become a less offensive version of the Republican Party.
4
I appreciate Bret Stephens's opinions. He is a reliable source of reasonable commentary from the other side, even if I always read Gayle first.
With so much at stake, these are our choices? God help us and the entire free world.
The debates are damaging the image of all the candidates and I blame the DNC. Why on earth would they choose broadcast media, and especially CNN for hosting the debates. At the very least, they should have controlled the format and made it more dignified, for lack of a better word, and substantive. The media (and that includes you NYT) go with the twitter outrage of the day and, like a pit bull, won't let it go of it which means only a few candidates ever make it beyond the back pages.
1
Get over it Bret, sorry (not) your party (The GOP) has gone the way of the Dodo but there is no way you'll co-opt my Party with your rightwingspeak about extremism when all we want is a fare wage, climate sense, justice for all peoples of color, voting free from fraud, reproductive choice, healthcare that is affordable and just, a way to afford education so that we end up with a populous that can fulfil their civic responsibilities with intelligence and wisdom, equal opportunity for all and a foreign policy that can easily recognize allies and foes and treat them accordingly. If you are a moderate and these issues give you concern, you are NOT a moderate and if these issues drive you to vote for Trump then you are an extremist.
2
Yes, some ideas the Dems discuss may be out of touch or out of reach, BUT at least they are debating possible ideas. I may not agree with their proposals, BUT at least I am open to considering them.
The GOP has crushed thinking. They can't go outside of the cue card thinking of their omnipotent media outlets. When I talk to Trumpers I feel as if I'm always getting the FOX storyline of the day as well as a condescending insult. They are afraid to think of any possibility outside of their media world.
Frankly, I find them boring.
It is worth reminding readers that Ruy Teixeira is the co-author of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" and the author of "Red, Blue, and Purple America". Whether the NYT's more left leaning commenters realize it or not, he is responsible for formulating most of the sound-bite or common wisdom "facts" which undergird their arguments that demographics are firmly in their favor if only the Democrats can motivate them to get out the vote. That the progenitor of these notions is uncomfortable about the electoral prospects of the ardent Progressives' strategy should give meaningful pause to strongly left leaning NYT commenters who understand that winning the White House is the critical first step to enacting most policy.
I put facts in quotes not because Mr. Teixeira's data is unreliable, but because demographic forecasting is complicated and not foolproof. Making sound-bite statements and arguments necessarily glosses over this complexity and the problem worsens as the facts are communicated second, third, fourth, and n-th hand.
"The surest way to strip nearly anything of its value is to make it free." First off, college wouldn't be "free", if would be taxpayer funded. Secondly, the statement makes no sense. Does Medicare make healthcare worthless? Is our infrastructure worthless?
4
Mr Stephens I know you have heard this before but please ‘I implore You ‘ , expend your energy time and column space focused on fixing your own party . They are badly in need of your guidance.
Meanwhile we Democrat’s can figure out all on our own who are nominee to beat Trump will be . It will not I assure you be any of the Republican Lite candidates like Delaney and Ryan that draw your attention.
2
Democrats love to expound on big theoretical issues, but they had better focus on bread and butter issues that effect individuals on a daily basis.
Climate change is hugely important, but incomprehensibly complex. Candidates need to seduce voters, rather than entertain pie-in-the-sky aspirations. " Keep it simple stupid" must be the guiding principle for Democratic candidates, if they are to overcome the raw power of Trump's emotional appeal to the lowest common denominators of human behavior.
This is unwanted advice coming from a non-Democrat. If you really wanted to see Trump lose next year, you would not be parroting the "crazy socialist" talking points at every opportunity. Or you could go start your new party -- and good luck with that. Moderates have been trying to take back the GOP from the lunatic fringe ever since the Goldwater campaign, without success. That's because your only constituency consists of people you've jacked up on hate and fear, and the only way to stay in power (when you can) is to ratchet up the lunacy to ever higher levels. That and voter suppression. Conservatism has had its hands around the throat of American politics way too long. By revealing the truth of what the Republican Party really is, Trump may have ended that for a long, long time.
2
There is no moral pathway that leads one to support Donald J. Trump. Those who say there is are hypocrites and will live with that characterization until their last breath.
2
A Republican admonishes Democrats to avoid extremism to win the White House when his own party's extremism put Trump in the White House. Physician heal thyself.
2
The thing I can't get out of my head is that so many people in this country voted for Trump in the first place. Who would do such a thing? Half the country.
The debates were all trees and no forest. For instance, all of the health care plans discussed last night would move us in the right direction. On any objective measure, all of the serious candidates are worlds better than the present infestation of the Oval Office.
The candidates did better when they were self-evidently cognizant of the fact that they weren't really competing against one another. They were all seeking a win against CNN, with its hot click questions and Republican talking points. They were as a group looking for a victory over the idiotic debate format which favored the extremists, the loudest angriest voice in the room, the arm wavers, men interrupting women.
None of us know what the outcome of any of this will be. We are in unprecedented (and un-presidented) territory. Bret comments on whether or not any of this lot can beat Trump. That's just another thing we do not know. Along with not knowing the impact of pursuing or not pursing impeachment.
Actually we do know a few things. We know, for instance, that Warren and Sanders calling other Democrats cowards, afraid, Republicans, timid, and corporate is untrue, insulting, and divisive, and demonstrates a lack of restraint and judgment in Warren that I had been hoping was not there.
1
I do not admire anyone who thinks the only way forward is to do all the things that got us into this mess. I do not admire Republicans who have been supporting the GOP's descent into lies, cons and hate since Reagan (which every GOP vote has been in support of - quit kidding yourself) who are now uncomfortable with Trump but refuse to accept responsibility and do penance. I do not admire Republicans who are trying to force Democrats to become Republicans so they have a comfy place and time.
4
What I like very much about this field and this moment is the prospects of a great ticket that unites most of the party. If Biden wins, and his chief political strengths are to bring back some Obama-Trump voters (doesn’t even need to be that many) and walk into a Union Hall and come out with votes, he can pick a VP that accounts for his weaknesses and appeals to the rest of the party. A young, progressive favorite like Stacey Abrams, for example.
If Warren wins, Steve Bullock—a master at listening and speaking to folks Warren may struggle to reach—would pair naturally and make a very formidable combo.
Plenty of room for optimism in all of this. Even the craziest liberal policy proposal is the height of wise lawmaking compared to “arm the teachers!”
149
@Muirnov
Until our society succeeds in making mass shootings a rarity, we are obligated to do whatever is necessary to protect our children and congregants. As painful as it is to arm the teachers, it's more painful to bury children. Your choice.
@Muirnov
Run Warren - Bullock; run on implementing Obamacare in good faith and adding a public option; run on making community college free or very cheap and public universities affordable. And I’ll once again be very enthusiastic indeed about the idea of President Warren.
Currently my enthusiasm is waning even if I’d still vote for her over President Trump or a third party candidate. But I like to think that it matters whether her supporters enthusiastically and persistently weigh in and defend her ideas against unfair attacks.
2
@Michael
Teachers aren't killers. Get over it. Providing more guns in the hands of the inexperienced is not a solution.
7
Making college free takes away the meritocracy that debases education, which should be there for the intelligent hardworking adults that want to pursue higher academics. Remember Hillary was the moderate, Bernie was way ahead of her in polls against Trump. Let's follow the ideals of our country and let the people decide not the Ny times who has serious and suspicious biases.
"I do not admire anyone embracing the bad idea of free college. The surest way to strip nearly anything of its value is to make it free."
Perhaps you should check out what happened when we started turning blood into a marketable commodity. If value is anything other than financial profit, this was a seriously damaging decision in terms of the quality and reliability of our medical blood supply.
I’ll listen to Bret Stephens when he takes responsibility for helping get Trump elected. Until then please stop
1
Spot on! These fair tail dems are insuring Trump gets four more years. I fear the party is mostly out of step with the main stream. Oh sure they cater to a select few with promises of free this or that, 1K a month just for breathing or reparations what is a Pandora’s box for sure. These nutty ideas will hurt the party what all ready is floundering. It should be an easy win but once again the dems put the foot in their mouth and gum up everything. Better hope Biden or one of the others clearly founded on earth wins or we all lose.
Stephens is so deeply concerned about the "humanitarian catastrophe" in Afghanistan. We must spend billions to continue our role there as a policeman. I can see this point, if we had the money and his children were in the military.
But then he opposes Medicare for All. A program to help stop a slow motion humanitarian catastrophe right here at home. And the foreigners at our border are not victims like the Afghans? Where is his allegiance? History is passing these neo-con free-market defenders by.
It's incredible to read so many comments saying that Stephens is advocating a Republican position when he specifically mentions sensible positions put forth by three Democratic candidates, albeit the lower polling ones. Hillary lost because she was a terrible candidate who ran an even worse campaign. It wasn't because she was a centrist. Don't get drunk on Trump rage; moderates can beat the Republicans -- read who Stephen points to having already done so.
1
It wasn’t the Democrats that nominated Trump, it was the GOP. It will not be the Democrats that nominate Trump, it will be the GOP.
If you are opposed to Trumpism, well and good. I share your opposition, to what has become a force for radical evil in American society and culture.
But put the blame where it belongs: the GOP.
And ask WHY the GOP continues this slide into ethno-nationalist catastrophe.
Don’t blame the Democrats for the errors of the GOP. That is just plain faulty reasoning from an otherwise reasonable person.
515
@Paul McGlasson
And it was the DNC that nominated Hillary Clinton. Which, in turn, elected Donald Trump.
10
@Michaela
Great. Not only must Democrats save the country, they have to save the GOP from itself.
C'mon, the two political parties that have a chance of winning in the US should both be sane. You can't blame the GOP caused wreckage on vagaries of the other side.
24
@Michaela
Sad, but spot on.
After Obama won, we didn't cultivate a younger candidate with more liberal ideas and less political baggage than HRC warming up.
A missed opportunity.
9
It's time for Democrats to start polling in WIsconsin, MIchigan, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania and see who those folks like best. Let's pick that person. California, New York, and Massachusetts folks need to take a back seat in this election.
2
Mr. Stephens - you are spot on with almost everything in your column today - nice change! And the Democratic party should take your advice seriously. The structure of the electoral college means that the Republicans can get away with extreme positions and still win; however, the Democrats have no chance of winning with positions such as open borders, free tuition, Medicare for all, Green New Deal and so on. Yes, many European countries have far more progressive. Unfortunately, US is not Europe and these positions are guaranteed to elect Trump. It is time to get strategic and focus on winning instead of making a point. We cannot live with four more years of this regime.
2
I am waiting for Brett to announce that he will vote for any Democrat who gets the nomination, just to ensure that Trump loses. Then he can talk about his concerns about how others will vote. Until then, he is just another Republican, trying to influence Democratic policy.
777
@david Yes, he won't ever have the courage to do so.
17
@david
His message is that his party is nuts and he wants our party to become the Republican party he is used to.
19
Would love also to see such an announcement from George Bush, Colin Powell, Condolezza Rice, Richard Haas and other prominent Republican 'influencers'. @david
10
There's a lot wrong with this but the two most galling are as follows:
"But advocates of Medicare for All have no realistic answer to the question of how hospitals are supposed to stay in business" They shouldn't be businesses in the first place, that's literally the point.
Second: "I do not admire anyone embracing the bad idea of free college. The surest way to strip nearly anything of its value is to make it free." That you think value can only be attained through money says everything that's wrong with your position.
1
I welcome and appreciate your thoughts on the democratic primary debaters. My hope is that the candidates will listen to the voices who are dissenting their extreme positions on healthcare and the immigration disaster. I am hoping for further re-evaluation and correction in the coming months on the issues facing the average American voter. May I suggest, take a listen to Michael Moore's comments last night.
Thanks for an honest view of Dems from a lifelong Conservative. I appreciate your listing specific things on which you disagree.
Your disagreement on "free" education seems to be contradicted by the success of such programs in the rest of the world. How do you think all those Chinese and Indian engineers that are in US tech today got their education?
We can agree to disagree on the place of American corporations. You see the people they hire. I see the historical low wages relative to revenues, the historically low taxes they pay to maintain our infrastructure, and the many abuses in the financial industry, the healthcare industry, airline manufacturing, oil industry, continued pollution of the world's environment, knowingly flouting laws of all sorts.
Conservatives believe that small government frees businesses to the benefit of the economy, but this never happens in the real world. Businesses will make profits to the detriment of the society that supports it. Businesses will always act in their own interests, not to the benefit of society. The only thing that stops them is government.
Which brings us to the Green New Deal. There is not much difference between FDR's New Deal and the Green New Deal as far as goals, financing are concerned. Refurbish American infrastructure with the best green technology. The role of government is to set up an environment where the largest number of citizens can grow. But what FDR did is clearly too radical for even Dem moderates.
2