Why We Can’t Have Nice Things

Fan-favorite political strategist Mo Elleithee returns to The Remnant today for a discussion of Joe ...

By
18

Fan-favorite political strategist Mo Elleithee returns to The Remnant today for a discussion of Joe Biden’s first six months in office, America’s deepening polarization, and how we should understand the results of the 2020 election. With debates over issues like critical race theory and police reform continuing to intensify, has the Democratic Party really shifted as far to the left as conservatives believe? For that matter, what can Mo’s latest Battleground Poll tell us about the challenges America faces, and why is the political side of Twitter so inexpressibly hideous? It’s a dream come true for lovers of statistics and infrastructure.

Show Notes:

– Mo’s work at the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service

– Mo’s recent appearance on TheDispatch Podcast

– Nate Cohn on the statistics behind the 2020 election

– Chris Wallace accuses Republicans of defunding the police

– The Bill Clinton/Lani Guinier episode

– Abigail Spanberger blasts progressive sloganeering

– Sean Trende on Conversations with Bill Kristol

– The June 2021 Battleground Poll

By
Comments (18)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Richard Kennedy

    Mo hinted at something I have been sensing for a while. There are two things characterize Trumpism. There are the “policies”, whatever they may be. The 2020 What He Say Platform was silent on this, but Trump is pushing The Wall again already. Maybe another policy might be Not What They Say. I suspect that the enterprise of nailing this aspect down might be almost as challenging as actually defining CRT. But this other thing. The Fight. Almost anyone among Trumpists I talk to or have read dismisses the vulgarity and ad hominem of Trump as not being nice in a fight, how minor rudeness is as an issue at all compared with the stakes that are at risk. I might be wrong about the characteristics of populism, but I’m not sure it is necessary for the selling of a populist cause. I am sure that it is not as hard to duplicate as many say. And this is the problem. Shaking Trump the sooner the better is only one of the challenges. Tamping down the brushfires while treating the issues with respect even while contending against all or some of them will take longer than mere chasing Trump off the stage, assuming that’s possible. I fear that conservatism is becoming characterized by vulgar anger for its own sake and opposition to anything “elites” contend whether from the left, or old line institutional conservatives.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Angie

    I enjoyed this pod, thanks

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Belt

    I'm a fan, but Mo is no favorite.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Jaime Marie

    No push back on the “actually it was the Republicans that voted to defund the police” bit and “no one is really talking about CRT” was really disappointing. Then Mo goes on to exalt Biden’s virtues of an even temper, self control, and excellent political negotiation skills and I’m beginning to wonder WTF is going on here.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Tkdc926

      Plus no pushback on Mo's comments about the "popularity" of the COVID relief bill. Of course a bill that sends people a check in the mail is going to be popular.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Deb4711

        And Jonah has said so himself more than once.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Tkdc926

          Yep. Forgot to add that. Glad you did!

          Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Larry Seltzer

    Mo's contention that what makes Donald Trump powerful is "not transferable" to others has been evident to me since 2015. It's not an ideology, it's a personality cult. I wouldn't worry too much about someone 'smarter' (e.g. Tucker Carlson I guess) picking up the Trump ball and running with it, because they're not Donald Trump. There's no legend of Tucker Carlson that has been built up in the American people for decades. So it's always been the case that if he were, for whatever reason, maybe he falls through a manhole, not be in the picture anymore, I think the fire automatically starts shrinking, because the biggest can of gasoline is empty.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Tracie

      That's hopeful.

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Kevin Johnson

    Useful. I like Mo. we need more like him in the commentary biz, on all sides. His points on Twitter were enlightening.

    But on two important issues, police and CRT, he just danced and obfuscated about his party’s dangerous positions, which the media are mostly interested in only as “Republicans pounce” while the substance angers more and more Americans, including independents and Democrats.

    Mo is right that Biden, to his credit, rejected “defund the police” in the campaign and since. That’s one reason I could vote for him (the other being his existential “not-Trump” status.) But Mo is not honest in claiming few elected Democrats support “defund the police.” First, democratic mayors in our largest cities have cut hundreds of millions from police budgets in direct response to the “defund” call, and have said so. In some cities they specifically eliminated units designed to get illegal guns off the street. Second, many Americans see “defund” as part of a larger anti-law enforcement hysteria supported widely by many (not all) Democrats in office and in the media. The “mostly peaceful” propaganda about riots (distinct from protests) which killed dozens, injured hundreds, and cost billions; the “progressive prosecutors” who refuse to prosecute illegal gun possession or purchases in our largest cities;the early release of criminals with gun or violence cases pending or convicted. POTUS noticed polls showing broad concern over crime…and then gave a speech addressing none of these issues, but merely rehashing efforts to restrict sales of rifles, which are used in fewer homicides in the U.S. than result from beatings.

    Decent people support all of the policies cited above which many of us find alarming and anti-law enforcement. They aren’t delegitimate approaches. But once reaction to the crime wave spreads, to argue that only a small minority of democratic officials favor them, which many see as part of the “defund” hysteria, is dishonest.

    On CRT, Democrats and media allies are dancing around definitions to escape the plain meaning of what they, including the administration, favor. Now that the public is up in arms, they want to deny authorship of policies opposing the color-blind ideal and individual equality. To simplify, we can leave out defining CRT for now, although it’s common sense meaning to many covers a broad range of racialist ideas promoted in government, the media, corporations, NGOs and education. Let’s take ONLY the CRT branches included in “anti-racism” as defined and promoted by Dr. Kendi, and the 1619 project. The Biden administration has explicitly, in writing, endorsed Kendi and 1619. You can read that in TD. Kendi, to his credit, is totally open in pushing, among many abominations (in my view) racial discrimination. Biden has instructed all agencies to promote “equity”, meaning guaranteed equality of outcomes and group rights, as opposed to individual equality. VP Harris helpfully circulated a cartoon explaining why “equity” rather than equality, is needed. So the administration I voted for is openly pushing awful aspects of the broad theory of CRT. Hysteria over real issues with police misconduct and stereotyping and inequality helped activists get Democratic enthusiasm for radical policies (many of which will be found unconstitutional) and a staggered public initially went along.

    Now that more people are seeing CRT realities, from struggle sessions in schools and corporations, to efforts to racialize even STEM and medicine and to argue there is no objective truth and “promptness and the written word are white,” folks like Mo want to pretend this has nothing to do with Democrats.

    Many folk of good will support police reform and better teaching and actions about race. Even the radical “defund” and CRT ideas I fear and loathe have their place in public debate. But to deny that many Democratic Party leaders have either pushed or accepted absolutely radical ideas on race and policing leading to a wave of disgust is just dishonest.

    Jonah is right that the Dems and the country will benefit when Biden and others recognize their vast overreach on these two issues. Of course, I echo his relentless calls for Republicans to get some courage and police their own as well. Thanks.

    Collapse
    1. Richard Fulmer

      Part of the problem of dealing with CRT is that it's so hard to define - not least because its proponents want to be able to change the definition depending upon their audience. As a result, Progressive definitions of CRT range from "nothing more than the idea that racism is bad" to "abolish whiteness."

      Here's my current take on the beliefs and claims that CRT incorporates:

      1. Societies, cultures, and civilizations are social constructs created to benefit those in power (the oppressor class)

      2. Social constructs can be remade at will

      3. White, European peoples make up the current oppressor class in the West and in much of the rest of the world

      4. Legacies of white supremacy and racism are incorporated into the country's culture, laws, and regulations

      5. Outcomes are structurally determined by laws and culture

      6. Law should focus on "instrumentalism" (e.g., retribution for past discrimination) rather than on rule-of-law ideals and principles

      7. Classical liberalism and Enlightenment concepts such as rationalism, merit, and the rule of law (i.e., equality under the law and Constitutional neutrality) must be challenged

      8. Race-conscious remedies to racism are essential

      9. Narrative, storytelling, counter-storytelling, and lived experience supersede facts and data

      10. Intersectional theory must play a role in determining whose needs and demands take precedence

      11. Members of a minority have the ability and authority to speak about racism that members of other racial groups lack

      12. Non-white nationalism or separatism may be necessary

      Where have I erred?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Kevin Johnson

        You are spot on. My attempt to avoid the definition dance was to focus only on Kendi and 1619, both of which the administration has praised. Those are so bat guano crazy themselves that we can easily dismiss the bs that all crt advocates want is better education on racism. The radicals want a cultural revolution overturning the liberal order. They use Orwellian “Newspeak” to shame and silence dissenters. Folk of good will have let this slide for too long, but folks are waking up. Thanks.

        Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Narwhal

    G-file suggestion: the political book industry, specifically books “by” and book deals for current and recently retired politicians. The good, the bad, and the ugly of the topic. And some history on the topic. Maybe start with Grant and move forward. (Honestly this could probably be a book or series of podcasts.)

    Jonah, and people close to him, have so much to say on this topic. The question is will they and to what extent.

    I don’t expect Jonah to ever do this, but I’d love to see it happen.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Aylene Wright

      I have read excepts of Grant's memoirs but I am now inspired to start reading them from start to finish this weekend (they are in the public domain and there are multiple websites that feature them).

      Pretty sure Grant got his "book deal" mostly because his friend Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain) wanted to do him a favor (as Grant had suffered the double blow of losing all his money in a Ponzi scheme and being diagnosed with throat cancer) and didn't initially expect it to be a big moneymaker, though it eventually was. Grant wound up dying 5 days after he finished the book.

      However I am not sure if it's really a "Presidential memoir" as it is mostly focused on his military career. I suppose that if he had lived longer he might eventually have discussed his political career as well.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Narwhal

        I think it is the first and like I said the good, the bad, and the ugly.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Narwhal

      For example, what is the average sum paid to a recipient of the Medal of Honor for a book deal compared to the sum Gov. Cuomo received for his recent book. Did the difference in the sums make any sense when examined next to the number of books sold?

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Amy Stapleton

    I’ve been on a crusade for over a year to get responsible journalists to just get off Twitter. Stop feeding the beast.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Tracie

      I like and share art images there. Good for pictures. Bad for substantive discussion.

      Collapse