[GrumpyCat42]

What Brian and a lot of the commenters here need to realize is that online outrage does not help progressive causes in the slightest.

While the examples in his article are valid & concerning, especially as talks of a third Trump term have started, I truly can't see anyone changing their mind because the response to it has been completely ineffective and tone-deaf:

Instead of a solid, modern, coherent plan to keep the democratic party alive in a time of populism and radicalization in response to a crumbling economy and cronyism, it has solely been a "look at all the bad stuff Trump is doing!" and "oh me oh my how outrageous!" which does nothing but fall on deaf ears after 2020.

This is because most of the people writing these "why you should be outraged" posts are in a bubble of educated, traditional-news-consuming, upper-middle class skilled workers -- all groups that are very quickly falling out of power and favor with the majority of the population.

I hope the democratic party finds a way to become a real contender again. While not everyone on the right is a boogeyman, there are plenty of Project 2025 supporters, much worse than anyone we know about, who will steamroll this country if left unchecked. If the right doesn't have a viable opposition party with strong messaging, we're in for a bumpy ride.

[girvo]

I didn't see any "online outrage" from Brian here, just a sadly sober listing of all the direct attacks on the first amendment, with sources and explanation.

Heck, it's not even political despite the screeching to the contrary.

You're right that action must be taken too, but action does require an understanding of the battlefield one is entering.

[GrumpyCat42]

YMMV, but I would argue that claiming Trump is waging an unprecedented attack against the first amendment, accompanied by a picture of the first amendment ripped in half, is calling for (rightful) outrage and is inherently political. The post is very informational and well-cited, but it's not the changing hearts and minds of those it needs to.

Action has to be taken, but by people with the power to change things -- namely democratic leadership, who have the funds & influence (albeit dwindling). Do they understand the battlefield they're entering? I don't think so, as I think they're sticking to that same outrage strategy.

[Karrot_Kream]

I've found, since about the end of the Obama admin, a huge gap between the outraged base and the realities of politics on the ground that's made me quite despondent. The base just wants to talk about how outraged they are to each other on every piece of media they can. It's like social signaling; you have to tell every other upper middle class news addicted millennial or GenX how much you hate the current administration constantly.

But there's no effort to convince swing voters to vote against Trump. The midterms will be here before anyone knows it and it's going to be the first big chance to push back on the current administration, but I see so little work that's being done to create a coherent opposition party. Ezra Klein's book on Abundance was a great starting point. In Dem spaces though, reaction to the book was pretty much absent. Most of Dem base temporarily got busy trying to come up with ways that Klein has failed some progressive purity test (centrists are fascists, environmental injustice, etc etc.) Then after that, most just ignored his vision and went back to crying about the current administration.

IMO the Dems cranky, upper middle class news addicted base is its worst feature. They continue to kneecap the Dems from being a real opposition party. Telling people how bad the administration is won't make a good opposition party. It worked just enough for 2020 but ran out of steam by 2024. Dems need to create a vision of the future under Dem rule.

I suspect it's because the coalition that kept the Democratic party together has failed and its current base is just too small to win votes in elections. They've lost their bonafides among the trade unions, they've lost their appeal to the technology class, their strongest supporters remain the social-progress bloc which may be overrepresented online but is just too small of a force to win in elections.

[SpicyLemonZest]

The problem is that everyone who sits down to think about swing voters realizes the same thing: tariffs are going to crash the economy, DOGE is going to cut Social Security, and Congress is going to cut Medicaid. But none of these have happened yet, while other bad things swing voters care less about have happened.

So there's a fundamental tension. You can focus on the current situation to the exclusion of swing voters and their interests, or focus on swing voter interests and sound like you're lamely ignoring what's happening right now. It's a hard balance to strike, and while people make noise about it online I think most elected Dems understand everyone's trying as best they can.

[wredcoll]

> Instead of a solid, modern, coherent plan to keep the democratic party alive in a time of populism and radicalization in response to a crumbling economy and cronyism, it has solely been a "look at all the bad stuff Trump is doing!" and "oh me oh my how outrageous!" which does nothing but fall on deaf ears after 2020.

People by and large do not want "solid, modern, coherent plans". Both kamala and hillary clinton had those.

People want to be told the strong man will make everything better if you just give up a few rights.

Can the democratic party play that game? Sure. Should they? Maybe? I mean, it would be nice to have someone with an iq over 80 and at least a shred of morality and self-respect somewhere in our elected officials.

Does your post, in specific, say anything meaningful? Not really, you just throw out some vapid complaints and then tell us you hope the world will change.

[GrumpyCat42]

> People by and large do not want "solid, modern, coherent plans".

Surely a mother-knows-best attitude will work.

> Both kamala and hillary clinton had those.

Surely denying massive campaign problems, such as "basket of deplorables" and not distancing herself from Biden, will work.

> People want to be told the strong man will make everything better if you just give up a few rights.

Surely strawmanning any solid, modern, coherent plan as stripping away rights will work.

>Does your post, in specific, say anything meaningful? Not really, you just throw out some vapid complaints and then tell us you hope the world will change.

Did you want me to go say some full-time working-class person working paycheck to paycheck can just go run for office and singlehandedly defeat Trump in a landslide victory?

[wredcoll]

> Surely denying massive campaign problems, such as "basket of deplorables" and not distancing herself from Biden, will work.

Yeah, those are totally "massive campaign problems". Massive. Gigantic. Career ending.

Oh wait, Trump constantly throws out insults and associated with morally repugnant people. He insults christians and veterans and still got elected. I don't think these are the real issues.

[GrumpyCat42]

If calling half of your opponents supporters bigots while simultaneously giving the bigots the marketing opportunity of a lifetime isn't a massive campaign problem, then what is? I still see and block people who have "deplorable" in their name eight years later.

He insults christians and veterans, and yet they vote for him overwhelmingly. The rules and issues are obviously different for the left and the right, and whataboutism just doesn't work. Fighting the "fair fight" instead of the actual fight won't end well.