I want to be clear here, because I think you're sliding past what I'm actually arguing and reacting instead to a composite of other people's takes in this thread. You keep invoking "some people" or "the broader conversation," but I'd rather you engage directly with what *I've* said. I'm not asking for pity for Democrats, and I'm not deflecting accountability for their failures. I'm saying that the GOP's structural authoritarianism isn't just background noise, it is the terrain, and failing to confront it honestly doesn't sharpen the fight within the Democratic Party, it dulls it.
You say naming the GOP's role can become a "harmful distraction" or "neuter action potential," but I'd argue the opposite. What actually neuters urgency is treating Republican power as a fixed natural force that we just have to work around, while delaying structural reform until Democrats are somehow "credible" enough to deserve the fight. That's the contradiction in your position. If the GOP is truly the existential threat you say it is, then we don't have the luxury of sequencing reform efforts like a to-do list. We have to press on *BOTH FRONTS* - demanding internal change while also naming and confronting the systemic GOP machinery that obstructs even the best efforts.
I'm not here to excuse the "controlled opposition" mode of leadership. I want Democrats to stop playing by rules the GOP long abandoned. But I also reject the idea that talking about Republican obstruction is what's killing momentum. What kills momentum is pretending the fight can be won by treating only one half of the equation. That's not a serious theory of change.
We agree that Democrats are the only lever we have. That's why I want them pushed harder *AND* smarter. But that push isn't weakened by naming what we're up against, it's strengthened by it. If we're serious, we can't look at this with only one eye opened.
There was a broader conversation taking place before you joined in, but fair request, I'll winnow my post to your direct points. I believe we are primarily in agreement, and your positions are much more closely aligned to my own positions than the other posters I've been debating with. I agree that the GOP's structural authoritarianism isn't just background noise, and we shouldn't fail to confront it honestly. We both agree that we have to press on both fronts, but where I think we may disagree is what exact role or benefit the invocation of Republican malevolence has in the context of leftist critiques of the Democratic Party's failure to stand up for, say, pro-Palestine activists or immigration rights. Because the people dapping your posts are saying it should be the primary response, which is problematic in my opinion, and indicative of ulterior motives. You've already shown a willingness to be much more critical of the Democratic Party than those people, so I'm not going to impugn your motives, but that's the context of this broader discussion.
For the record, my position isn't that simply naming the GOP's role can be a harmful distraction (I in fact think it's a necessity for any progressive development), my position is that diverting attention from reforming the Democratic Party towards impotently (even if accurately) critiquing the GOP can be a harmful distraction. The past 8 years have been filled with this; geriatric Do-Nothing Democrats calling Donald Trump a big dumb orange insurrectionist meanie instead of whipping their own party into shape. The result was a shrinking Democratic electorate and the re-election of Trump. I believe if Democrats had spent those years taking criticisms seriously and building their strength instead of deflecting all criticisms towards Trump, we might not be in this position.
I don't believe talking about Republican obstruction is what's killing momentum, I believe it's the Democratic Party not being a credible enough entity to make that argument effectively because they refuse to get their own house in order. To put it more simply, Nancy Pelosi cannot be the messenger to deliver anti-oligarchy messaging against Trump while palling around with her own set of oligarchs, Hakeem Jeffries cannot be the messenger to defend Palestinian rights activists against Trump while sucking off AIPAC, Chuck Schumer cannot be the messenger to defend state institutions while voting for the GOP funding bill. And any diversion of those criticisms by
accurately pointing out how shytty Trump is would be relatively ineffectual because Trump's shyttiness is a known quantity and there's no strong countervailing message because the messengers are weak. This isn't treating only one half of the equation, it's prioritizing which side of the equation needs to be addressed first. You frame this as delaying structural reform until the Democrats are credible enough to deserve the fight, but I think it's rather that the Democrats inability to enact structural reform stems from their lack of credibility. Yes, the GOP is an existential threat, which is precisely why we need to whip the Democrats into shape immediately.
guy came here right out of a Brookings Institute conversation with David Brooks and Thomas Friedman
