I’ve gotten pretty aggressive about responding “STOP” to appeals via text for political contributions, and I think the volume of them has noticeably dropped. But I still get them. And as usual, they generally do little to improve my overall impression as to the perspicacity of Homo sapiens.
This one from yesterday is a good example:
It’s Ro Khanna. I really need you to read this text.
(But if you’re short on time, please kick in $15 to replace the abysmal Republican House before you log off: rokhanna.us/218b?t=JBZO6O )
I don’t need to tell you that Congress is broken. Republicans have done a great job of that.
So instead, I’ll tell you my plan to fix it:
✅ Ban *all* PAC and lobbyist money from Congress
✅ Ban Congress members from trading stocks
✅ Enact term limits for Congress members and SCOTUS Justices
✅ Ban Congressmembers from ever becoming lobbyistsHear me when I say this: So long as Republicans are in control, my ambitious plan to hold members of Congress accountable is dead in the water.
So today, I’m calling on my grassroots supporters to replace the catastrophic Republican Congress with progressive Democrats who will actually do their jobs.
I need 185 gifts before my midnight deadline to stay on track. Can I count on your $15? >> rokhanna.us/218b?t=JBZO6O
Thanks,
RoText STOP to quit
OK, so you start out bemoaning “the abysmal Republican House,” suggesting that’s why you’re running, as a Democrat, for office — that is, for re-election to office. The implication being that you are the answer to the problem.
But you don’t talk about how the Trumpistas are tearing our country and its magnificent constitutional representative democracy apart — which is, you know, the problem with that other side.
No, you trot out a list of hoary alienated-populist proposals that make you sound for all the world like you are one of them:
- Ban all PAC and lobbyist money from Congress (because we don’t trust people with money)
- Ban Congress members from trading stocks (because we don’t trust markets or business people in general)
- Enact term limits for Congress members and SCOTUS Justices (because we don’t trust anyone in power, which doesn’t say much that’s good about you)
- Ban Congressmembers from ever becoming lobbyists (because we wouldn’t want people who know the system to help groups out there to make their cases to elected representatives)
(Remember my old column from the ’90s about how most of our problems in America wre the result of the decline of trust? Well, now that things are exponentially worse, I regret to say I told you so.)
Admittedly, the first two items would appeal to Democratic populists more than Republican ones, but hey, that’s why I’m not a fan of Bernie Sanders, either. But the third one is right out of the right’s playbook.
But more than that, it’s right out of the playbook of alienated people who don’t trust our system, don’t trust anyone in the system, don’t trust experts, and really don’t have the slightest understanding of any of those things.
Think about it. Those are Trump’s people. I mean, seriously: Do you really believe that the problem with this Republican Congress is that it’s full of the old populist stereotypes who start out all right, but get “corrupted” after any extended period in the system, and no longer care about the will of the people who elected them?
Set aside the fact that’s always been an absurd notion. If there’s a problem with a lot of people who have been in office for multiple terms, it’s that they are so interested in staying in office that they become mindless slaves of polls, which means they’ll do everything they can to do EXACTLY what the folks back home want. And to me, that means they are no longer worthwhile representatives.
A good representative should of course know his constituents, and keep their values in mind. But he should NEVER go to Washington (or Columbia) with a lot of half-baked notions about this and that specific issue held by good (or bad) people who have never studied such issues.
A representative should arrive with wishes and plans, but also humility, because he knows he has yet to study complex issues in any depth, or — and this is critical — engaged in extended debate with smart people who don’t see it the way he or his constituents do, and just may have greater understanding of the details than they do. And that is the rule more than the exception — capital cities are crammed with smart people who actually do know the issues better than the average guy on the street.
People such as lobbyists, to name one category (along with good staff people, academics, etc.).
Yes, all of us can cite cases in which big corporations with deep pockets hire armies of lobbyists that easily overwhelm the scrappy Mr.-Smith-Goes-To- Washington folks opposing them.
But scrappy groups that look out for the interests of the poor, the elderly, children, the environment, and whatever your favorite cause may be, have lobbyists, too. And the interests of the people and causes they represent are well served by their work, even though they may not be (OK, they are NOT) as numerous or well-paid as those who represent Big Pharma. If you don’t think they do good work, follow Sue Berkowitz of SC Appleseed Legal Justice Center, or our own Lynn Teague of League of Women Voters as they make their rounds, and become educated.
But I’m letting myself run off on tangents and pound on some of my personal pet peeves, and failing to explain what’s REALLY wrong with that text:
He calls the Republican Congress abysmal, and he’s absolutely right. But why is it abysmal? It certainly not because of the things he’s proposing to address, particularly not because of staying in office too long. The problem is yahoos who just got there and don’t know squat, and actively hate people who do know squat.
If you could bring back some of the Republicans who served for many years before this new crop of nihilists came along — people like Lamar Alexander, Howard Baker, Bob Inglis, Richard Lugar and on and on — Congress and the nation would be in fine shape today. Any decent Republicans — ones who might have filled the shoes of such as those — who are still around today have either quit running for office, or they tremble in fear of the ignorant, unprincipled yahoos with the torches and pitchforks who could replace them in a skinny minute in the next primary. Especially in the House, thanks to Republicans having succeeded a bit too well at redrawing districts so that the primary IS the election.
And their fear gets even greater when they see what the fear itself can do: Look at what happened in 2023 in the U.S. House itself. The five or so craziest members of the caucus managed to take down the speaker. Why? Because more sensible (to various, modest degrees) Republicans were too terrified to stand up to Matt Gaetz el al. Their own cowardice has since led them to be more afraid than before. The terror snowballs, at an exponentially increasing rate.
Give me people who have managed to stay in office for 30 years or more — since long before Trumpism, or the Tea Party — and while they will inevitably include a healthy share of mediocrities (as a result of too often consulting polls so as to follow popular opinion), I will take them any day before the kind of people who rush in these days to try to take their elders down — and succeed.
I probably haven’t persuaded anyone who didn’t already agree with me. Issues such as these tend to divide people almost as much as abortion, or guns — but with less intensity, of course.
The problem isn’t the system, even as much as it’s been damaged by the real problem — a general electorate that has lost its sense of responsibility as voters.
But I guess it’s hard to come up with a simple four-point plan to address that.
Related Posts
And yes, Ro, I realize you’re deliberately reaching out to the alienated folk — Trump’s people — and you and your supporters and your fund-raising service probably think that’s really crafty, and perhaps even noble. After all, haven’t I recently written about the need to do as Nicholas Kristof says and respect the Trump voters more (or at least SOME)?
But embracing their alienation isn’t helpful. Look for something better in them to embrace. There’s good in everybody, even though it’s sometimes hard to find. Look harder.
Not that I myself haven’t responded positively to fundraising appeals for sometimes… shall we say superficial?… reasons. There was that lady that I sent a little money to because she was from Ecuador, where I spent more of my childhood than in any other one place. She was running as a Democrat in Florida. She lost to Rick Scott.
Oh, I had other reasons. She seemed like a nice lady, and in one of her text messages, she shared her Key Lime Pie recipe…
OK, that doesn’t sound too substantial, either. And not just because I can’t eat Key Lime Pie.
How about this: She didn’t throw a bunch of irrelevant, useless populist nostrums at me….
The Fragility of Trust and the Future of Democracy: Trust is the glue that holds democracy together, but in today’s political climate, it’s quickly fraying at the seams. How did we get here, and what can be done to restore it?
Having spent much of my life observing and often challenging power dynamics, I’ve seen firsthand how trust in our institutions can be easily eroded. Now, more than ever, I see the global patterns of democratic erosion—from my own work in the U.S. to the ongoing struggles in places like the Philippines. This isn’t just about policy differences anymore; it’s about trust—who we believe will guide us toward a stable and just future. The concerning truth is that, in this moment, a significant portion of the American electorate seems to place more trust in Republicans, despite their authoritarian tendencies, while Democrats struggle to navigate the complexities of preserving our fragile democracy.
I deeply appreciate the work of advocates like Sue Berkowitz and Lynn Teague, whose dedication to just causes is essential during these turbulent times. Their tireless efforts are vital, especially when democracy needs defenders more than ever. However, my perspective is shaped by more than just my American experience. Having lived in South Carolina for over 20 years, and now owning businesses in rural Utah, rural New York, and the Philippines, I see democracy from multiple viewpoints. Each place faces its own unique challenges with governance, power, and public trust, which shape how I view the difficulties confronting the United States. In the Philippines, for example, the ongoing power struggle between the Marcos family, led by Ferdinand “Bong Bong” Marcos, as President, and the Duterte family, with Sara Duterte as Vice President, highlights the nation’s ongoing battle to establish a true democracy. This divide between the two political dynasties echoes the central issue of trust and its erosion within the political system.
One point in Brad’s post that really resonated with me was his experience attending a political rally. Engaging directly with political discourse, rather than just consuming media or critiquing from a distance, can provide invaluable insights. I’d like to take this opportunity to remind Brad—journalism is undoubtedly a powerful tool, but so too are protests that attract the attention of journalists. This could serve as a reminder of the earlier days when Brad was inspired by journalism as a means to create change. Both reporting and protesting play critical roles in shaping narratives and driving societal transformation, often just as effectively as the other.
I also recall the riots around the Columbia Police Department following George Floyd’s death, which motivated me to break my silence. Now, more than ever, we need to engage in activism, journalism, and advocacy, with the common goal of ensuring that democracy endures and thrives. This begins with trust—trust in our institutions, in our leaders, and in each other. Bridging this trust deficit may be our greatest challenge, but it is also our greatest opportunity to shape a future that upholds the democratic values we hold dear.
The Philippines, like many countries, exemplifies how political struggles mirror one another globally. The ongoing power dynamics between political dynasties are strikingly similar to what we see in the U.S., where many citizens believe their institutions are compromised. In the Philippines, the Marcos family’s control of the presidency and the Duterte family’s grip on the vice presidency demonstrates how trust in democratic institutions can be hollowed out. Recently, Sara Duterte faced impeachment proceedings following a public threat to “decapitate” President Marcos, a statement that underscores the fragile state of political stability in the country. Whether at home or abroad, this loss of trust in leadership and institutions presents a fundamental threat to the future of democracy itself.
In the spirit of the thoughtful conversations Brad has inspired, he requested a four-point plan for rebuilding trust in our democracy. I thought I’d give it a shot, offering a few ideas on how we can begin the long, necessary work of restoring the faith that democracy requires to thrive.
Four-Point Plan to Rebuild Trust in Democracy:
1. Transparent Dialogue: Encourage open, honest discussions about the challenges we face as a society. We must push past ideological divides to engage in dialogues that acknowledge our differences and focus on solutions that unite us.
2. Support Independent Journalism: The role of the press is more critical now than ever. We must ensure that journalism remains independent and free from corporate or political influence. Supporting independent media outlets and investigative reporting can help restore trust in the information we rely on.
3. Restore Electoral Integrity: We need to strengthen our electoral processes to ensure they are free, fair, and transparent. This includes ending gerrymandering, combating voter suppression, and ensuring that every vote counts.
4. Hold Leaders Accountable: No one is above the law. Whether it’s a local official or a president, leaders must be held accountable for their actions. Establishing robust mechanisms for accountability and transparency is crucial to rebuilding trust in our institutions
QED = Quit Enough Done (Quod Erat Demonstrandum)?
“Engaging directly with political discourse, rather than just consuming media or critiquing from a distance, can provide invaluable insights. I’d like to take this opportunity to remind Brad—journalism is undoubtedly a powerful tool, but so too are protests that attract the attention of journalists.
“This could serve as a reminder of the earlier days when Brad was inspired by journalism as a means to create change. Both reporting and protesting play critical roles in shaping narratives and driving societal transformation, often just as effectively as the other.”
A couple of points…
First, do protests attract coverage? You bet. You know why? As I have mentioned before, journalism loves a conflict — and few things exhibit protest more sharply than a bunch of people gathering together to shout their indignation about something. And of course, that’s what’s wrong with politics today. All these groups yelling at each other — or yelling. Most of the messages from politicians, parties, advocacy groups, and of course news media are conflict-oriented. (And no, “independent media” are not the answer. Any entity that starts with the attitude that “everything’s f____d up, and I’m gonna rip the cover off it!” is not going to contribute to reconciliation, and the solutions that can be found when people of differing views sit down and speak respectfully to each other.)
What we need is dialogue. You can’t have a dialogue with a mob that’s come to vent its frustration.
Of course, Joe Biden’s not the sort of pol who embraces and lives by conflict and animosity. As I mentioned before, that’s why I love the guy.
Of course, facts in this case seem to argue against my assertion that media love protests. The State didn’t show up. But that’s kind of a special case. The State is utterly devastated, with almost no staff; it’s not going to make decisions about deploying infinitesimal staff the way it did with a full newsroom. (Of course, as I also said, John Monk was there on his own, but wasn’t on duty.) But note that TV people were there; they wouldn’t miss it. It’s got visible conflict that you can shoot pictures of. (And no, I’m not criticizing the TV folks. The State should have covered it, too. Protests may not be helpful, but neither are hurricanes, and you have to cover them. In The State’s defense, they probably didn’t think the crowd would be that large. There was apparently no way of knowing what it would be like, probably due to poor advance publicity. That’s why I went briefly. I couldn’t tell what it would be like, so I went to check it out.)
One last thing:
“One point in Brad’s post that really resonated with me was his experience attending a political rally.”
I would change that from “his experience attending a political rally” to “his experience attending what feels like his gazillionth protest.” And that’s one of the things that make me so jaded — I’ve seen too many, and therefore see little good in most. And let me add in connection to another part of your comment — I see NO good in protests like that one in Columbia about George Floyd. Such events fuel not solutions, but more conflict. Causing property damage — and/or engaging in violence, for that matter — just give the folks who oppose you good excuses to oppose you more strongly. In this case, the Floyd protests spilled over into mayhem enough that they gave a certain someone the idea of using military force to sweep away a peacefully encamped bunch of protesters in a park so he could walk over to a boarded-up church and have his picture taken waving around a book I sincerely doubt that he’s ever looked into…
And what was the result of such stupid actions? He got elected again.