Who on Earth is doing that?
It’s more like, fight fascist incivility with liberal incivility.
I think the democrats are crapping their pants right now, knowing that shortly before the midterms, all of these investigations will be wrapping up. Going low might not be a good strategy; I doubt they could even go any lower.
Actually they have a notorious willingness to throw disadvantaged groups under the bus. For them, “going low” is saying uncomplimentary things about the Republicans, and nothing else.
I think Democrats are crapping their pants right now because our country is being turned into a Christo-fascist hell hole.
Can you please clarify what investigations you’re referring to? Also, your comment about Dems not being able to “go any lower” is confusing me. Do you mean they’re so low now that there’s nowhere lower to go, or that they’re lacking . . .something, that will allow them to go lower?
Was there debate at the time about interning Japanese Americans? Total war means total war…?
Reasonable minds can differ on the wisdom of the California gerrymandering effort. It’s an explicitly measured and limited approach. Even Obama has signed on.
I definitely don’t want Democratic politicians calling up secretaries of state and demanding that they “find” X number of votes.
Nor do I want Democratic politicians to start trafficking in false claims of stolen elections.
Those hypotheticals seem unlikely now, but the Democratic Party could easily produce its own scoundrels and charlatans if we let it. (See: Tulsi Gabbard. See also: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.)
As for “bringing a knife to a gun fight,” it sounds great, but it’s the wrong metaphor for this situation. At this point, we cannot beat Republicans at their own game. We have to fight them in a different arena. Maybe that means mass demonstrations that surround and obstruct government offices. Maybe it means mass strikes. But it can’t involve trying to outdo the Republicans at dirty tricks.
Can’t we just skip to the part with the satchel bombs?
As Seth Meyers noted, it tuned in to “when they go low, we ask for $15.”
We need to fight dirty and a lot. I’m glad to see some sort of fight against them forming, it won’t always work and it often includes imperfect fighters, but at least someone is throwing some punches back.
When they go low, kick them in the teeth and keep kicking them until they stop moving.
That’s not the whole reason why Nixon carried 49 states in November 1972, but it was a factor.
Violence helps the team yelling law and order the loudest. And, despite any theoretical willingness to go low, it will not be the Democrats.
As for actual violence, the American Revolution was a bit unusual in not being followed by a successful counterrevolution.
What if it’s all the same team?
Re last post, that just shows how smart Trump is, no matter how many times the Democrats yell idiot.
MAGA has the lane that combines lawbreaking with law and order covered.
How could they be beaten at their own game? Have the Greens do the bombings and the Democrats then come out for the death penalty for bombers?
Now should Democrats be in favor or law and order within reason? Yes. But going low in either direction (Democratic party violence, or Democratic Party embrace of the most extreme anti-crime measures) will not work.
Democrats need a big tent to win. If they try to beat the GOP in going low, they will alienate potential supporters, including me.
I’ll bet that will make you angry, as you walk into the showers..
Is going low even about policy? I always saw it as more about rhetoric, and especially civility.
Going low is Newsom parodying Trump’s style so bad that Trump stopped posting in all caps because he actually got embarrassed. It’s him (or his media team, unlike Trump I doubt he’s personally tweeting from the toilet) insulting Republicans on X.
It’s not Democrats beating Republicans to the punch by deporting even more people.
I’ll stipulate 2 things here:
- The “going high” strategy seriously needs tuning and reconsideration.
- There needs to be some calling-out of how evil, fascist, and stupid Republicans have become.
- I don’t know what the answer is.
I don’t believe that it will work to “go low” in the same sense as Republicans. But clearly, while we all wish that things could be decided by the approach of going with data and science to appeal to rational self-interest, it’s clearly not working.
Republicans gain a lot of supporters simply by being audacious enough to call their opposition cucks, pussies, and homos. Just the fact of breaking that taboo recruits a lot of the young men who feel they can’t really “say what’s on their mind” or “tell the truth”. But if Democrats did that, then Republicans would do a soccer-flop and start bemoaning the loss of civility. The approach is more than just taking cheap shots. The full approach involves being a cry-bully who insults people and complains when they hit back, and it only works if your faction isn’t especially precious about accusations of hypocrisy.
In a nutshell, Democrats are widely exposed to attacks on hypocrisy and inconsistency, and Republicans aren’t. Much of the public discourse can be summarized as Republicans saying “liberals are hypocrites” and then liberals bending over backward in a futile, energy-wasting attempt to convince Republicans that they aren’t.
So while I think Democrats could stand to get a little more assertive, coarse, and alarmist – there is definitely some scope for calling Trump a fucking pussy – I don’t think that can be the centerpiece of any viable strategy.
It’s easy for a thread like this to turn into mush by failure to define going low (or the somewhat similar metaphorical political term, fighting). Your post, and the one after it by HMS Irruncible, do define the term clearly.
As for going low by posting in all caps with Don Rickles messaging, if it works for a cause I agree with, I’m for it. I just hope they test it on focus groups of persuadable voters rather than on campaign contributors.
It is important to say that the going low, or fighting, needs to be non-violent and, except for some borderline civil disobedience situations, law abiding.
It seems like the Democrats main problem is that too many people hate them and voters don’t trust them over the GOP to handle the issues most important to them, even after seeing the Trump’s solution to those problems and not liking what he did. I don’t see how “going low” (especially if it just means silly things like mocking how Trump writes) is going to help that at all.
Everyone knew how Trump acted by the 2024 and voters didn’t care. Leaning into that even harder and in a way that’ll make them look boorish is going to help? I have doubts.
If the Democrats want to “go low” to purge the internal elements of their party that are blocking success (particularly in rural areas that determine control of the Senate), that might have some promise. Don’t bomb them though. Maybe David Hogg’s expulsion was an example of this. He was going to say some harmful things about gun control.
Newsom is doing both of those things. He’s criticized positions that the vast majority of Democratic voters are against but which many Democratic politicians have been too scared to criticize, and he’s gotten plenty of hate from the far left for it.
And he’s not just criticizing Trump and the far left; he’s also got his own ideas (which I happen to think are very good) that he’s actively pushing - namely, the Abundance agenda.
I think winning requires precisely that three pronged approach. Show no mercy to your Republican opponents; firmly stand on principle rather than kowtowing to anything your most radical allies propose, and don’t be afraid to vocally push back against their worst ideas so that you cannot be tarred with the same brush as them; and finally, present your own ideas that stand on their own merit rather than only running as “Not Trump (but not Far Left either)”.
Keep in mind I am quite neutral on Newsom.
Other than transgender issues and Gaza, which we all know are your two big bugaboos, what other positions has he been brave to criticize but other Democrats have been too scared to? I would say I don’t think Gaza really counts here as many Democrats have pushed back hard on that. So is is just the transgender issues?
I’m not sure why you feel the need to personally attack me, and you’re pretty far off base - what did Newsom even say about Gaza? I’m sure he’s mentioned it, but none of that has really been on my radar.
Newsom is fantastic because he can be very pro Trans, or very pro Immigrant, without succumbing to extremist brain rot. So he can call out Trump’s admin’s horrible abuses against Trans people being able to access gender affirming care, while also pointing out that, as 70%+ of Democratic voters agree, being transgender shouldn’t instantly qualify you to play sports as the gender you identify with. Or he can point out that Trump is harassing immigrants in a horrific way without calling for abolishing ICE or pretending that there’s absolutely no immigration problem at all. For example, as of Jan 2024, MediCal offers full coverage to undocumented immigrants, and Newsom has pushed back against this idea, suggesting this should be limited to emergency, pregnancy, and essential care. I think that makes a lot of sense.
None of that has to do with “going low”, though, at least as I understand the term. My read, since Michelle Obama said it, was that she’s talking about rhetoric and civility.
I don’t think you’ve really answered my question, but I guess we’ll just have to drop it.