FWIW during the last campaign Michelle Obama had second thoughts and rephrased her dictum as “when they go low, we speak out”. Not that that necessarily worked much better.
Did I misunderstand your question? You asked what Gavin pushed back on other than the trans athletes things (he’s very pro access to gender affirming care, for example, so it’s not like he’s pushing back against trans rights as a whole). I told you about other examples - like his stance on immigration.
What else are you asking?
That’s because Democrats didn’t, and still aren’t, speaking out. At least based on what I see (although admittedly I may be looking in the wrong places), the only Democrats I see speaking out are Newsom, Bernie, AOC, and a few others from the squad. In terms of the rank and file senators and representatives, the strategy seems to be something like “I’m just going to stick to the party line, try the same old tired strategies that failed before because I’m too afraid to try anything else, and hope that somehow things get better”. The recent pushback from California Democrats against Newsom’s proposal to gerrymander California is just one prominent example of Democrats failing to consider anything but sticking to the same old strategies. Maybe Obama himself speaking out in favor of that might change that, but somehow I doubt it.
Always take the high road. Always. If the Republicans gerrymander in a year smack in the middle of decennial censuses do the same, including a stipulation that if Texas backs down, so will California. Acting like a doormat would just enable bad behavior. So take the high road.
As I’ve noted before on this message board, punching someone in the face is wrong, very wrong. But what happens if someone punches you in the face? What should you do? Turn the other cheek of course: we are not savages after all. Ok, then they hit you again. What’s the proper course of action?
You hit back. Hard. And you don’t stop punching until they start learning. A non-stop jackhammer pounding… so as to not enable bad behavior. It’s like tough love. The very highest road on Everest, no, above Everest.
This. But define your actions as the high road. And try to offer an opt-out, eg, “We’re willing to sit down and negotiate campaign finance reform, but we’re not going to disarm unilaterally (a few of us tried that in the distant past).” Or: “Stop mid-decade gerrymandering, and we’ll back down too, you clown.”
Newsom appears to get it.
There’s an old saying to the effect that the “high road leads home”. I see both sides of the argument. And both sides have a certain wisdom. So I favor a multi-prong approach. When they go low, stick ‘em with every prong we got.
I wish we lived in a society where politicians could win elections by offering well-reasoned explanations of their policy proposals and having high minded discussions about their ideas to address the issues of the day. But, unfortunately, that’s not the society we have right now. And if you need to do some ball-kicking to produce results, well, the Democrats should be kicking like the Rockettes. It’s nice to see them finally waking up to the fact that they need to do some shit-talking and trolling of their own.
They havent. Except for Gavin Newsom and the left wing crowd like Bernie and AOC, we still have the same old same old from the rest of them.
Certainly there was. Unfortunately for your argument most of the debaters wanted far more serious punishment. Just as people wanted far more Japanese citizens napalmed until the bombs made that moot. It may be a fine moral victory that the mindset of total war has been conveniently forgotten by people who don’t want to have to acknowledge history, but history is out there to be found.
Another influential columnist, Westbrook Pegler, put it more bluntly: “The Japanese in California should be under armed guard to the last man and woman right now and to hell with habeas corpus until the danger is over.”
The new order gave the military the authority it needed to remove individuals of Japanese descent from the Pacific Coast, but where would they go? Federal officials hoped that these individuals might be able to find work as farm laborers, but many state and local authorities made it clear they did not want Japanese Americans moving into their areas. The governors of Montana and Wyoming feared it would spark racial violence. “Our people cannot tell an American-born Japanese from an alien,” said Montana Governor Sam C. Ford. “When casualty lists start coming in…I fear for the safety of any Japanese in this state.” Idaho’s Attorney General, Bert Miller, was less sympathetic. “We want to keep this a white man’s country,” he said. “All Japanese [should] be put in concentration camps for the remainder of the war.”
And then there was the common clay of the west:
After the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, much anti-Japanese paraphernalia and propaganda surfaced in the United States. An example of this was the so-called “Jap hunting license”, a faux-official document, button or medallion that purported to authorize “open season” on “hunting” the Japanese, despite the fact that over a quarter of a million Americans at that time were of Japanese origin. Some reminded holders that there was “no limit” on the number of “Japs” they could “hunt or trap”. These “licenses” often characterized Japanese people as sub-human. Many of the “Jap Hunting Licenses”, for example, depicted the Japanese in animalistic fashion.
Were these extreme views? Probably. But they reflected the majority opinion:
A poll conducted in 1942 found 93% of Americans supported the internment of non-citizen Japanese, while a smaller majority (59%) supported the internment of citizen and non-citizen alike. The poll was conducted during the height of fighting in WWII and just one year after the bombing of Pearl Harbor by Japanese forces.
Contrast Colorado governor Ralph Carr:
When he volunteered Colorado for housing Italian, German, and Japanese relocated from the West Coast, Carr said:
They are as loyal to American institutions as you and I. Many of them have been born here–are American citizens, with no connection or feeling of loyalty toward the customs and philosophies of Italy, Germany and Japan. … I am not talking on behalf of Japanese, of Italians, or of Germans as such when I say this. I am talking to … all American people whether their status be white, brown or black and regardless of the birthplaces of their grandfathers when I say that if a majority may deprive a minority of its freedom, contrary to the terms of the Constitution today, then you as a minority may be subjected to the same ill-will of the majority tomorrow.
In one speech to a large and hostile audience, made up primarily of worried Colorado farmers, Carr said of the evacuees:
They are not going to take over the vegetable business of this state, and they are not going to take over the Arkansas Valley. But the Japanese are protected by the same Constitution that protects us. An American citizen of Japanese descent has the same rights as any other citizen. … If you harm them, you must first harm me. I was brought up in small towns where I knew the shame and dishonor of race hatred. I grew to despise it because it threatened [pointing to various audience members] the happiness of you and you and you.
Carr’s advocacy for racial tolerance and for protection of the constitutional rights of the Japanese Americans are generally thought to have cost him his political career.
As usual, this thread is degrading into competing camps with different definitions, this time of “going low.” Surely there are hundreds, thousands, of steps that can be taken to fight for democracy and against authoritarianism without descending into actual totalitarianism or mob rule ourselves. That’s never been a good tactic and won’t accomplish our goals.
Organization is prime. Democrats have to put forth a positive vision that can be fought for; I haven’t seen one yet. The party has to support activists in every election, and I mean every from small town councils to school boards to city majors to county executives to state legislators and every one in between. That means money and bodies and messaging.
That’s the high road. Attacking the Republicans can be done in ways other than putting them in camps. Newsom’s campaign of mockery against Trump is the greatest thing I’ve seen a Democrat do in decades. Mockery works. Dictators hate mockery.
Breaking norms also works. Not breaking laws, breaking norms. A mid-census redistricting? Not the norm, but completely legal. Leaving a legislature without a quorum? Sure. Suing every action that the administration takes? Absolutely. Harassing so that every step hurts them? A must. Calling them fascists and Nazis, even if that is still hyperbole? Oh yeah. They hate that. Whatever they hate most, do the loudest and most often.
Politics ain’t beanbag.
I don’t know if Newsom’s people made this, but it feeds into the same trolling:
Your average persuadable voter is a low-information voter, who probably is significantly influenced by whether a candidate seems ‘tough’, ‘authentic’ etc. But I don’t think many politicians qualify, and it’s hard to fake.
What argument? You seemed to be approving of the idea that total war justifies firebombing civilians, and I wondered if you’d also think it justifies interning Americans and permanently depriving them of their property. That’s a far more plausible comparator to current events.
At least one person didn’t believe war justified ripping up the constitution and locking up innocent people…
Oh.
This is pretty much exactly where I stand on the issue.
ETA: when I posted this, I didn’t see any obvious reference to Exapno_Mapcase’s post a few posts upthread. It is with that post that I’m vehemently agreeing.
A few days ago, my long-suffering, beloved wife was the victim of a rare, caffeine-fueled political rant from me. This was exactly my closing line 
It’s upbeat, fun and funny. The audience is Dem and Independent voters. There’s no need for vulgarity, just lampoon Trump’s statements for the week and end with “Seriously folks he is doing a good job”, like on “That Was The Week That Was”.
Sorta like this?
Short video about Newsom’s “Dark Woke” strategy.
Should be “we go lower”.
Absolutely, Democrats using Republican redistricting tactics against them is the way to go (unfortunately). Make your aims clear, show willingness to go to impartial redistricting commissions when the fallout is over, but do unto them as much or more as they’re trying to do to you.
I’ve been enjoying the Newsom team’s trolling of MAGAs with Trump-style all-caps messages. But c’mon, lay off the mockery over the PA assassination attempt (i.e. Newsom wearing a bandage over his ear). It’s not something to joke about.
Huh, I had no idea this was a thing. I did see a Tweet from someone complaining about Trump’s purchase of Intel, though.
I’ll say, if nothing else, it must be more fun being Newsom’s social-media manager than it would be to be the manager of any other Democratic politician’s media.