Discussion about this post

User's avatar
A. N. Owen's avatar

I always thought "weird" was something the Democrats celebrated as being inclusive while the Republicans were sneered at for being conventional and conformist country club people. Funny how words change.

Still, there's clearly plenty of frustration and puzzlement over that one political party is allowed to behave very weirdly (ranging from dying on the transgender hill to the mysterious who's really in charge pulling the puppet strings style of governing) while calling the other party weird, when it just exhibits historical Jacksonian American behaviors and has straightforward and uncontroversial campaign platforms like strong borders. And, of course, that one candidate is allowed to campaign by not campaigning by a party that constantly rewrites the rules to its benefit while the other candidate is under microscopic scrutiny every second of the day by a hostile press and establishment that would gladly send him to the electric chair for jaywalking. Irregardless of one's personal feelings of the candidates or policy, the broad acceptance of this outcome by substantially large enough of the American electorate does mean we are heading for a different kind of political future and concept of democracy than the one we'd taken for granted. The danger is that once the precedences and common understanding are destroyed, there's no going back.

Expand full comment
Gordon Tremeshko's avatar

Eh, I can't say I share your indignation. If your job is to win elections, you employ the strategy that gives you the best chance of success. If that involves shielding a weak candidate from scrutiny then so be it. I think most people know what a Harris Administration is likely to produce, policy-wise, anyway. I won't be happy with it, but that's democracy.

Expand full comment
97 more comments...

No posts