Project 2025 - and the yrs long undermining of democracy - has wholly materialized under the watchful eye (and pen) of the Supreme Court. Failure to immediately address this institution is a huge mistake that will impact generations. The mere announcement (à la Hawaii) that the Court is no longer a reliable Constitutional guide will go a long way with The People and other branches of government - if that’s all Dems talked about for two yrs they’d never lose an election. The People want accountability and they *will* get it. Slapping down the Court is a winning strategy.
With respect this strategy only works until there are more Democratic-picked justices on the Court and says fundamentally that a) they are making things up as they go along b) the President should not have the power that the Court has handed him or her. This means that Congressional candidates will talk about how once candidate is in office Congress will take back their power from the President but not anything else that candidate will do although there are obvious implications of Congress taking back their power such as stopping dumb wars.
Congress of course also has power over the courts so maybe we could say that every single Democratic candidate needs a court reform proposal. It is probably better that they are not all the same one so that Republicans cannot demonize the proposal as coming from far-left sore losers.
Professor, If process and institutions are two thirds of the equation and civic duty one third, where do the inextinguishable principals and ideas of democratic liberalism fit in? I'm thinking government of the people, by the people and for the people; personal freedom and individual rights; equality before the law, and such. I call them inextinguishable because even if institutions, process and civic duty fail us, those ideals will remain. I believe they would ultimately prevail.
As a former Latin Americanist (sort of), I can remember when nearly all of the region was ruled by dictatorships, not so long ago. (Ironically enough, Venezuela was an exception.) Even as the autocrats ruled, societies recognized that the only truly legitimate form of government would be a return to democracy.
Something similar happened in Central and Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall and then the Soviet Union. The new polities did not clamor for new forms of government or autocracy; they strove to become democracies.
I hope it doesn't come to that point in American liberal democracy, but I also hope the LibCon folks understand the power of their ideas.
I would imagine pushing for inextinguishable would fall under civic virtue. I attended all of last years but only the closing of this, but Kristol's speech did cover resistance and reconstruction as seperate topics and noted reconstruction could be me more intellectually engaging and was vital, but also should not distract from the hardwork of resistance.
Kristol's point on the public doing a better job than the elites I think gets at you inexhaustible point.
Most of us are scarred on this topic by a 2024 election did turn on a clear choice in which those inexhaustible ideals lost. Turning to Bartels and Achen ( https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691169446/democracy-for-realists , though which I still have to read, going off articles ), some of that was that it's a smaller core of the country that really cares directly about this than we'd hope. Though some of it is also that when power rotates, it's easy to fudge facts about how the other side is just as bad. Anti-incumbent sentiment comingling with ideals could heighten their power even against a rigged process, as even with authoritarian control of mass media, lived experience shows the betrayal of those ideals to a wider swath of the population.
The title of this piece alone eloquently reveals a huge part of the problem. The crisis is in American Liberalism, not all liberalism. For instance, Canadian liberalism has clearly been revitalized and reinvigorated by the dumpster fire to the south.
I believe that most elite and affluent Americans are actually quite content with the status quo, or at least not unhappy enough to risk anything for change. To the extent that they hope for change, they hope someone else takes the risk and does the hard work.
Many many aspects of US politics have not been working for a long time, compared to the much better governed liberal democracies. Folks should be angry - in fact much angrier than they are, and their system has so clearly failed no wonder folks grasp for authoritarianism. Gosh, a country without paid maternity leave or subsidized daycare, in 2026, is not working for its citizens!
Change away from authoritarianism will only come when several things happen - people get angry enough with the incompetence and corruption of the current regime to be motivated to act rather than write and talk at effete conferences, people realize that Trump is consequence not cause of the mess, and, ideally a largish number of folks (not all!) coalesce (loosely) around what a better path and better goals look like.
Alas, Capitalism has been so badly represented by the greedy in our country ( world) as the profit motive has become all consuming in the lives of a growing crop of billionaires who don't pay their fair share of taxes of late.
Liberalism as an ideology is in crisis in every Liberal-Democracy. To say that it has been revitalised and reinvigorated by the “dumpster fire to the south” shows that in Canada it required the existence of an external enemy to preserve itself. Intrinsically, it is dead.
Absolutely false. Most things revitalize when responding to outside not internal pressures. Canada,like many countries, grew fat and happy because it was fat and happy. That is not crisis, it is success. The hallmark of real success, is turnin quickly when a wolf appears t the door. Liberalism is not in crisis in real social democracies, like all of Scandinavia. Denmark, Norway, Sweden are just better governed and better places to live thn the US and the UK as anyone who has ever lived on any of them knows. Liberalism and democracy are crisis in the us and the UK, largely because of a generation of awful and incompetent governance in both places.
Denmark, Norway and Sweden are (largely ethnically homogenous) and have always been de facto Social Democracies, not liberal democracies as the US and the UK. If you study their constitutions and jurisprudence you will understand that in Scandinavia (with the recent possible exception of Sweden) the people, the collectivity, precedes the individual.
Canada used to be an hybrid of lib-dem and social democracy (its welfare state, which distinguished it from the US). Mulroney and his neo-liberals finished that epoch with pomp and circumstance.
What external pressures could prompt the US or any other country to revitalise? Or, put differently: historically, what external pressures, excluding defeat in war, have prompted the US or any other country to revitalise? The wolf at the door is nothing but a useless metaphor.
You say that Scandinavia has been better governed. True. However, you do not explain why? The principal reason has to do with the fact that they are high-trust ethnically homogenous countries (see Putnam, Betts). Accountability is real, there is a true bond between the governed and those who govern.
Happily, as you say backlash and learning from other's failure in Canada is strengthening liberal norms just as backlash in the EU countries moved opinions after Brexit. Italy also seems to be sticking to liberal democracy after electing a populist leader victory much better than the U.S.
Your critiques of the U.S. system have validity, but it's complacent to see this as just a U.S. problem or to look a cross-country shifts and blame it on the particular failures and weakensses in each of the effected countries. The U.S. needs to get its own house in order and Canada is doing a great job responding to the pressure and learning from our mistakes. But the pendulem of popular sentiment in democracies swings, and finding ways to reconstruct so that the swings do not lead us back into attempts to consolidate competitive authoritarianism is a hard problem.
Canada was admitting way too many immigrants for a few years, without any proper planning for welcome or integration. The impact on housing and community was dire. Reducing the numbers is not backsliding on liberalism, it is good governance. The current numbers are still consistent with historic norm and still among the highest per capita in the world.
Where is America's Fedorov? Someone with confidence, bravery in dealing with the status quo, able to put words out that reach, ability to inspire and get things done through whoever wants to be on board.
I admire the people that were at the convention, but why wait for consensus when action is what is required. And I think that was your point. Project 2025 was not a Republican effort, not a MAGA effort, but stitched together by any number of interests and ideologies. Take them all on. Everything, everywhere, all at once.
I watched an interview that Klein had with James Talarico the other day and I didn't get the impression that he was play acting as a liberal but rather a person who was seeking to learn if James was sincere and I think that he succeeded in doing just that . I don't think that a person can be altruistic and not be liberal in their thinking about the betterment of their fellowman. The religious in our society call that "loving thy neighbor as thyself" and Talarico is a staunch believer in that saying ,as do I. I'd wager that Klein, as a good Jew, believes that ,as well.
Another thing to consider is an organization called the Humanist Society whose basic tenet is that they want the best for their fellowman while leaving God out of the equation ,as they are unabashed Atheists and I don't hold that against them , because they mean no harm to anyone. Does that make them altruists or liberals or both.? Does it really matter ?
The Dems tried the save Democracy pitch in 2024 and it fell flat because everyone was pissed off about inflation and didn’t believe the Biden Administration had done anything to improve the daily life of the average American. Ironically, it had, but passing laws is not implementing them and the rollout was so slow that nobody noticed. Anyway, I think the average American only gets stirred up about Authoritarianism when its impacts are right in their faces. Like ICE murdering innocent people, jailing children, and Trump lining his pockets while doing nothing to improve the life of the average American, then lying about all his great accomplishments. So what is to be done with the constraints of our political system even if the Dems achieve a trifecta in 2029 and knowing that they are exceedingly unlikely to nuke the filibuster? Pick at most 2 consequential initiatives that will demonstrably improve people’s lives and focus on those initiatives without distraction. The oil crisis sparked by Trump’s stupid war presents a unique opportunity to revive and expand green energy but it will only be successful if Dems focus on the benefits to the average American while drawing the contrast to relying on the burning of fossil fuels. Show and tell about the cost advantages solar and wind have achieved and how that is beneficial to the pocketbook of the average American. Take a page from Ezra Klein’s book and clear the hurdles to efficient transmission of electricity. Subsidize the cost of solar installation so the average American can afford to install a solar system on their home. Make the needed energy transition not about saving the planet because the average person doesn’t see how it benefits them. Make it about the benefit to their personal finances. Health care is another obvious choice. Compulsory Medicare for all is not going to fly. Vested interests, meaning the all powerful insurance companies, will fight it tooth and nail, and it will never pass through Congress. Focus on passing Medicare for all who want it and provide Americans with the choice of private or government run insurance. If Medicare for all who want it is the superior product, it will win out in the marketplace. These are just several ideas. I’m sure others can propose different ones. What needs to be in the forefront of all this though is that most people don’t care about or understand liberalism as a concept. But they do understand and value the government programs that sprung from the best years of liberalism, the FDR and LBJ Presidencies. Dems need to learn a lesson from Republican electoral success. Namely that when something is understood in the gut, it gains traction and support. So simplify, simplify, simplify. If any policy can’t be boiled down to a catchy slogan, it will never catch on
"but passing laws is not implementing them and the rollout was so slow that nobody noticed."
I think you have hit upon it. The problem with worrying about "process" is that process is slow and the worries are one sided. So Republicans attack Democracy with savagery and speed. Democrats whine about process and lard every good thing they do up in endless delay.
Consider that Biden did Drug Price Negotiation which should have a massive impact on medical costs. It was straight, clear, and had benefits without upending the whole market.
But the Senate added a waiting period,
And restricted the number of drugs that could be covered,
and delayed the implementation still further so it could be challenged,
and
and
and.
They obsess about process and make themselves so slow to actually help people that noone ever notices, then when horiffic things like the shooting in Maine happens they obsess over focus grouping messages so long noone cares. Until that mindset goes they will never succeed.
I have attended three conferences now since 2024 organized around the argument that those with resources must commit them to rebuilding American democracy. The only consensus that's emerged is "we have to work together" and "we have to have more conversations." Few resources have actually been commited. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking in the background, and the authoritarians continue to execute their agenda. I am not optimistic about our ability to get out of this, much less rebuild our institutions and prevent another authoritarian breakthrough.
Well, frankly, some of it probably goes into organizing that's not widely advertised but that people are prepped for throught the public work.
Minneapolis did a fantastic job of resistence and ICE's loss there coincided and, in my opinion likely caused, the big shift in public opinion even before the Iran war. That was a well run mass paraticipation reaction and just like in the civil rights movement a ton of organizing must have gone into that did not always advertise. But Minneapolis was also the right fight to pick given the intensity of the ICE push.
To be clear, I wasn't there and wasn't tracking how that was done, but the sheer effectiveness of the effort implies effective advanced efforts to counter.
So keeping people energzied, talking, and making connections at events like LibCon and quietly committing resources and organizing in a targeted and contextual way seems a reasonable strategy.
Minneapolis did to a fantastic job at fighting to save their own lives. But none of the people who attend these high-profile conferences were there and none of them committed resources. The DNC was not there. The Democratic "leadership" railed after the fact but did not put themselves on the line.
All of which encapsulates the real problem. The people actually putting their lives on the line to save Democracy, liberalism broadly, and America as a nation, are not in the room when people sip coffee and wonder why noone saves liberalism. Nor are they there for "Abundance Con" or any of these other high dollar, high profile events that look glitzy and feature great panels but are too high minded to actually feed a refugee family.
> Growing right-wing extremism [...] reflects some of the actual failures of modern liberal politics and economics, of modern liberal culture, and of the corporate neoliberal academy.
Someone should have probably pointed this out to the conference of the corporate neoliberal academy then.
I think it's telling that the conference for pundits and talking heads looks at the mass movement against Trump and bemoans a lack of leaders - when the movement *is* full of leaders, just, leaders who aren't willing to play the corporate neoliberal game of pretending that the best the state can offer is more exploitation just wrapped in a rainbow flag.
I respectful disagree on almost all of your conclusions and evidence you used.
Draconian immigration policies? The majority of citizens support ICE 46-38% and 55% support deporting all illegal immigrants.
20% of Trump supporters have abandoned him? The latest approval poll among Republicans are 82%-16%, identical to this time last year and his overall approval today (42%) is the same as Obama's was at the same time in his presidency.
Anti-Supreme Court decisions. Americans approve the court in general 46%-38%, including the recent decisions on redistricting in states and giving the President control of government agencies.
LibCon 2026 probably tells you more about who got visas than where liberalism stands in the region. The real conversations happen in Telegram channels and kitchen tables, not conference halls.
The people working on Project 2029 will probably have a whole list of their favored policies so this conference does not have to come up with their own competing list. What is sad about this post is that none of the participants can be confident that the American people as a whole want democracy or tolerance or particularly think that elections and voting are a way to get these things rather than to get the people they despise out of power.
I have not cancelled my free subscription to Slow Boring yet although Matt Yglesias does not need the $9 a month I am refusing to pay him so Ezra probably does look like a real liberal by comparison.
I think your juxtaposition of Kristol, Klein, and Fields goes to the heart of the problem. While I have respect for many of the points Kristol makes he, like Klein and definitely like Carville, are stuck in a model of return. They are looking to go back to some version of the systems we have *or* having some inspirational movement cake without real change.
But, inequality is growing, costs *are* high and jobs are scarce. Trump does not have a solution to that, but in many ways the self-appointed guardians of liberalism do not want to even acknowledge it, or they want to shave off the corners rather than go to the heart. You can see this in Carville complaining about Democrats not being their party anymore or in Klein spending time pitching permitting reform but not addressing substantive inequality in Abundance.
Until the discussion moves from fighting "illiberalism" to solving problems through liberalism the definitions do not matter and no amount of conferences will change that. At this point, like it as not, it is only the DSA, and candidates like Mandami who are offering workable models to solve problems. Yet those are the ones that self-described centrists like Klein are eager to oppose. If they want a big movement, that movement needs to allow for change. If not, it will be the band playing as the titanic sinks.
IIRC real wages haven't outpaced inflation in 2026 but that is pretty squarely on Trump. The hiring rate has gone down even though unemployment is still pretty low, but idk how much control any president has over that.
The problem is the vibes are bad, even if the Biden presidency was honestly a pretty good time to be alive. I have no idea what the solution is beyond some handwaving towards a better media diet and civic virtue.
Interesting, per the FED the GINI coefficient in the US has been growing steadily since the 80's apart from a dip around COVID. The reality is that inequality of wealth, which is the one really perceived, has been growing over decades and people feel it. The fact that things have been slow for the past few years doesn't change the overall lived experience. So I think it goes beyond vibes.
As to what to do I don't think civic virtue alone will do it. The reality is we need to fight for real policies that change this calculus and now like higher taxes on the rich and more overall investment in the social safety net which will bring civic virtue with it. The problem we have now is that we have one political party that fights to increase inequality by any means necessary, and another party that says they want to change things but refuses to try. Until that changes I think nothing will.
Project 2025 - and the yrs long undermining of democracy - has wholly materialized under the watchful eye (and pen) of the Supreme Court. Failure to immediately address this institution is a huge mistake that will impact generations. The mere announcement (à la Hawaii) that the Court is no longer a reliable Constitutional guide will go a long way with The People and other branches of government - if that’s all Dems talked about for two yrs they’d never lose an election. The People want accountability and they *will* get it. Slapping down the Court is a winning strategy.
Sounds like a good plan, Selena.
With respect this strategy only works until there are more Democratic-picked justices on the Court and says fundamentally that a) they are making things up as they go along b) the President should not have the power that the Court has handed him or her. This means that Congressional candidates will talk about how once candidate is in office Congress will take back their power from the President but not anything else that candidate will do although there are obvious implications of Congress taking back their power such as stopping dumb wars.
The Republican justices are making things up as they go along, sorry
Congress of course also has power over the courts so maybe we could say that every single Democratic candidate needs a court reform proposal. It is probably better that they are not all the same one so that Republicans cannot demonize the proposal as coming from far-left sore losers.
Professor, If process and institutions are two thirds of the equation and civic duty one third, where do the inextinguishable principals and ideas of democratic liberalism fit in? I'm thinking government of the people, by the people and for the people; personal freedom and individual rights; equality before the law, and such. I call them inextinguishable because even if institutions, process and civic duty fail us, those ideals will remain. I believe they would ultimately prevail.
As a former Latin Americanist (sort of), I can remember when nearly all of the region was ruled by dictatorships, not so long ago. (Ironically enough, Venezuela was an exception.) Even as the autocrats ruled, societies recognized that the only truly legitimate form of government would be a return to democracy.
Something similar happened in Central and Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall and then the Soviet Union. The new polities did not clamor for new forms of government or autocracy; they strove to become democracies.
I hope it doesn't come to that point in American liberal democracy, but I also hope the LibCon folks understand the power of their ideas.
I'm with you on the democracy thing, Peter. My sentiments exactly.
I would imagine pushing for inextinguishable would fall under civic virtue. I attended all of last years but only the closing of this, but Kristol's speech did cover resistance and reconstruction as seperate topics and noted reconstruction could be me more intellectually engaging and was vital, but also should not distract from the hardwork of resistance.
Kristol's point on the public doing a better job than the elites I think gets at you inexhaustible point.
Most of us are scarred on this topic by a 2024 election did turn on a clear choice in which those inexhaustible ideals lost. Turning to Bartels and Achen ( https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691169446/democracy-for-realists , though which I still have to read, going off articles ), some of that was that it's a smaller core of the country that really cares directly about this than we'd hope. Though some of it is also that when power rotates, it's easy to fudge facts about how the other side is just as bad. Anti-incumbent sentiment comingling with ideals could heighten their power even against a rigged process, as even with authoritarian control of mass media, lived experience shows the betrayal of those ideals to a wider swath of the population.
The title of this piece alone eloquently reveals a huge part of the problem. The crisis is in American Liberalism, not all liberalism. For instance, Canadian liberalism has clearly been revitalized and reinvigorated by the dumpster fire to the south.
I believe that most elite and affluent Americans are actually quite content with the status quo, or at least not unhappy enough to risk anything for change. To the extent that they hope for change, they hope someone else takes the risk and does the hard work.
Many many aspects of US politics have not been working for a long time, compared to the much better governed liberal democracies. Folks should be angry - in fact much angrier than they are, and their system has so clearly failed no wonder folks grasp for authoritarianism. Gosh, a country without paid maternity leave or subsidized daycare, in 2026, is not working for its citizens!
Change away from authoritarianism will only come when several things happen - people get angry enough with the incompetence and corruption of the current regime to be motivated to act rather than write and talk at effete conferences, people realize that Trump is consequence not cause of the mess, and, ideally a largish number of folks (not all!) coalesce (loosely) around what a better path and better goals look like.
Alas, Capitalism has been so badly represented by the greedy in our country ( world) as the profit motive has become all consuming in the lives of a growing crop of billionaires who don't pay their fair share of taxes of late.
Liberalism as an ideology is in crisis in every Liberal-Democracy. To say that it has been revitalised and reinvigorated by the “dumpster fire to the south” shows that in Canada it required the existence of an external enemy to preserve itself. Intrinsically, it is dead.
Absolutely false. Most things revitalize when responding to outside not internal pressures. Canada,like many countries, grew fat and happy because it was fat and happy. That is not crisis, it is success. The hallmark of real success, is turnin quickly when a wolf appears t the door. Liberalism is not in crisis in real social democracies, like all of Scandinavia. Denmark, Norway, Sweden are just better governed and better places to live thn the US and the UK as anyone who has ever lived on any of them knows. Liberalism and democracy are crisis in the us and the UK, largely because of a generation of awful and incompetent governance in both places.
Denmark, Norway and Sweden are (largely ethnically homogenous) and have always been de facto Social Democracies, not liberal democracies as the US and the UK. If you study their constitutions and jurisprudence you will understand that in Scandinavia (with the recent possible exception of Sweden) the people, the collectivity, precedes the individual.
Canada used to be an hybrid of lib-dem and social democracy (its welfare state, which distinguished it from the US). Mulroney and his neo-liberals finished that epoch with pomp and circumstance.
What external pressures could prompt the US or any other country to revitalise? Or, put differently: historically, what external pressures, excluding defeat in war, have prompted the US or any other country to revitalise? The wolf at the door is nothing but a useless metaphor.
You say that Scandinavia has been better governed. True. However, you do not explain why? The principal reason has to do with the fact that they are high-trust ethnically homogenous countries (see Putnam, Betts). Accountability is real, there is a true bond between the governed and those who govern.
Liberalism has resilience, but democratic backsliding and populist authoritarianism is obviously a global crisis ( https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2022/10/understanding-and-responding-to-global-democratic-backsliding ).
Taking your example, Canadian sentiment on immigration suffered a majority turn that the country had been letting in too many immigrants in 2024. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/transparency/transition-binders/minister-2025-05/public-opinion-research-canadians-attitudes-immigration.html
Happily, as you say backlash and learning from other's failure in Canada is strengthening liberal norms just as backlash in the EU countries moved opinions after Brexit. Italy also seems to be sticking to liberal democracy after electing a populist leader victory much better than the U.S.
Your critiques of the U.S. system have validity, but it's complacent to see this as just a U.S. problem or to look a cross-country shifts and blame it on the particular failures and weakensses in each of the effected countries. The U.S. needs to get its own house in order and Canada is doing a great job responding to the pressure and learning from our mistakes. But the pendulem of popular sentiment in democracies swings, and finding ways to reconstruct so that the swings do not lead us back into attempts to consolidate competitive authoritarianism is a hard problem.
Canada was admitting way too many immigrants for a few years, without any proper planning for welcome or integration. The impact on housing and community was dire. Reducing the numbers is not backsliding on liberalism, it is good governance. The current numbers are still consistent with historic norm and still among the highest per capita in the world.
Where is America's Fedorov? Someone with confidence, bravery in dealing with the status quo, able to put words out that reach, ability to inspire and get things done through whoever wants to be on board.
I admire the people that were at the convention, but why wait for consensus when action is what is required. And I think that was your point. Project 2025 was not a Republican effort, not a MAGA effort, but stitched together by any number of interests and ideologies. Take them all on. Everything, everywhere, all at once.
From Canada, we wish you God speed.
Thanks for your input, Neighbor.
Unlike Klein, Kristol is a real thinker. Klein is an effective altruist play acting as a liberal.
For me, Kristol is a thinker, Klein write a good sentence. So I listen to Kristol, even when I disagree. I've been ignoring Klein for years.
I watched an interview that Klein had with James Talarico the other day and I didn't get the impression that he was play acting as a liberal but rather a person who was seeking to learn if James was sincere and I think that he succeeded in doing just that . I don't think that a person can be altruistic and not be liberal in their thinking about the betterment of their fellowman. The religious in our society call that "loving thy neighbor as thyself" and Talarico is a staunch believer in that saying ,as do I. I'd wager that Klein, as a good Jew, believes that ,as well.
Another thing to consider is an organization called the Humanist Society whose basic tenet is that they want the best for their fellowman while leaving God out of the equation ,as they are unabashed Atheists and I don't hold that against them , because they mean no harm to anyone. Does that make them altruists or liberals or both.? Does it really matter ?
The Dems tried the save Democracy pitch in 2024 and it fell flat because everyone was pissed off about inflation and didn’t believe the Biden Administration had done anything to improve the daily life of the average American. Ironically, it had, but passing laws is not implementing them and the rollout was so slow that nobody noticed. Anyway, I think the average American only gets stirred up about Authoritarianism when its impacts are right in their faces. Like ICE murdering innocent people, jailing children, and Trump lining his pockets while doing nothing to improve the life of the average American, then lying about all his great accomplishments. So what is to be done with the constraints of our political system even if the Dems achieve a trifecta in 2029 and knowing that they are exceedingly unlikely to nuke the filibuster? Pick at most 2 consequential initiatives that will demonstrably improve people’s lives and focus on those initiatives without distraction. The oil crisis sparked by Trump’s stupid war presents a unique opportunity to revive and expand green energy but it will only be successful if Dems focus on the benefits to the average American while drawing the contrast to relying on the burning of fossil fuels. Show and tell about the cost advantages solar and wind have achieved and how that is beneficial to the pocketbook of the average American. Take a page from Ezra Klein’s book and clear the hurdles to efficient transmission of electricity. Subsidize the cost of solar installation so the average American can afford to install a solar system on their home. Make the needed energy transition not about saving the planet because the average person doesn’t see how it benefits them. Make it about the benefit to their personal finances. Health care is another obvious choice. Compulsory Medicare for all is not going to fly. Vested interests, meaning the all powerful insurance companies, will fight it tooth and nail, and it will never pass through Congress. Focus on passing Medicare for all who want it and provide Americans with the choice of private or government run insurance. If Medicare for all who want it is the superior product, it will win out in the marketplace. These are just several ideas. I’m sure others can propose different ones. What needs to be in the forefront of all this though is that most people don’t care about or understand liberalism as a concept. But they do understand and value the government programs that sprung from the best years of liberalism, the FDR and LBJ Presidencies. Dems need to learn a lesson from Republican electoral success. Namely that when something is understood in the gut, it gains traction and support. So simplify, simplify, simplify. If any policy can’t be boiled down to a catchy slogan, it will never catch on
"but passing laws is not implementing them and the rollout was so slow that nobody noticed."
I think you have hit upon it. The problem with worrying about "process" is that process is slow and the worries are one sided. So Republicans attack Democracy with savagery and speed. Democrats whine about process and lard every good thing they do up in endless delay.
Consider that Biden did Drug Price Negotiation which should have a massive impact on medical costs. It was straight, clear, and had benefits without upending the whole market.
But the Senate added a waiting period,
And restricted the number of drugs that could be covered,
and delayed the implementation still further so it could be challenged,
and
and
and.
They obsess about process and make themselves so slow to actually help people that noone ever notices, then when horiffic things like the shooting in Maine happens they obsess over focus grouping messages so long noone cares. Until that mindset goes they will never succeed.
I have attended three conferences now since 2024 organized around the argument that those with resources must commit them to rebuilding American democracy. The only consensus that's emerged is "we have to work together" and "we have to have more conversations." Few resources have actually been commited. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking in the background, and the authoritarians continue to execute their agenda. I am not optimistic about our ability to get out of this, much less rebuild our institutions and prevent another authoritarian breakthrough.
Well, frankly, some of it probably goes into organizing that's not widely advertised but that people are prepped for throught the public work.
Minneapolis did a fantastic job of resistence and ICE's loss there coincided and, in my opinion likely caused, the big shift in public opinion even before the Iran war. That was a well run mass paraticipation reaction and just like in the civil rights movement a ton of organizing must have gone into that did not always advertise. But Minneapolis was also the right fight to pick given the intensity of the ICE push.
To be clear, I wasn't there and wasn't tracking how that was done, but the sheer effectiveness of the effort implies effective advanced efforts to counter.
So keeping people energzied, talking, and making connections at events like LibCon and quietly committing resources and organizing in a targeted and contextual way seems a reasonable strategy.
Minneapolis did to a fantastic job at fighting to save their own lives. But none of the people who attend these high-profile conferences were there and none of them committed resources. The DNC was not there. The Democratic "leadership" railed after the fact but did not put themselves on the line.
All of which encapsulates the real problem. The people actually putting their lives on the line to save Democracy, liberalism broadly, and America as a nation, are not in the room when people sip coffee and wonder why noone saves liberalism. Nor are they there for "Abundance Con" or any of these other high dollar, high profile events that look glitzy and feature great panels but are too high minded to actually feed a refugee family.
When in doubt, do something and that is what is happening in our country because many do not want any more of the Trump BS we're getting daily.
I'm more hopeful, Jeff.
My hope is in my progeny and the youth in our country who see what is going on and want change for the better for themselves and their future.
My 18 year old grandson and I have talked about this and he said there definitely needs to be a change .
> Growing right-wing extremism [...] reflects some of the actual failures of modern liberal politics and economics, of modern liberal culture, and of the corporate neoliberal academy.
Someone should have probably pointed this out to the conference of the corporate neoliberal academy then.
I think it's telling that the conference for pundits and talking heads looks at the mass movement against Trump and bemoans a lack of leaders - when the movement *is* full of leaders, just, leaders who aren't willing to play the corporate neoliberal game of pretending that the best the state can offer is more exploitation just wrapped in a rainbow flag.
I respectful disagree on almost all of your conclusions and evidence you used.
Draconian immigration policies? The majority of citizens support ICE 46-38% and 55% support deporting all illegal immigrants.
20% of Trump supporters have abandoned him? The latest approval poll among Republicans are 82%-16%, identical to this time last year and his overall approval today (42%) is the same as Obama's was at the same time in his presidency.
Anti-Supreme Court decisions. Americans approve the court in general 46%-38%, including the recent decisions on redistricting in states and giving the President control of government agencies.
Thanks for this write-up! It's really discouraging that even modest reforms like Court-packing are not met with consensus.
LibCon 2026 probably tells you more about who got visas than where liberalism stands in the region. The real conversations happen in Telegram channels and kitchen tables, not conference halls.
(That comment thread on the live-skeeting was hardly an advertisement for Bluesky I must say)
The people working on Project 2029 will probably have a whole list of their favored policies so this conference does not have to come up with their own competing list. What is sad about this post is that none of the participants can be confident that the American people as a whole want democracy or tolerance or particularly think that elections and voting are a way to get these things rather than to get the people they despise out of power.
I have not cancelled my free subscription to Slow Boring yet although Matt Yglesias does not need the $9 a month I am refusing to pay him so Ezra probably does look like a real liberal by comparison.
I even forwarded my Dad the Slow Boring list of candidates to whom you should send money.
I think your juxtaposition of Kristol, Klein, and Fields goes to the heart of the problem. While I have respect for many of the points Kristol makes he, like Klein and definitely like Carville, are stuck in a model of return. They are looking to go back to some version of the systems we have *or* having some inspirational movement cake without real change.
But, inequality is growing, costs *are* high and jobs are scarce. Trump does not have a solution to that, but in many ways the self-appointed guardians of liberalism do not want to even acknowledge it, or they want to shave off the corners rather than go to the heart. You can see this in Carville complaining about Democrats not being their party anymore or in Klein spending time pitching permitting reform but not addressing substantive inequality in Abundance.
Until the discussion moves from fighting "illiberalism" to solving problems through liberalism the definitions do not matter and no amount of conferences will change that. At this point, like it as not, it is only the DSA, and candidates like Mandami who are offering workable models to solve problems. Yet those are the ones that self-described centrists like Klein are eager to oppose. If they want a big movement, that movement needs to allow for change. If not, it will be the band playing as the titanic sinks.
Income inequality hasn't been growing for the last decade, it's plateaued since 2006 (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOVGINIUSA), and wealth inequality has been largely stable with only a slight increase over the last couple years, I would guess that's attributable to tech stocks. (https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/#quarter:146;series:Net%20worth;demographic:networth;population:1,3,5,7,9;units:shares).
IIRC real wages haven't outpaced inflation in 2026 but that is pretty squarely on Trump. The hiring rate has gone down even though unemployment is still pretty low, but idk how much control any president has over that.
The problem is the vibes are bad, even if the Biden presidency was honestly a pretty good time to be alive. I have no idea what the solution is beyond some handwaving towards a better media diet and civic virtue.
Interesting, per the FED the GINI coefficient in the US has been growing steadily since the 80's apart from a dip around COVID. The reality is that inequality of wealth, which is the one really perceived, has been growing over decades and people feel it. The fact that things have been slow for the past few years doesn't change the overall lived experience. So I think it goes beyond vibes.
As to what to do I don't think civic virtue alone will do it. The reality is we need to fight for real policies that change this calculus and now like higher taxes on the rich and more overall investment in the social safety net which will bring civic virtue with it. The problem we have now is that we have one political party that fights to increase inequality by any means necessary, and another party that says they want to change things but refuses to try. Until that changes I think nothing will.
There will be a younger, wilier Trump along presently. If you don't get your shit together after this, you don't deserve a democracy.
What? No statements about re-ending history from Monsignor Fukuyama?