To be clear about what follows, I’m a big fan of Greg Sargent, and I’m lucky that I don’t have to pay very much to host this site, and Kay and Joe have generously volunteered their time and efforts. So, this post is about the liberal media ecosystem, not Sargent or TNR in particular. They need to make their daily bread.
Greg Sargent has a podcast called The Daily Blast. Because it has to exist in the paid liberal media ecosystem, it by necessity suffers from two of the big problems that plague media aimed at liberal political junkies:
Overwrought episode titles that center on Trump: “Trump erupts in fury…” , “Trump’s rage boils over…” and so forth. Trump is always on the edge of being cooked, and the GOP is knocked back on its heels, etc. (The reality of the content is a little different, but these kinds of titles really bug me because they’re pure soothing hopium at a time when people need to get pissed and get out and do something.)
Having a lot of never-Trumper former Republicans of questionable usefulness to Democrats on the show.
Friday’s episode featured Mona Charen. When I heard her name, I was shocked that she was still alive (actually, she’s 69 which also shocks me, since she’s been around seemingly forever). She started her writing career at the National Review, wrote speeches for Nancy Reagan, etc. Like a lot of “Reagan Republicans”, she left the Republican Party when that uncouth Trump started saying the quiet things out loud. Now that she’s decided to declare herself an anti-Trumper, of course her next move is to tell Democrats what to do. (Note that she’s a never-Trumper from the start who, according to her Wikipedia bio, couldn’t support Hillary Clinton in 2016. Typical.)
Anyway, enough (really, too much) about Mona Charen’s bio. Let’s examine her prescription for Democratic victory in 2026 and 2028:
Charen: […] It would also be great if Democrats could field candidates who know how to appeal to independents. Because for Democrats to win, they have to win 60 percent of the independent vote, because there are fewer liberals than there are conservatives in this country. And so it’s just a fact of life that Democrats, if they want to win, they have to be able to win over independents—there just aren’t enough Democrats.
So I personally believe that the best way to do that—and I think it’s been demonstrated around the country—is you tailor your candidate to the district and make sure that you have people who are acceptable. You don’t have to give up all your principles. You don’t have to remake yourself into MAGA. But you have to be somebody who doesn’t send independents running for the hills.
There are so many polls, Greg, that show that independents think the Democrats are more radical than the Republicans. I know that’s crazy and I know it’s inexplicable to some people, especially Democrats, but if Democrats want to win elections—and I think we all agree that they really need to, if this republic is going to be anything like what we hope for—they have to figure out how to do that.
I think this is terrible advice, for a couple of reasons. Of course, we’re not going to run DSA candidates in Omaha, that’s just a straw man. If anything, we run candidates who are less liberal than their districts or states.
But what’s “too radical”? Is it “too radical” to want universal healthcare? Is it “too radical” to recognize that trans kids are human beings? Is it “too radical” to want a path to citizenship instead of ICE goons disappearing people in the streets? Is it “too radical” to want a country where a woman who needs a life-saving D&C gets one instead of bleeding out in a parking lot, or any woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant can make the decision to end her pregnancy?
“Radical” in this context is absolutely meaningless, especially considering that the current Republican Party is the most radical political party we’ve seen in modern times. I think her cherry picking the “independent vote” and assuming that group is “the middle” doesn’t meet the moment. To win, Democrats need to distinguish themselves from Republicans, and offer solutions to the horrible problems that Republicans have created, including but not limited to: repealing the right to abortion, not feeding the poor, making healthcare unaffordable for pretty much everyone, disenfranchising black and brown people, and arresting anyone whose skin color is browner than the darker side of eggshell white. We might have to tax the rich and corporations to do this.
This is not the prescription that Mona Charen is offering, and I’m not surprised. She and a lot of the never-Trumpers want to jettison Trump, then hope that their wing of the Republican Party will prevail in the chaos that follows. Good luck with that, but we don’t need to assist her with her task.
I would like to close with two (of many) Mona Charen columns that show just who’s being invited to the party. First, a classic National Review column titled “Obama Puts His Finger in Francis’ Eye”:
It’s vintage Obama. Even when hosting the most ideologically sympathetic pontiff in his lifetime (climate change, Cuba), Mr. Obama cannot restrain himself. He cannot be civil and respectful, searching for common ground. No, he must include on the official guest list of those greeting the Pope at the White House, a transgender activist, an openly gay Episcopal bishop, and a nun who supported Obamacare despite its funding of abortion and contraception. We’ve become a little inured to this president’s staggering insensitivity and passive aggression over the years. But in this case, you’d have to remove the “passive” part. This is an embarrassing moment for our country.
Do I need to say more about that one?
Now, here’s a recent (2022) piece from the Bulwark:
Because I’ve become something of a centrist, my views about abortion have changed a bit (probably just enough to make both sides angry with me). Still, as someone who spent decades in the pro-life world but who has many new pro-choice allies, perhaps I can shed some light on our predicament by highlighting what I think are blind spots or misunderstandings on both sides, and also some possible areas of agreement.
[…]
For the past decade, I’ve been involved in a private charity that provides assistance to Jewish women with crisis pregnancies (there is an abundance of such Christian groups). Members of the founding board of directors were both pro-life and pro-choice but united by the desire to provide alternatives. We didn’t lobby to change laws. We just helped women who wanted our aid. Some had been abandoned by husbands or boyfriends. Many had financial strains and other children. Some were in abusive relationships. All were incredibly grateful to find support during a difficult time. Some pro-life organizations have done similar work, but much more is needed, especially post Dobbs. It’s impossible to say how many women who abort would not do so if they had financial and other support, but it’s something both sides can agree is an unmixed good. […]
I think being raised by a man who saw the pain of women having babies they didn’t want makes me extremely unsympathetic to this kind of drivel, where someone supporting an inhumane policy wants me to believe they’re very humane, actually.
You know what would have really helped those Jewish women who had “crisis pregnancies”? A fucking abortion. And mentioning Christian “crisis pregnancy” groups as a good thing is a way to tell me that you’ve walked through life with blinders on. They’re a god damned scam. It’s interesting that she doesn’t mention the examples that my dad immediately brought up when I asked him about the patients he helped find abortion providers, like the 14-year-old girl who was probably molested by a family member. Luckily, that girl could get an abortion instead of being plagued by god-bothers of the Jewish and Christian persuasion.
Look, I’m all about welcoming anyone who wants to defeat Republicans into our party. But I’m sure as hell not going to take their advice, and I’m not going to forget what they believed or still believe.
