I don’t disagree with anything in this piece, but there is an element that has been consistently deemphasized and even ignored by many analyses.
The Democratic establishment foisted Janet Mills on the electorate. She seems a decent governor and did stand up to Trump when others were cowering. Good for her. But she also is a standard-issue moderate and a septuagenarian when the electorate is looking for young leftists. I think the fact that Platner was the antidote to all that played a large role in progressives backing him and turning a blind eye to his myriad flaws that were literally tattooed on his chest.
That’s not an excuse for Platnerphilia, nor is it a counterpoint to your argument. I just want to point out the role of the Democratic establishment in creating this debacle. By constantly and perversely propping up the same-old, same-old, they’re making the ballot safe for future Platners.
I think the problem with Mills was not that she was old or somehow obviously unacceptable to the electorate; her early polling was quite good.
The problem was she didn’t seem to actually want to run. She ran an anemic campaign and then gave up.
There were other candidates who ran for governor instead and they should have gone with one of those. but fwiw, I wrote a whole post yesterday about how the establishment failed to actually try to stop platner!
You are right. I should have referenced your post from yesterday. My apologies. In my defense, measures in internet years, yesterday was two months ago!
Well said. Honestly, I think we just need to apply the "mensch" test to every candidate. Is s/he or is s/he not a mensch? And if the answer is no, we just need to walk away and stop making excuses for them. Platner failed the mensch test the minute that tattoo came to light.
We might have trouble finding enough of those to fill out one political party, much less an entire government. Maybe other countries have enough, but any faith I had in this country and it's populace left a long ass time ago.
We have to take away the monetary incentives to weed out those who really don’t want to serve the public and are only doing it for the power and prestige.
I disagree, Lucius. We need to ask ourselves - and the candidates and everyone who knows them -- what a mensch would do. Would he/she be someone you'd call to say "My mom just had to go to the emergency room and I'm out of state. Can you go to the hospital and check on her? She'll might need stuff from her house -- there's a key on the porch under the ..."
Or "I have to go out of town and have someone collect my snail mail; there'll be a few bills in there to pay. If I leave you a few signed checks will you send in the payments when they come?"
And know that your mom and your creditors will be taken care of, and nobody will ever hear about it because, as A Declining Democracy said, they do it "humbly" as well.
In other words, I would trust so-and-so completely and implicitly. That's why one of the questions I try to ask candidates is not "What is your position on X, Y, or Z," but "what are your values? What really matters to you?" And try to discern from people who know the candidate well, "How does s/he live her/his life?"
And ya know what? I have over 1,000 people in my contacts list, about 400 of whom are personal rather than business only -- and I'd trust all but about 5 of them implicitly and completely. Good people aren't that hard to find, if you live as a good person yourself and seek them out.
Once upon a time I may have agreed with you, but the past decade has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that common decency and common sense aren't nearly as common as they should be. Plus, power corrupts, and there's no power like political power for bringing out the worst in people.
We have a bad habit of loaning out trust way too easily. If we want this country to ever be functional at all (it never really was, not for everyone, just white folks), as a society we're going to have to be a lot picker about who we trust and how much we extend.
I was born a happy optimist, so it's hard for me to be pessimistic. I've been described as an "optimistic cynic," since I'm never surprised by the absolute worst but I always aim, and hope, for the best. Trump is that rare creature who instinctively brings out the worst in people because like a rabid dog he can sense each person's weakness and convince them -- over and over and over -- that he'll support them through thick and thin. And they ALWAYS think that because they're literally smarter than he is -- higher IQ and better education and superior knowledge -- they can outsmart him. But he doesn't operate on smart; he operates on emotion, guts, fear, greed, weakness, etc.
And you're right: there are far more people available to that than in the past, but I look at how the right wing has been aiming for this moment for 50 years, since Nixon's downfall. He's the culmination of a deliberate strategy of ending civics education in schools; dividing people into tribes; despising patriotism in favor of hyped-up jingoism; using phony religion to attract the ignorant; normalizing the slashing of taxes and regulations for the rich and raising them on the poor; fear-mongering about crime; and many other specific, step-by-step tactics designed to prepare the country for an oligarchic authoritarianism and christian nationalism. Basically, they've been aiming to destroy the New Deal for 90 years, and they're gotten very close to succeeding.
My optimism comes from the reality that the taste of success is so enticing that they're making lots of mistakes by grabbing for the ring too soon. People like Social Security; they like Obamacare's benefits; they like the things that MAGA-Project 2025 are trying to take away. But, like Sauron in Mordor, they've put their faith in their own infallibility -- but good WILL win in the end. Fingers crossed. :--)
I don’t disagree with anything in this piece, but there is an element that has been consistently deemphasized and even ignored by many analyses.
The Democratic establishment foisted Janet Mills on the electorate. She seems a decent governor and did stand up to Trump when others were cowering. Good for her. But she also is a standard-issue moderate and a septuagenarian when the electorate is looking for young leftists. I think the fact that Platner was the antidote to all that played a large role in progressives backing him and turning a blind eye to his myriad flaws that were literally tattooed on his chest.
That’s not an excuse for Platnerphilia, nor is it a counterpoint to your argument. I just want to point out the role of the Democratic establishment in creating this debacle. By constantly and perversely propping up the same-old, same-old, they’re making the ballot safe for future Platners.
I think the problem with Mills was not that she was old or somehow obviously unacceptable to the electorate; her early polling was quite good.
The problem was she didn’t seem to actually want to run. She ran an anemic campaign and then gave up.
There were other candidates who ran for governor instead and they should have gone with one of those. but fwiw, I wrote a whole post yesterday about how the establishment failed to actually try to stop platner!
You are right. I should have referenced your post from yesterday. My apologies. In my defense, measures in internet years, yesterday was two months ago!
Well said. Honestly, I think we just need to apply the "mensch" test to every candidate. Is s/he or is s/he not a mensch? And if the answer is no, we just need to walk away and stop making excuses for them. Platner failed the mensch test the minute that tattoo came to light.
What's the mensch test?
Mensch in Yiddish means "a good man", morally, ethically, honorably, and humbly. If our candidates fail on these measures, we shouldn't nominate them.
Ah. I see.
We might have trouble finding enough of those to fill out one political party, much less an entire government. Maybe other countries have enough, but any faith I had in this country and it's populace left a long ass time ago.
We have to take away the monetary incentives to weed out those who really don’t want to serve the public and are only doing it for the power and prestige.
That would rule out the entire Republican party and 99% of the Democrats.
I'm on board.
I disagree, Lucius. We need to ask ourselves - and the candidates and everyone who knows them -- what a mensch would do. Would he/she be someone you'd call to say "My mom just had to go to the emergency room and I'm out of state. Can you go to the hospital and check on her? She'll might need stuff from her house -- there's a key on the porch under the ..."
Or "I have to go out of town and have someone collect my snail mail; there'll be a few bills in there to pay. If I leave you a few signed checks will you send in the payments when they come?"
And know that your mom and your creditors will be taken care of, and nobody will ever hear about it because, as A Declining Democracy said, they do it "humbly" as well.
In other words, I would trust so-and-so completely and implicitly. That's why one of the questions I try to ask candidates is not "What is your position on X, Y, or Z," but "what are your values? What really matters to you?" And try to discern from people who know the candidate well, "How does s/he live her/his life?"
And ya know what? I have over 1,000 people in my contacts list, about 400 of whom are personal rather than business only -- and I'd trust all but about 5 of them implicitly and completely. Good people aren't that hard to find, if you live as a good person yourself and seek them out.
Once upon a time I may have agreed with you, but the past decade has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that common decency and common sense aren't nearly as common as they should be. Plus, power corrupts, and there's no power like political power for bringing out the worst in people.
We have a bad habit of loaning out trust way too easily. If we want this country to ever be functional at all (it never really was, not for everyone, just white folks), as a society we're going to have to be a lot picker about who we trust and how much we extend.
I was born a happy optimist, so it's hard for me to be pessimistic. I've been described as an "optimistic cynic," since I'm never surprised by the absolute worst but I always aim, and hope, for the best. Trump is that rare creature who instinctively brings out the worst in people because like a rabid dog he can sense each person's weakness and convince them -- over and over and over -- that he'll support them through thick and thin. And they ALWAYS think that because they're literally smarter than he is -- higher IQ and better education and superior knowledge -- they can outsmart him. But he doesn't operate on smart; he operates on emotion, guts, fear, greed, weakness, etc.
And you're right: there are far more people available to that than in the past, but I look at how the right wing has been aiming for this moment for 50 years, since Nixon's downfall. He's the culmination of a deliberate strategy of ending civics education in schools; dividing people into tribes; despising patriotism in favor of hyped-up jingoism; using phony religion to attract the ignorant; normalizing the slashing of taxes and regulations for the rich and raising them on the poor; fear-mongering about crime; and many other specific, step-by-step tactics designed to prepare the country for an oligarchic authoritarianism and christian nationalism. Basically, they've been aiming to destroy the New Deal for 90 years, and they're gotten very close to succeeding.
My optimism comes from the reality that the taste of success is so enticing that they're making lots of mistakes by grabbing for the ring too soon. People like Social Security; they like Obamacare's benefits; they like the things that MAGA-Project 2025 are trying to take away. But, like Sauron in Mordor, they've put their faith in their own infallibility -- but good WILL win in the end. Fingers crossed. :--)