I'm sorry, Professor, but I'm just not buying what you're selling. I'm not saying anything here is even wrong, it's just all aimed in the wrong direction. The Dems did not lose the 2024 election, MAGA won. This is what the American People wanted. All of it. People vote by voting, they also vote by not voting. Either way, they wanted the destruction and cruelty. Some kind of as-yet-to-be understood atavistic impulse was released (though not created) by Donald Trump, who saw it as his ticket to power. The rest, as they say, is history.
We will live with this for generations to come. The country will never be the same because we won't be able to unsee what we've already seen. One of our strongest and most sustaining myths is gone: that we, as a people, are immune to the mad spirits of will to power above all else.
I'm going to guess that your successors will look back to us and, with crystal-clear post-hoc reasoning, declare that what we're doing to ourselves was 'necessary' for some reason. Something 'had' to break, they will say, in order to open everything up for a New Thing. We don't know what that is, but it will certainly look inevitable from the vantage point of the future.
What can the Dems and 'lovers of Democracy' actually DO here? I have no clue. Maybe, in a spasm of rage or panic, Trump actually declares war on America and begins locking up and killing dissidents, trying the replicate (with inadequate tools and skills) the 'successes' of those he admires most. Maybe that will launch a physical backlash, whereupon the battle is joined and all bets are off. The Civil War 2 that MAGA has long pined for will be upon us, but they may find themselves on the side they were not expecting.
Or maybe it all just spins down into a whimper, collapsing under its own weight and the withdrawal of support of its citizen-victims.
There's no way to know now. But yet another recounting of all the awfulness adds nothing, we can all recite it by heart, and we understand clearly that it's not your grandfather's policy.
The Democrats need to develop and shout to the rooftops WHAT THEY STAND FOR, WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO, not just, "Trump, Republicans, bad." The number one reason Kamala lost is because she/we could not articulate what we were going to do, how it would better the lives of the nation, how it would heal the divide. Everything was poll tested and parsed and just plan raggedy, not a winning strategy. I totally love that there are strategists engaged in Project 2026 and Democracy Docket, but without a goal, a positive and compelling platform, we don't have shit. No doubt we can pick up some disgruntled votes, but wouldn't it be better to enjoy a landslide in both houses because we stand for something more than anti-Trump? And the attempt to appeal to voters about democracy, rule of law, etc., being imperiled, is also a loser. Too abstract, to up-in-the-head. Take a page from Rep. Jake Auchincloss. He keeps rolling out proposal after proposal for what we can/should do if elected. That's what the country needs to hear: This is what voting Democrat means.
Thank you, Robyn. I truly appreciate the thought and urgency you bring to this—it’s clear you care, and I want to acknowledge that you’re making some very solid points here.
You’re right that Democrats often fail to shout from the rooftops about what they actually stand for and what they’re going to do for people. That failure to proactively frame a vision—and connect policy to people’s everyday lives—has been a weak spot for far too long. And you’re also right to point out that a lot of messaging feels poll-tested, pieced together, or just flat-out uninspiring. That criticism is fair, and it matters.
That said, I wrote a piece last week that speaks directly to this moment because we’re already seeing the Monday morning quarterbacking kick into overdrive—and I’m trying to stop that narrative in its tracks. Not because people shouldn’t reflect or critique, but because when we start saying, “If only she had done this” or “if only she said that,” we run the risk of treating Kamala like she was some kind of miracle worker who just didn’t read the right script.
She was dealt a garbage hand. Panic, chaos, delays, media pile-on, internal leaks—and given three months to make magic. That’s not a campaign, that’s a rescue mission. And even if she had checked off every box on the progressive wishlist—weekly town halls, slogan simplification, viral videos, better soundbites—what happens if she still lost? Would we say she failed again? Or would we finally admit the structure was broken before she ever stepped in?
We have to be careful not to let the postmortem become the scapegoating. Because it wasn’t all on her. It was on all of us—including those of us who didn’t start laying the groundwork sooner. Messaging can’t begin three months out. It has to start yesterday. Whoever the next candidate is needs space to grow and time to stumble—and we need to allow that instead of tearing them down mid-cycle and then wondering why voters never saw a clear vision.
Thanks again for being in this conversation. This is how we sharpen strategy—not by dragging individuals, but by understanding the deeper systems setting them up to fail. Let’s all commit to doing better next time, together.
You are right about my Kamala comments. She was dealt a garbage hand and did remarkably well. I didn't mean to seem so harsh. If the Lincoln Square and Project can continue to advise the Democratic Party (I hope that is what is going on) then I have more confidence in a solid majority in both houses in 2026. You guys are great and I marveled at your work in 2020. That said, it's still up to the Dems to frame what they stand for and what they will do to positively impact American lives. We have it in us; it's just stuck up in the head with too many polysyllabic words.
Robyn, thank you so much. I truly appreciate your kind words—and I’m really glad we’re having this back-and-forth. It means a lot that you took the time to re-engage, and trust me, I hear your points loud and clear.
You’re not necessarily wrong about the messaging gap—we do need to be better at clearly framing what Democrats stand for and how our policies tangibly improve people’s lives. And you’re absolutely right that we’ve got the substance… it’s just buried under too many five-dollar words and 90-slide decks.
I just want to make sure we’re also keeping things in perspective: the foundation the party laid for Kamala was shaky as hell from the start. It wasn’t just that she had to rise to the moment—it’s that the moment was engineered in panic and chaos, with way too little time and support. She did remarkably well under garbage conditions, and it’s on us to acknowledge the conditions, not just the outcome.
But again, thank you for the thoughtful reflection—and for engaging with the work. I hope we can keep building this dialogue, because sharpening the message and the context is how we move forward smarter and stronger.
I see the comment that we need to "prepare a disciplined offensive for 2026." From all that I see so far, in Lincoln Square or otherwise, there is no talk of defense against Donald T. using a national emergency (or comparable tricks) to block or seriously and negatively affect the 2026 election result. I doubt that Republicans in Congress would agree to total compliance on the Big Ugly Bill unless they believe there is a very effective non-published plan to keep those Republicans in office after 2026. Donald lost the 2020 election after the riot, and his ego will not accept a comparable loss next year. When will political "experts" show us a level of strategy (and a means to execute it) that is comparable to what Republicans have done?
Thank you for engaging with the piece, Philip. You raise an incredibly important point—and one that I’ve been wrestling with myself.
You’re absolutely right: we can’t keep talking about a “disciplined offensive” for 2026 without also talking about a credible defense against Trump using another national emergency—or some obscure legal gymnastics—to interfere with the democratic process. Because let’s be honest: the only thing more dangerous than Trump’s ambition is the media and political class continuing to treat it like it’s normal. That’s how we got here in the first place.
Donald Trump’s whole persona is built on the idea that power belongs to him by divine entitlement. That’s not strategy—that’s old white grievance privilege on full display. He didn’t just lose in 2020—he felt robbed, because in his mind, losing isn’t just unacceptable, it’s unnatural. And we’ve seen what happens when an entitled man-child with a god complex gets handed the nuclear codes and an audience of cowards.
The Republican Party playing along is bad enough. They’re spineless, feckless, and more committed to keeping their seats than keeping the country. But what’s worse—far worse—is the mainstream media running cover for it. CNN still lets Jake Tapper pretend that “both sides” are failing democracy when only one side is actively setting fire to it with glee.
And I’ll tell you this right now: as long as I am writing for Lincoln Square, or my Substack, or any publication that has the guts to publish me—I will not play these bullshit games with Trump or the GOP. If I see media figures enabling this, I will call them out by name. Every. Single. Time!
Because you’re absolutely right—Republicans are already planning their post-2026 strategy. The question is: will we meet their authoritarian offense with a cowardly shrug or with the kind of unapologetic clarity democracy demands?
Thank you again, Philip. We need more readers who think critically about not just what we say, but what we fail to say.
I don't have direct connections to Lincoln or others such as the Democratic Party so that I could raise the idea of creating an effective defense in the coming year. Do you have connections to bring that idea up? Also, you mention mainstream media essentially being too neutral and cooperative with Donald. I want to see more influential people "steal" Donald's language so that it can soon start showing up in MSM reporting. For example, witch hunt and fake and hoax and loser can be directly used in responses to steal thunder from Donald's sanctimonious statements. Drain the swamp should be used often to describe ways to cut off tax breaks for the rich, or refer to Donald's new all-too-obvious corruption this year. I want to see elected Democrats frequently referred to as True Americans and Patriots, to raise a more positive image of taking the high ground. Do you have ideas to get more of the right influential people to use those phrases? I am not aware of where to raise those ideas with the right people, beyond what I'm attempting here.
Thanks again, Philip. I really appreciate the thought and urgency you’re bringing to this conversation—it’s exactly the kind of discussion we need to be having in public.
You’re right: we need more serious talk about defense in 2026—not just vibes and “saving democracy” slogans. I don’t have a direct line to the DNC anymore (and probably wouldn’t answer if they called), but I do have platforms like this one and my Substack, where I can elevate exactly these kinds of ideas. This is where real conversations happen—without needing permission from consultants or poll-tested soundbites.
On the media being too cooperative with Trump? Absolutely. I’ve been dragging that corpse around for years. They still treat him like a quirky uncle who keeps accidentally overthrowing democracy instead of the threat he actually is. I wrote a piece last week on having a national reckoning with stupidity—both the loud, angry kind and the polished, Ivy League kind that makes excuses for fascism because it’s profitable.
And you’re spot-on about reclaiming language. That is not a minor idea—it’s powerful. Trump’s entire political existence thrives on brand repetition. If we take terms like “drain the swamp,” “hoax,” and “witch hunt” and flip them back on him, we force mainstream narratives to shift. It’s basic psychological framing, and it works. I’m outlining a new strategy this week based on my experience in political psychology—how identity, framing, and repetition shape belief—and your instincts line up perfectly with the data.
That “True Americans and Patriots” thing? YES. Language like that is emotionally loaded, and Democrats too often act allergic to emotion. They think good policy is self-explanatory. Meanwhile, Trump says “I alone can fix it” and MAGA swoons like it’s Shakespeare.
But here’s the kicker—and I’ll talk more about this in my next piece—we do have to be smart about this. Unlike MAGA, Democrats and progressives don’t have the luxury of just bullshitting. We can’t promise free unicorns with every vote. We have to sell real, often complex policy—but we still need to do it in plain, punchy language that respects people’s intelligence without sounding like a grad seminar. That’s a skill. That’s where our messaging has to get sharper.
It’s easy to lie and stoke grievance. It’s hard to tell the truth and keep people’s attention. But that’s the game we’re in. And I’m with you—we need to start playing it to win.
So yes, Philip—you’re not just raising good questions, you’re helping shape the conversation. I’ll be building on everything you mentioned in my next piece. Keep an eye out for it, and let’s keep pushing for better.
Thank you, all, for this thought-provoking thread! I moved to Trump Land before Trump came to power and have been occupied with understanding our USA psychology and why our culture shifted. We went too far left for many people. We are inculcated with patriarchal, sexist, white, Christian values that we questioned in our institutions and universities, especially from the 1960s with Wave II feminism. We turned the USA upside down and inside out when we became a country with many more people of color from all over the world, not just native Americans and Black citizens. We've been "going beige" for years, and integrating languages and other cultural ideas year by year. It's been a bit much - too much - for many people I know and love. Though welcome by my friends and colleagues, many other people do not want their children with partners and children outside their faith, culture, and "tribe." They are mad as hell and vote to keep Christmas, stop Spanish as our second language, and gender fluidity out of our schools and colleges. Because people like me have been too tolerant, supportive, feminist, and flexible to them, they have been willing, if not thrilled, to support legislators who will help them, regardless of the ways and means to do it, which are often evil. Payback has been a bitch, at least for me.
I agree we must write and speak empathically, relentlessly, and with facts and truth. I hope we can change some of our language and mantras to unite the far left and far right adherents, so they want to move to the center.
For example, instead of reproductive rights for abortion vs. forced birth, we might/should call for Medical Privacy. Medical Privacy is pro-life. It appeals to Democrats AND Republicans. The decision about terminating pregnancy, and a D & C (dilation and curettage, an essential and safe medical procedure) should be between prospective parents and medical professionals. Clergy, politicians, judges, and attorneys have other areas of expertise. They do not have licenses to practice medicine.
Like George Conway, Lance Dodes, MD, Lawrence O'Donnell, and many other experts have said for years, there is a difference between speaking, writing, and actions that are authoritarian, cruel, psychopathic, sociopathic, and sadistic. When ,as in these discussions, we highlight actions and explain that they are sadistic, we might also describe those that are preferred and authoritative (not authoritarian and cruel). JVL and Sarah Longwell acknowledge that we have not been able to control or stop illegal immigration for decades, we can still state and repeat that we want legal immigration, to stop illegal immigration, and once and laws to affirm the children of the undocumented, and to grandparent those here who work hard, pay taxes, and obey the law. We must continue to openly discuss and support doing all that that is humane and legal, not sadistic and cruel like cages with groups of humans brushing their teeth where they poop.
Thanks for this fine, powerful essay. "We need our best communicators — the ones who can speak plainly, empathetically, and relentlessly...." I couldn't agree with you more.
Thank you so much for reading, George—and I really appreciate you highlighting that line. I truly believe our best hope lies in clear, empathetic, and persistent communication. Grateful to have you in this conversation.
Kristoffer, I’m sorry that don’t know who you are, but you sure have the right ideas for getting us the vote in 2026. Particularly the idea of being present in ALL 50 states!
I’ve always liked Howard Dean’s 50 state policy and was furious when Rahm Emmanuel got rid of it. What I liked about it was the Republicans had to put up candidates in races they wouldn’t have to do IF Democrats stayed out of a race. And maybe the Republicans
candidates would be less conservative if they had at least token resistance from Democrats.
Thank you so much for reading and engaging, Gammyjill—and no worries at all about not knowing who I am. That just means you’ve been spared my occasional rants and keyboard therapy sessions… until now 😄
I really appreciate you highlighting the importance of being present in all 50 states. I couldn’t agree more. Too often Democrats forfeit entire regions without even showing up—and as you pointed out, that absence lets the GOP drift even further right without resistance. Presence matters, even in places where we don’t expect to win. It forces accountability and builds infrastructure long-term.
Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy was one of the smartest, most forward-thinking moves the party made—and it’s a shame Rahm helped push it aside. I’ve always believed you can’t build national strength if you keep retreating to “safe” territory.
I love that you brought this into the conversation. Thank you again for the thoughtful comment—and don’t worry, I plan to keep showing up until folks do know who I am (for better or worse 😅).
WE the People pay income tax every April But the Orange Cheeto has created a second tier of taxation in the form of tariffs, ie a sales tax on imported goods and falsely claims that other countries are paying us the tariffs But what else is new, Cheeto lies about everything
So every time Cheeto announces a 10, 20, or 30% tariff recognize that he is announcing a sales tax to us, WE the People, of 10, 20, or 30% And we are paying to the tune of a 100 billion dollars in tax revenue for the US Treasury
This is why Cheeto’s tariff strategy is inflationary, it’s costing all of us and decreases the purchasing power of the dollar
So don’t buy into Cheeto’s scheme to bilk us WE the People A case challenging the tariff scheme is currently wending its way through the courts and more than likely be successful So trim back your spending to the bare essentials and encourage others to do the same until this tariff fiasco is over
Thank you for engaging with the piece, Drbilldean—and for laying this out so clearly. You’re absolutely right: these tariffs are just stealth taxes dressed up in tough-guy rhetoric. The more people understand how this scheme actually works, the harder it becomes for them to sell it as “America First.” Appreciate your contribution to the conversation!
I believe a big part of our fight is impressing on people that the ability to educate one’s mind and use that mind is critical to being an informed and contributing citizen. MAGA is destroying education turning it into devotion to church and anti-science through privatization of education, charter schools, and shift to religious schools, all while starving public education. We are not living in the Middle Ages with Lords and religious dominating public life. So many self proclaimed leaders, but only one goal: to dominate. The ability to learn, to think, to make one’s own decisions are critical to living.
Thank you for reading the piece, James—and for taking the time to offer such a powerful reflection.
You’re absolutely right: a core part of this fight is preserving the ability—and the encouragement—for people to think critically. The MAGA movement doesn’t just reject science or history; it actively tries to reshape how people think, replacing inquiry with fealty and complexity with dogma.
Your point about education being hollowed out is spot-on. The long-term project of privatizing education and undermining public schools isn’t just about policy—it’s about creating a population easier to manipulate. When public education is underfunded while charter and religious schools are elevated, we end up with what you described: a system that rewards obedience over intellect.
And yes—we’re being dragged into a kind of modern feudalism. Self-proclaimed “leaders” who want to dominate culture, truth, and even imagination. That’s why the ability to learn, question, and decide for ourselves is revolutionary. It’s civic survival.
I really appreciate your voice here. Thank you again for engaging so deeply.
Well, said Kristoffer. We need to be in every nook and canny calling it like it is. Trump Regime; ICE Army; Closing down health care--just look who is hurt. Our Military on the streets; How did this Murder Bill help you? Within all this, we need to envision a future that is one that can help transform people's lives. Can't be empty promises either. That's the kicker--will they believe this can happen? Whatever--we need to be on top of this now!!! Thanks. Take Care.
Thank you so much for engaging with the piece, Maxine—and I completely agree with everything you said.
You’re absolutely right: we need to be in every nook, calling this out clearly and strategically. The Trump regime, ICE raids, militarized streets, attacks on healthcare—it’s all connected. The cruelty isn’t random; it’s the feature, not the bug.
And you nailed it with the point about the so-called “Murder Bill.” Policies like that aren’t just reckless—they’re openly hostile to working people and vulnerable communities. They don’t just fail to help—they harm.
I especially appreciate your call to envision a better future. That’s the hard part—but it’s essential. Because like you said, it can’t be hollow messaging. It has to be about real transformation. And the biggest challenge? Convincing people that better is still possible.
We’ve got to be ready to show—not just say—what change can look like.
Thank you again for your thoughtful comment. Let’s stay loud, let’s stay sharp.
Thank you, Kristoffer. You are right. Your previous post that our culture rejects intelligence was right on. To me, in addition to all of the things in this post about organizing and communicating, we might add learning HOW to communicate and be understood and heard by Trump loyalists. I almost wrote Trumpers or the MAGAs or (Maggots in my sometimes hateful mind).
But when I can see the Trump allies as people to respect and understand their psychology and why they adhere to the ends justify the means, I sometimes can get through to them one at a time. It's hard for me sometimes to acknowledge my arrogance, superior intelligence, and perspicacity and not act it out -- especially when I plainly see the blind spots, lack of history knowledge, and one-issue mindsets (Israel vs Palestine and one state vs two state solutions, reproductive rights/medical privacy, undocumented workers vs. criminal immigrants, white vs people of color, English vs. Spanish/other languages, Democrat vs. Republican, checks and balances in government, etc.).
That so many do not understand autocracy, theocracy, kakistocracy, and democracy (or "equivilarchy" my preference for government that is not based in patriarchy) is understandable. But I do NOT like that they do not.
Thank you so much for engaging with the piece, Judith—and for offering such a rich, introspective reflection.
You raise a critical point: it’s not just about rejecting anti-intellectualism, it’s also about learning how to communicate through it—especially with those who’ve been captured by propaganda. That tension you mentioned, between calling out ignorance and understanding the psychology behind it, is exactly what so many of us are grappling with right now. And I deeply appreciate your honesty in wrestling with that internal balance.
I really respect how you’re self-aware about the challenge of not slipping into intellectual arrogance, especially when the blind spots and historical amnesia are so glaring. Your list of one-issue mindsets and false binaries—Israel/Palestine, reproductive rights, immigration, race, language, party lines—is so on point. These are deeply nuanced issues that too often get reduced to slogans or tribal posturing, and you laid them out beautifully.
I also appreciated your comment about “equivillarchy”—what a brilliant framing. A government not based in patriarchy or concentrated power but grounded in shared dignity and informed participation. That’s exactly the kind of civic future we should be fighting for.
Also—if it’s of interest—I recently published a companion piece titled “We Owe Intelligence an Apology—And Stupidity a Reckoning,” which dives into the cultural forces that normalize and reward ignorance in public life. And this week, I’m working on a follow-up article focused on the best strategies for challenging proud ignorance—without attacking individuals. It’s about shifting the shame back to where it belongs: the performance of stupidity itself.
Thanks again for being part of this conversation. Your insight raises the level of discourse, and I’m grateful you’re here.
I'm sorry, Professor, but I'm just not buying what you're selling. I'm not saying anything here is even wrong, it's just all aimed in the wrong direction. The Dems did not lose the 2024 election, MAGA won. This is what the American People wanted. All of it. People vote by voting, they also vote by not voting. Either way, they wanted the destruction and cruelty. Some kind of as-yet-to-be understood atavistic impulse was released (though not created) by Donald Trump, who saw it as his ticket to power. The rest, as they say, is history.
We will live with this for generations to come. The country will never be the same because we won't be able to unsee what we've already seen. One of our strongest and most sustaining myths is gone: that we, as a people, are immune to the mad spirits of will to power above all else.
I'm going to guess that your successors will look back to us and, with crystal-clear post-hoc reasoning, declare that what we're doing to ourselves was 'necessary' for some reason. Something 'had' to break, they will say, in order to open everything up for a New Thing. We don't know what that is, but it will certainly look inevitable from the vantage point of the future.
What can the Dems and 'lovers of Democracy' actually DO here? I have no clue. Maybe, in a spasm of rage or panic, Trump actually declares war on America and begins locking up and killing dissidents, trying the replicate (with inadequate tools and skills) the 'successes' of those he admires most. Maybe that will launch a physical backlash, whereupon the battle is joined and all bets are off. The Civil War 2 that MAGA has long pined for will be upon us, but they may find themselves on the side they were not expecting.
Or maybe it all just spins down into a whimper, collapsing under its own weight and the withdrawal of support of its citizen-victims.
There's no way to know now. But yet another recounting of all the awfulness adds nothing, we can all recite it by heart, and we understand clearly that it's not your grandfather's policy.
The Democrats need to develop and shout to the rooftops WHAT THEY STAND FOR, WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO, not just, "Trump, Republicans, bad." The number one reason Kamala lost is because she/we could not articulate what we were going to do, how it would better the lives of the nation, how it would heal the divide. Everything was poll tested and parsed and just plan raggedy, not a winning strategy. I totally love that there are strategists engaged in Project 2026 and Democracy Docket, but without a goal, a positive and compelling platform, we don't have shit. No doubt we can pick up some disgruntled votes, but wouldn't it be better to enjoy a landslide in both houses because we stand for something more than anti-Trump? And the attempt to appeal to voters about democracy, rule of law, etc., being imperiled, is also a loser. Too abstract, to up-in-the-head. Take a page from Rep. Jake Auchincloss. He keeps rolling out proposal after proposal for what we can/should do if elected. That's what the country needs to hear: This is what voting Democrat means.
Thank you, Robyn. I truly appreciate the thought and urgency you bring to this—it’s clear you care, and I want to acknowledge that you’re making some very solid points here.
You’re right that Democrats often fail to shout from the rooftops about what they actually stand for and what they’re going to do for people. That failure to proactively frame a vision—and connect policy to people’s everyday lives—has been a weak spot for far too long. And you’re also right to point out that a lot of messaging feels poll-tested, pieced together, or just flat-out uninspiring. That criticism is fair, and it matters.
That said, I wrote a piece last week that speaks directly to this moment because we’re already seeing the Monday morning quarterbacking kick into overdrive—and I’m trying to stop that narrative in its tracks. Not because people shouldn’t reflect or critique, but because when we start saying, “If only she had done this” or “if only she said that,” we run the risk of treating Kamala like she was some kind of miracle worker who just didn’t read the right script.
She was dealt a garbage hand. Panic, chaos, delays, media pile-on, internal leaks—and given three months to make magic. That’s not a campaign, that’s a rescue mission. And even if she had checked off every box on the progressive wishlist—weekly town halls, slogan simplification, viral videos, better soundbites—what happens if she still lost? Would we say she failed again? Or would we finally admit the structure was broken before she ever stepped in?
We have to be careful not to let the postmortem become the scapegoating. Because it wasn’t all on her. It was on all of us—including those of us who didn’t start laying the groundwork sooner. Messaging can’t begin three months out. It has to start yesterday. Whoever the next candidate is needs space to grow and time to stumble—and we need to allow that instead of tearing them down mid-cycle and then wondering why voters never saw a clear vision.
I hope you’ll take a look at the full piece:
👉🏾 She Deserved Better: Kamala Harris. https://professorealy.substack.com/p/she-deserved-better-kamala-harris
Thanks again for being in this conversation. This is how we sharpen strategy—not by dragging individuals, but by understanding the deeper systems setting them up to fail. Let’s all commit to doing better next time, together.
You are right about my Kamala comments. She was dealt a garbage hand and did remarkably well. I didn't mean to seem so harsh. If the Lincoln Square and Project can continue to advise the Democratic Party (I hope that is what is going on) then I have more confidence in a solid majority in both houses in 2026. You guys are great and I marveled at your work in 2020. That said, it's still up to the Dems to frame what they stand for and what they will do to positively impact American lives. We have it in us; it's just stuck up in the head with too many polysyllabic words.
Robyn, thank you so much. I truly appreciate your kind words—and I’m really glad we’re having this back-and-forth. It means a lot that you took the time to re-engage, and trust me, I hear your points loud and clear.
You’re not necessarily wrong about the messaging gap—we do need to be better at clearly framing what Democrats stand for and how our policies tangibly improve people’s lives. And you’re absolutely right that we’ve got the substance… it’s just buried under too many five-dollar words and 90-slide decks.
I just want to make sure we’re also keeping things in perspective: the foundation the party laid for Kamala was shaky as hell from the start. It wasn’t just that she had to rise to the moment—it’s that the moment was engineered in panic and chaos, with way too little time and support. She did remarkably well under garbage conditions, and it’s on us to acknowledge the conditions, not just the outcome.
But again, thank you for the thoughtful reflection—and for engaging with the work. I hope we can keep building this dialogue, because sharpening the message and the context is how we move forward smarter and stronger.
I see the comment that we need to "prepare a disciplined offensive for 2026." From all that I see so far, in Lincoln Square or otherwise, there is no talk of defense against Donald T. using a national emergency (or comparable tricks) to block or seriously and negatively affect the 2026 election result. I doubt that Republicans in Congress would agree to total compliance on the Big Ugly Bill unless they believe there is a very effective non-published plan to keep those Republicans in office after 2026. Donald lost the 2020 election after the riot, and his ego will not accept a comparable loss next year. When will political "experts" show us a level of strategy (and a means to execute it) that is comparable to what Republicans have done?
Thank you for engaging with the piece, Philip. You raise an incredibly important point—and one that I’ve been wrestling with myself.
You’re absolutely right: we can’t keep talking about a “disciplined offensive” for 2026 without also talking about a credible defense against Trump using another national emergency—or some obscure legal gymnastics—to interfere with the democratic process. Because let’s be honest: the only thing more dangerous than Trump’s ambition is the media and political class continuing to treat it like it’s normal. That’s how we got here in the first place.
Donald Trump’s whole persona is built on the idea that power belongs to him by divine entitlement. That’s not strategy—that’s old white grievance privilege on full display. He didn’t just lose in 2020—he felt robbed, because in his mind, losing isn’t just unacceptable, it’s unnatural. And we’ve seen what happens when an entitled man-child with a god complex gets handed the nuclear codes and an audience of cowards.
The Republican Party playing along is bad enough. They’re spineless, feckless, and more committed to keeping their seats than keeping the country. But what’s worse—far worse—is the mainstream media running cover for it. CNN still lets Jake Tapper pretend that “both sides” are failing democracy when only one side is actively setting fire to it with glee.
And I’ll tell you this right now: as long as I am writing for Lincoln Square, or my Substack, or any publication that has the guts to publish me—I will not play these bullshit games with Trump or the GOP. If I see media figures enabling this, I will call them out by name. Every. Single. Time!
Because you’re absolutely right—Republicans are already planning their post-2026 strategy. The question is: will we meet their authoritarian offense with a cowardly shrug or with the kind of unapologetic clarity democracy demands?
Thank you again, Philip. We need more readers who think critically about not just what we say, but what we fail to say.
I don't have direct connections to Lincoln or others such as the Democratic Party so that I could raise the idea of creating an effective defense in the coming year. Do you have connections to bring that idea up? Also, you mention mainstream media essentially being too neutral and cooperative with Donald. I want to see more influential people "steal" Donald's language so that it can soon start showing up in MSM reporting. For example, witch hunt and fake and hoax and loser can be directly used in responses to steal thunder from Donald's sanctimonious statements. Drain the swamp should be used often to describe ways to cut off tax breaks for the rich, or refer to Donald's new all-too-obvious corruption this year. I want to see elected Democrats frequently referred to as True Americans and Patriots, to raise a more positive image of taking the high ground. Do you have ideas to get more of the right influential people to use those phrases? I am not aware of where to raise those ideas with the right people, beyond what I'm attempting here.
Thanks again, Philip. I really appreciate the thought and urgency you’re bringing to this conversation—it’s exactly the kind of discussion we need to be having in public.
You’re right: we need more serious talk about defense in 2026—not just vibes and “saving democracy” slogans. I don’t have a direct line to the DNC anymore (and probably wouldn’t answer if they called), but I do have platforms like this one and my Substack, where I can elevate exactly these kinds of ideas. This is where real conversations happen—without needing permission from consultants or poll-tested soundbites.
On the media being too cooperative with Trump? Absolutely. I’ve been dragging that corpse around for years. They still treat him like a quirky uncle who keeps accidentally overthrowing democracy instead of the threat he actually is. I wrote a piece last week on having a national reckoning with stupidity—both the loud, angry kind and the polished, Ivy League kind that makes excuses for fascism because it’s profitable.
And you’re spot-on about reclaiming language. That is not a minor idea—it’s powerful. Trump’s entire political existence thrives on brand repetition. If we take terms like “drain the swamp,” “hoax,” and “witch hunt” and flip them back on him, we force mainstream narratives to shift. It’s basic psychological framing, and it works. I’m outlining a new strategy this week based on my experience in political psychology—how identity, framing, and repetition shape belief—and your instincts line up perfectly with the data.
That “True Americans and Patriots” thing? YES. Language like that is emotionally loaded, and Democrats too often act allergic to emotion. They think good policy is self-explanatory. Meanwhile, Trump says “I alone can fix it” and MAGA swoons like it’s Shakespeare.
But here’s the kicker—and I’ll talk more about this in my next piece—we do have to be smart about this. Unlike MAGA, Democrats and progressives don’t have the luxury of just bullshitting. We can’t promise free unicorns with every vote. We have to sell real, often complex policy—but we still need to do it in plain, punchy language that respects people’s intelligence without sounding like a grad seminar. That’s a skill. That’s where our messaging has to get sharper.
It’s easy to lie and stoke grievance. It’s hard to tell the truth and keep people’s attention. But that’s the game we’re in. And I’m with you—we need to start playing it to win.
So yes, Philip—you’re not just raising good questions, you’re helping shape the conversation. I’ll be building on everything you mentioned in my next piece. Keep an eye out for it, and let’s keep pushing for better.
Thank you, all, for this thought-provoking thread! I moved to Trump Land before Trump came to power and have been occupied with understanding our USA psychology and why our culture shifted. We went too far left for many people. We are inculcated with patriarchal, sexist, white, Christian values that we questioned in our institutions and universities, especially from the 1960s with Wave II feminism. We turned the USA upside down and inside out when we became a country with many more people of color from all over the world, not just native Americans and Black citizens. We've been "going beige" for years, and integrating languages and other cultural ideas year by year. It's been a bit much - too much - for many people I know and love. Though welcome by my friends and colleagues, many other people do not want their children with partners and children outside their faith, culture, and "tribe." They are mad as hell and vote to keep Christmas, stop Spanish as our second language, and gender fluidity out of our schools and colleges. Because people like me have been too tolerant, supportive, feminist, and flexible to them, they have been willing, if not thrilled, to support legislators who will help them, regardless of the ways and means to do it, which are often evil. Payback has been a bitch, at least for me.
I agree we must write and speak empathically, relentlessly, and with facts and truth. I hope we can change some of our language and mantras to unite the far left and far right adherents, so they want to move to the center.
For example, instead of reproductive rights for abortion vs. forced birth, we might/should call for Medical Privacy. Medical Privacy is pro-life. It appeals to Democrats AND Republicans. The decision about terminating pregnancy, and a D & C (dilation and curettage, an essential and safe medical procedure) should be between prospective parents and medical professionals. Clergy, politicians, judges, and attorneys have other areas of expertise. They do not have licenses to practice medicine.
Like George Conway, Lance Dodes, MD, Lawrence O'Donnell, and many other experts have said for years, there is a difference between speaking, writing, and actions that are authoritarian, cruel, psychopathic, sociopathic, and sadistic. When ,as in these discussions, we highlight actions and explain that they are sadistic, we might also describe those that are preferred and authoritative (not authoritarian and cruel). JVL and Sarah Longwell acknowledge that we have not been able to control or stop illegal immigration for decades, we can still state and repeat that we want legal immigration, to stop illegal immigration, and once and laws to affirm the children of the undocumented, and to grandparent those here who work hard, pay taxes, and obey the law. We must continue to openly discuss and support doing all that that is humane and legal, not sadistic and cruel like cages with groups of humans brushing their teeth where they poop.
Thank you for reading my too long post!
Thanks for this fine, powerful essay. "We need our best communicators — the ones who can speak plainly, empathetically, and relentlessly...." I couldn't agree with you more.
Thank you so much for reading, George—and I really appreciate you highlighting that line. I truly believe our best hope lies in clear, empathetic, and persistent communication. Grateful to have you in this conversation.
Kristoffer, I’m sorry that don’t know who you are, but you sure have the right ideas for getting us the vote in 2026. Particularly the idea of being present in ALL 50 states!
I’ve always liked Howard Dean’s 50 state policy and was furious when Rahm Emmanuel got rid of it. What I liked about it was the Republicans had to put up candidates in races they wouldn’t have to do IF Democrats stayed out of a race. And maybe the Republicans
candidates would be less conservative if they had at least token resistance from Democrats.
Thank you so much for reading and engaging, Gammyjill—and no worries at all about not knowing who I am. That just means you’ve been spared my occasional rants and keyboard therapy sessions… until now 😄
I really appreciate you highlighting the importance of being present in all 50 states. I couldn’t agree more. Too often Democrats forfeit entire regions without even showing up—and as you pointed out, that absence lets the GOP drift even further right without resistance. Presence matters, even in places where we don’t expect to win. It forces accountability and builds infrastructure long-term.
Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy was one of the smartest, most forward-thinking moves the party made—and it’s a shame Rahm helped push it aside. I’ve always believed you can’t build national strength if you keep retreating to “safe” territory.
I love that you brought this into the conversation. Thank you again for the thoughtful comment—and don’t worry, I plan to keep showing up until folks do know who I am (for better or worse 😅).
Brilliant!!
Thank you, Gordon!
Cheeto and Double Taxation
WE the People pay income tax every April But the Orange Cheeto has created a second tier of taxation in the form of tariffs, ie a sales tax on imported goods and falsely claims that other countries are paying us the tariffs But what else is new, Cheeto lies about everything
So every time Cheeto announces a 10, 20, or 30% tariff recognize that he is announcing a sales tax to us, WE the People, of 10, 20, or 30% And we are paying to the tune of a 100 billion dollars in tax revenue for the US Treasury
This is why Cheeto’s tariff strategy is inflationary, it’s costing all of us and decreases the purchasing power of the dollar
So don’t buy into Cheeto’s scheme to bilk us WE the People A case challenging the tariff scheme is currently wending its way through the courts and more than likely be successful So trim back your spending to the bare essentials and encourage others to do the same until this tariff fiasco is over
Because we’re just paying for Cheeto’s tax ploy
Thank you for engaging with the piece, Drbilldean—and for laying this out so clearly. You’re absolutely right: these tariffs are just stealth taxes dressed up in tough-guy rhetoric. The more people understand how this scheme actually works, the harder it becomes for them to sell it as “America First.” Appreciate your contribution to the conversation!
thanks and BTW please consider joining the resistance movement Resistance Lab with Pramila Jayapal or upcoming Indivisible event https://www.mobilize.us/join/41973699/1:d8496077f0a0182f9489cf67be25a780343ce02139f9c584389ab084ecbd91a2/ The more the merrier!!
Excellent post.
Thank you, Patrick.
I believe a big part of our fight is impressing on people that the ability to educate one’s mind and use that mind is critical to being an informed and contributing citizen. MAGA is destroying education turning it into devotion to church and anti-science through privatization of education, charter schools, and shift to religious schools, all while starving public education. We are not living in the Middle Ages with Lords and religious dominating public life. So many self proclaimed leaders, but only one goal: to dominate. The ability to learn, to think, to make one’s own decisions are critical to living.
Thank you for reading the piece, James—and for taking the time to offer such a powerful reflection.
You’re absolutely right: a core part of this fight is preserving the ability—and the encouragement—for people to think critically. The MAGA movement doesn’t just reject science or history; it actively tries to reshape how people think, replacing inquiry with fealty and complexity with dogma.
Your point about education being hollowed out is spot-on. The long-term project of privatizing education and undermining public schools isn’t just about policy—it’s about creating a population easier to manipulate. When public education is underfunded while charter and religious schools are elevated, we end up with what you described: a system that rewards obedience over intellect.
And yes—we’re being dragged into a kind of modern feudalism. Self-proclaimed “leaders” who want to dominate culture, truth, and even imagination. That’s why the ability to learn, question, and decide for ourselves is revolutionary. It’s civic survival.
I really appreciate your voice here. Thank you again for engaging so deeply.
Well, said Kristoffer. We need to be in every nook and canny calling it like it is. Trump Regime; ICE Army; Closing down health care--just look who is hurt. Our Military on the streets; How did this Murder Bill help you? Within all this, we need to envision a future that is one that can help transform people's lives. Can't be empty promises either. That's the kicker--will they believe this can happen? Whatever--we need to be on top of this now!!! Thanks. Take Care.
Thank you so much for engaging with the piece, Maxine—and I completely agree with everything you said.
You’re absolutely right: we need to be in every nook, calling this out clearly and strategically. The Trump regime, ICE raids, militarized streets, attacks on healthcare—it’s all connected. The cruelty isn’t random; it’s the feature, not the bug.
And you nailed it with the point about the so-called “Murder Bill.” Policies like that aren’t just reckless—they’re openly hostile to working people and vulnerable communities. They don’t just fail to help—they harm.
I especially appreciate your call to envision a better future. That’s the hard part—but it’s essential. Because like you said, it can’t be hollow messaging. It has to be about real transformation. And the biggest challenge? Convincing people that better is still possible.
We’ve got to be ready to show—not just say—what change can look like.
Thank you again for your thoughtful comment. Let’s stay loud, let’s stay sharp.
Rural Healthcare will be CRUSHED (except in Alaska): The BBB - THE BIG BEAUTIFUL NEUTRON BILL. https://bsky.app/profile/opsan.bsky.social/post/3lsud5fid2s2t
That’s real talk, Opsan!
Thank you, Kristoffer. You are right. Your previous post that our culture rejects intelligence was right on. To me, in addition to all of the things in this post about organizing and communicating, we might add learning HOW to communicate and be understood and heard by Trump loyalists. I almost wrote Trumpers or the MAGAs or (Maggots in my sometimes hateful mind).
But when I can see the Trump allies as people to respect and understand their psychology and why they adhere to the ends justify the means, I sometimes can get through to them one at a time. It's hard for me sometimes to acknowledge my arrogance, superior intelligence, and perspicacity and not act it out -- especially when I plainly see the blind spots, lack of history knowledge, and one-issue mindsets (Israel vs Palestine and one state vs two state solutions, reproductive rights/medical privacy, undocumented workers vs. criminal immigrants, white vs people of color, English vs. Spanish/other languages, Democrat vs. Republican, checks and balances in government, etc.).
That so many do not understand autocracy, theocracy, kakistocracy, and democracy (or "equivilarchy" my preference for government that is not based in patriarchy) is understandable. But I do NOT like that they do not.
Thank you so much for engaging with the piece, Judith—and for offering such a rich, introspective reflection.
You raise a critical point: it’s not just about rejecting anti-intellectualism, it’s also about learning how to communicate through it—especially with those who’ve been captured by propaganda. That tension you mentioned, between calling out ignorance and understanding the psychology behind it, is exactly what so many of us are grappling with right now. And I deeply appreciate your honesty in wrestling with that internal balance.
I really respect how you’re self-aware about the challenge of not slipping into intellectual arrogance, especially when the blind spots and historical amnesia are so glaring. Your list of one-issue mindsets and false binaries—Israel/Palestine, reproductive rights, immigration, race, language, party lines—is so on point. These are deeply nuanced issues that too often get reduced to slogans or tribal posturing, and you laid them out beautifully.
I also appreciated your comment about “equivillarchy”—what a brilliant framing. A government not based in patriarchy or concentrated power but grounded in shared dignity and informed participation. That’s exactly the kind of civic future we should be fighting for.
Also—if it’s of interest—I recently published a companion piece titled “We Owe Intelligence an Apology—And Stupidity a Reckoning,” which dives into the cultural forces that normalize and reward ignorance in public life. And this week, I’m working on a follow-up article focused on the best strategies for challenging proud ignorance—without attacking individuals. It’s about shifting the shame back to where it belongs: the performance of stupidity itself.
Thanks again for being part of this conversation. Your insight raises the level of discourse, and I’m grateful you’re here.