"The Far Center"

"So in the most basic sense, the reactionary liberal is reacting against her own feelings of political conviction, as if politics were a virus she had contracted from someone at a party. The political theorist Corey Robin has written that all reactionary movements begin with a disturbance in 'the private life of power'—the southern slaveholder, for instance, defended slavery because daily life as 'the master' had led him to perceive emancipation as an 'intolerable assault upon his person.' In this way, the reactionary is driven by a desire to recover a greatly cherished self-image; what distinguishes one type from another is the content of that image. Traditional conservatism, Robin writes, is an 'elitist movement of the masses' that aims to democratize the feeling of dictatorship: The working-class Trump supporter is meant to see his own supremacy rapturously reflected in his leader's innate grasp of power. Of reactionary liberalism, we might say the opposite: It is a populist movement of the elites, an explicit bid by the intelligentsia to defend its bourgeois way of life on the grounds that its exceptional moral sensibility gives it unique access to the human experience. The conservative says, 'You too can be superior.' The reactionary liberal says, 'I alone am average.'"

Andrea Long Chu at New York defines and criticizes "a loose coalition of disillusioned Democrats, principled humanists, staid centrists, anti-woke journalists, civil libertarians, wronged entertainers, skeptical academics, and toothless novelists, all brought together by their shared antipathy to what they regard as the illiberal left."

And Rebecca Traister makes a similar argument. 

Götterdämmerung

"I know Trump voters told pollsters that it was all about the economy, and maybe it was. Eggs and milk are higher. I'm not disputing that, but people like me thought our fellow Americans recognized that the cause of that inflation, and which the Trump administration initiated and the Biden administration continued, kept the economy afloat, and that President Biden steered the nation towards the soft recovery every economist believed was impossible. People like me were wrong."

Michael Ian Black at The Daily Beast reacts to Donald Trump's victory in the 2024 presidential election.

As do David Frum and Spencer Kornhaber at The Atlantic.

As do John F. Harris, Steven Waldman, and other writers at Politico.

As do Mona Charen and Scott Conway at The Bulwark.

As do Robert Kuttner and David Dayen at The American Prospect.

As do Ed Kilgore and Jonathan Chait at New York.

As do Timothy Noah, Kate Aronoff, Greg Sargent, Jonathan Zimmerman, Eric Schmeltzer, and Michael Tomasky at The New Republic.

As does Sophie Clark at Newsweek.

As does Sam Wolfson (in an interview with Richard Reeves), Ben Davis, and John Harris at The Guardian.

As does Ashleigh Fields (in an interview with Sen. John Fetterman) at The Hill.

As do Paul Rosenberg and Jim Sleeper at Salon.

As do John West and Kara Dapena at The Wall Street Journal.

As do Jeet Heer and Joan Walsh at The Nation.

As does David Brooks of The New York Times.

As do John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira at The Liberal Patriot (who earlier argued that "the progressive moment is well and truly over").

And in subsequent week, reactions continue from:

James K. Galbraith, Jeet Heer, and Neil Kraus and Jon Shelton at The Nation.

Chauncey DeVega at Salon.

Jesse Ferguson and Austin Sarat at The Hill.

Jared Abbott, Dustin Guastella, and Sean Mason at Jacobin.

Conor Friedersdorf, Jon Favreau, Annie Lowrey, Ed Kilgore, and Jonathan Chait at The Atlantic.

Andrew Prokop at Vox.

Walter Russell Mead at Tablet.

Bharat Ramamurti at The Bully Pulpit blog.

And Michael Bahraeen, Juan David Rojas, Justin Vassallo, and Ruy Teixeira at The Liberal Patriot.

"A Democratic Election Is the Antithesis of an Internet Transaction"

"The awkward truth for those of us who rally in defence of liberal democracy today is that it has undergone no obvious renewal since its peak at the end of the last century. We, no less than the nationalists, are imprisoned by nostalgia, wishing the future could be more like the past. And so we find ourselves constantly testing the limits of analogue protection against a virus that is digitally borne."

Rafael Behr at The Guardian argues that "a very online culture, marked by short attention spans, narcissism and impatient consumer appetites, has a more natural affinity with shallow demagoguery than with representative democracy."

"Taking a Race That Democrats Were Going to Lose and Making It Winnable"

"If Harris loses, pundits will focus on a number of decisions: her choice of running mate, her reluctance to break with Biden, her muddled message to young and Arab American voters disgusted by her administration's support for Israel's destructive war in the Middle East, her overcautious approach to both messaging and policy. But the fact remains that Harris gave Democrats a chance they did not have before. That is an accomplishment in and of itself, no matter the outcome of the election."

Alex Shephard praises Kamala Harris at The New Republic.

"Trump's Economic Plans Would Be Disastrous on a Grand Scale"

"Obama came into office in January 2009, amid a global financial collapse and recession. He did notch seventy-five straight months of job growth. Trump did sign a tax law that mostly helped corporations and the rich get richer. (He even bragged about it in those terms at Mar-a-Lago, telling wealthy friends that 'You all just got a lot richer.') That law added $1.9 trillion to the federal debt. And if Trump wins, the cycle will repeat, this time with President Joe Biden overseeing the handoff."

Jill Lawrence at The Bulwark writes, "Trump Wants to 'Fix' Our Booming Economy. Don't Let Him Near It."

"The Gradual-And-Then-All-At-Once Slide Into Our Strange Digital Present"

"For those who expect American politics to conform at least somewhat to the past two and a half centuries of history, the 2024 campaign cycle seems unsettling, an even stranger and more radical break than we've seen before. But if you look at what's driving these changes—a transformed media landscape, the increasingly tenuous link between policy and public sentiment, a sea change in how pollsters track the American public—you can see that it's not quite a break, but the emergence of a future that some have been living in for years."

At Politico, Derek Robertson writes that "[y]es, this is the future of politics."

"Trump Is Not Just Toxic for America; He Has Proven Toxic for Conservatism"

"Trump does not merely break norms. He has broken the norm, the indispensable norm for the continuation of the republic, the norm first set by George Washington when he retired from office, the norm that changed the entire world for the better: accepting the results of an election. This is the meaning of America, and Trump despises it. I do not think this is even within his personal control. He is so genuinely psychologically warped that he has never and will never agree to the most basic requirement of public office: that you quit when you lose; and that the system is more important than any individual in it."

Andrew Sullivan at The Weekly Dish writes "[a]n anguished but emphatic endorsement" of Kamala Harris for President of the United States.

"The Former President's Tax Plan Is a Shell Game"

"What is Trump doing to seduce America’s working class? Is he promising to revive the labor movement? Proposing higher taxes on the rich? Endorsing a higher minimum wage? Fat chance."

Timothy Noah at The New Republic writes that "Trump's Pitch to Working-Class Voters Is a Scam."

And Will Saletin at The Bulwark states that "Trump and Vance Are Hypocrites About Political Violence."

"Voters Are Hungry for a Candidate That Will Deliver Meaningful, Material Change to Their Lives"

"By embracing bold ideas that address the day-to-day crises facing America’s working families, Harris can not only win the White House, but create a Democratic party that is responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans."

Bernie Sanders at The Guardian presents policies for Kamala Harris to adopt.

While Timothy Noah at The New Republic advises Harris to embrace "the Biden administration's excellent record on economic policy (which to a great extent is also her own)."

"May None but Honest and Wise Men Ever Rule Under This Roof"

"Mr. Jefferson, though too revolutionary in his notions, is yet a lover of liberty and will be desirous of something like orderly Government—Mr. Burr loves nothing but himself—thinks of nothing but his own aggrandizement—and will be content with nothing short of permanent power. . . in his own hands."

At The Bulwark, Mona Charen compares Donald Trump to Aaron Burr.

And Gabriel Schoenfeld describes Trump as "the single largest and most effective purveyor of fake news in the country."

Something to Be Scared Of

"Ridicule makes him weaker. Ridicule makes him small. Ridicule makes him desperate. He'll try to respond with ridicule of his own, but he is not a clever man. He's a stupid man. He has no wit. He has no sense of mischief. He doesn't read. He doesn't think beyond first reactions."

Michael Tomasky at The New Republic says that, by mocking Donald Trump, "Democrats have finally found Trump's true Achilles' heel."

"Simply by Virtue of Who She Is, She's Already Doing That"

"Republicans plainly hope they can link Harris to all that vexed them in Biden's record—real, exaggerated, and imagined. But the tone and spirit of Harris's campaign has marked such a sharp break with Biden, as does her age, gender, and race, that that link may be harder to make than Republicans hope. The slogan 'We're not going back' refers not just to the antediluvian strictures that Republicans want to impose on American freedoms and Enlightenment values, and not just to the slanders and lies in which Trump daily trafficked, but also to what many Americans viewed as an unwatchable cage match of two out-of-shape relics. Though she and the Democrats are profoundly indebted to Biden for his crucial role in creating that center-left synergy that unifies the Democrats and underpins her campaign, Harris can still run on Biden's policies and yet stand for a break from both Trump and Biden rather than a continuation of Biden and his works.

Harold Meyerson at The American Prospect reacts to Kamala Harris's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention.

"A Philosophical Brief in Defense of Liberalism"

"Living this liberal vision, for Obama, means accepting the diversity inherent to a large society made up of people with all sorts of beliefs and worldviews: recognizing that 'our fellow citizens deserve the same grace we hope they'll extend to us.' It means understanding 'true freedom' as something that gives all of us the right 'to make decisions about our own life [and] requires us to recognize that other people have the right to make decisions that are different than ours.' And it means seeing democracy as more than 'just a bunch of abstract principles and a bunch of dusty laws in a book somewhere,' but rather 'the values we live by.'"

Zack Beauchamp at Vox reacts to Barack Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention.

And Harold Meyerson at The American Prospect looks back to the Democrats' 1924 convention.

"My Goal Is to See the Democratic Party, Once Again, Become the Party of the Working Class"

"I think that to the degree that [Harris] and Walz can focus on working-class issues and understanding that there are a lot of people in this country hurting, we have had good success in the last three and a half years in a number of areas. But we need to recognize the pain that's out there and bring forth an agenda that speaks to the needs of the working class, and not just wealthy campaign donors. And if we do that I believe that Kamala Harris not only will be the next president, I think she can win by a decent margin."

Jason Lemon at Newsweek interviews Sen. Bernie Sanders about the 2024 presidential election.

While Jonathan Chait at New York argues that Kamala Harris should emulate Barack Obama's 2008 campaign.

Though Harold Meyerson at The American Prospect says that Harris should ignore Chait.

"He Misled the Public, Mismanaged the Crisis, and Missed Chances to Save Lives"

"These are unserious people in thrall to a sociopathic clown. Trump's greatest test came in the final year of his presidency when the nation faced a true emergency and he failed spectacularly. The U.S. death rate from COVID far exceeded that of peer nations. That was not due to excessive lockdowns or masking. It was due to incompetence in the White House."

Mona Charen at The Bulwark calls for "a great remembering" of Donald Trump's actions in 2020.

As does Timothy Noah at The New Republic.

And at Salon, Heather Digby Parton remembers Trump's whole term.

My Tea's Gone Cold

"Crucially, 'standom' is different from traditional 'fandom,' insomuch as you might be a 'fan' of the Milwaukee Bucks or 'The Bachelorette.' It involves an intense, personal identification with one's idol, where their preferences, beliefs and aesthetics are largely substituted for one's own—and subsequently defended at any cost. In a post-monocultural era, a stan-friendly politician isn’t a mass-marketed product of the Nixon era, but a boutique offering who activates one's niche cultural affinity instead of a hazily-defined American spirit."

At Politico, Derek Robinson looks at the rise of political "stans."

"The Left May Be Building Up One of Its Own as a Prelude to Knocking Her Down"

"The question lingers, however: Do we want to hear that nuance? Democrats are desperate for agents of cosmic justice—the kinds of politicians who are willing to fight Trump in 33 different ways. This has led them to treat a hardline disciplinarian with a complicated record as if she were a cardboard cutout of Buffy the Vampire Slayer."

Katy Waldman at Slate discusses the rise of Sen. Kamala Harris.