Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[kenberg]

The problem is not Trump but the millions who find his message appealing, who band together at rallies, enraptured by a common embrace of hatred of "the other".

 

Yes, but a very important part of the solution is to realize that sometimes people change their minds. People who go to rallies and chant, no matter the rally and no matter the chant, probably will not be open to discussion. Others are, and if the Ds want to win in 2020 they had better keep that in mind.

[ldrews]

The problem is not Trump but the millions who find his message appealing, who band together at rallies, enraptured by a common embrace of hatred of "the other".

 

Seems to me that you are the hater. Certainly most of your posts in this forum seem to come from hate.

 

I am a Trump supporter. However I have not attended any rallies. But from my point of view, Trump has much better policies than the Democracts who currently seem to have nothing. And after 2 years of Trump the economy and working conditions for the populace appear to be much improved. Unemployment is at record lows, wages are rising faster than inflation, stock market is at record highs, trade agreements are being improved for the US. ISIS Caliphate has been eliminated. North Korea is negotiating rather than threatening with nukes. China is negotiating.

 

I certainly don't hate others. Things are just better.

[Chas_P]

To be able to see, you have to take your head out of your ass.

 

Head removed, and I still see nothing in "‘We will never be a Socialist or Communist Country. IF YOU ARE NOT HAPPY HERE, YOU CAN LEAVE! It is your choice, and your choice alone. This is about love for America. Certain people HATE our Country…They are anti-Israel, pro Al-Qaeda, and comment on the 9/11 attack, “some people did something.” Radical Left Democrats want Open Borders, which means drugs, crime, human trafficking, and much more. Our Country is Free, Beautiful and Very Successful. If you hate our Country, or if you are not happy here, you can leave!’

 

that has anything to do with how much light your skin reflects.

 

To say that the Democrats are obsessed with race these days is the equivalent of saying the sky is blue.

I'm a racist. You're a racist. Donald Trump's a racist. Nancy Pelosi was a racist until she attacked Trump for racism. Your neighbor's a racist. Your insurance broker's a racist. Your dentist's a racist as well as your periodontist. All white males are racist. Some white females are racists, especially those married to white males. Everywhere a racist.

Never mind that many of those people have no history of racism. It doesn't matter. Never mind that their families came here in 1923 to flee the Armenian Holocaust or mass starvation in Ukraine, they owe reparations for slavery. It's all about racism—yours.

The Dems' presidential campaigns are based around proving the other man or woman is more of a racist and vice versa, or about showing you're not so racist as people say you are, even if you are or even if you pretended to be a race you weren't. And don't you dare criticize Ilhan Omar or you're a triple-racist even if her ideas are more racist than anyone else's. Got it?

 

And above all, and never forget this because it is of paramount importance—otherwise we should all check ourselves into those concentration camps on the border and subsist on toilet water—what this country needs most of all is a CONVERSATION ABOUT RACE.

WRONG! (I would have put ten exclamation points but it would have seemed vulgar.)

It's exactly the opposite. There is only one way at this point to end or diminish racism and that is to shut up about it. Otherwise, what you really want, whether you admit it or not, is to perpetuate racism for your own advantage—like Al Sharpton (and many others, obviously, some of whom want desperately to be in the White House).

But don't believe me. Believe Morgan Freeman. Let's roll back to the Early Paleolithic Age (2005), when the great black actor was on 60 Minutes with Mike Wallace:

MIKE WALLACE, CBS`s "60 MINUTES": Black History Month, you find...

MORGAN FREEMAN, ACTOR: Ridiculous.

WALLACE: Why?

FREEMAN: You`re going to relegate my history to a month?

WALLACE: Come on.

FREEMAN: What do you do with yours? Which month is White History Month? Come on, tell me.

WALLACE: I'm Jewish.

FREEMAN: OK. Which month is Jewish History Month?

WALLACE: There isn`t one.

FREEMAN: Why not? Do you want one?

WALLACE: No, no.

FREEMAN: I don`t either. I don`t want a Black History Month. Black history is American history.

WALLACE: How are we going to get rid of racism until...?

FREEMAN: Stop talking about it. I'm going to stop calling you a white man. And I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. You`re not going to say, "I know this white guy named Mike Wallace." Hear what I'm saying?

Stop talking about it. Interesting idea, isn't it? I doubt Cory Booker would approve. 'The Squad" would doubtless go apoplectic. Nevertheless, it's the only way to end racism—stop talking about it. We already have laws against it, for a long time now, as we should. And they should be strictly enforced. But the rest of the blah-blah has got to go. It only makes people hate each other. It creates racism rather than solves it.

 

Unfortunately, not long after the sane comments by Mr. Freeman, Barack Obama was elected and what seemed at first to be the end or diminishment of racism went the other way. The scab kept being picked, by Eric Holder and Obama himself. They couldn't let go of it. Soon enough, Morgan Freeman walked back what he said under the sadness of peer pressure.

And now we are where we are—in the land of AOC and Omar—every one of us racists until we die. The revolution eats its own.

 

[hrothgar]

Head removed, and I still see nothing in "‘We will never be a Socialist or Communist Country. IF YOU ARE NOT HAPPY HERE, YOU CAN LEAVE! It is your choice, and your choice alone. This is about love for America. Certain people HATE our Country…They are anti-Israel, pro Al-Qaeda, and comment on the 9/11 attack, “some people did something.” Radical Left Democrats want Open Borders, which means drugs, crime, human trafficking, and much more. Our Country is Free, Beautiful and Very Successful. If you hate our Country, or if you are not happy here, you can leave!’

 

that has anything to do with how much light your skin reflects.

 

I find it telling that you keep conflating racism with skin color...

 

You do realize that expressions like "Go back to where you came from" originated in discrimination against Italians and the Irish by established Protestants who didn't recognize them as white?

For that matter, the word "swarthy" was originally coined to discriminate between the "right" type of whites and the wrong type...

[hrothgar]

Head removed, and I still see nothing in "‘We will never be a Socialist or Communist Country. IF YOU ARE NOT HAPPY HERE, YOU CAN LEAVE! It is your choice, and your choice alone. This is about love for America. Certain people HATE our Country…They are anti-Israel, pro Al-Qaeda, and comment on the 9/11 attack, “some people did something.” Radical Left Democrats want Open Borders, which means drugs, crime, human trafficking, and much more. Our Country is Free, Beautiful and Very Successful. If you hate our Country, or if you are not happy here, you can leave!’

 

that has anything to do with how much light your skin reflects.

 

Can't help but note that you aren't quoting Trump's original tweets...

 

the ones that read

 

So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe

Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came

 

Even if you believe that Trump's half hearted attempt to walk back to controversy is racist, what about the original tweets?

 

Or for that matter, what about a man who says that Mexican / muslim judges can't preside over cases where he is a plantiff?

What about a man who refused to hire blacks for his casinos?

What about a man who was convicted for discriminatory housing practices?

 

And, since you seem so concerned with Lyndsey Graham's opinions on the matter, don't forget the following quote.

 

“Donald Trump is a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot.”

[Winstonm]

New research published in the academic journal Personality and Individual Differences found that the most racist people often overlooked their cultural biases. Furthermore, the study recognized how dangerous it can be to downplay racial and gender-based attitudes.

 

As reported by the Pacific Standard magazine, the election of Donald Trump to the presidency has further heightened the “condition” known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect, in which people mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. In 2016, Trump famously said that he is “the least racist person you have ever met” though his entire career has been shrouded in unfair housing policies, racist attacks on Black and Brown people, and public empathy for White supremacists.

 

According to the study, the reason for this could be that Trump and people like him never developed the mental capacity to see their prejudices for what they are. The dangerous part of that is with that frame of mind, those people can never work towards bettering themselves.

 

“In line with the Dunning-Kruger model, this research found that very prejudiced individuals (i.e., those low in egalitarianism) may be genuinely unaware of their shortcomings because they lack the meta-cognition necessary to perceive them,” the study’s authors, Dr. Keon West and Dr. Asia A. Eaton, concluded.

 

For the sake of the study, researchers focused on anti-Black racism and surveyed 148 participants. They were asked to rank their biases in relation to race. Those who claimed to be the most pre-equality had the greatest deviation from the way they identified their biases and attitudes.

 

West and Easton believe results prove that diversity training as it is, is largely ineffective. They also deduced that “actual training in techniques to reduce bias” is needed to recalibrate people’s brains to genuinely be able to see their shortcomings when it comes to viewing others as equal.

my emphasis

[Winstonm]

Trump the Chump is only a symptom of a greater problem:

 

The relevant question is not whether Trump is a racist. Of course he is. Or whether he’s going to continue bashing these members of Congress, who fill all his demonization boxes: Democrats, females, people of color, a Muslim. Of course he will.

 

The real question is whether the people bankrolling Trump and the Republican party are going to stop this rot before it consumes the politics of 2020, and perhaps more.

 

Early signs are not encouraging. Just before Trump’s North Carolina rally, the Republican National Committee released an ad attacking the “Squad”, as the four congresswomen have become known.

 

The ad....is profoundly misleading. The clips are all taken out of context....

 

The RNC is intentionally and mendaciously fueling the same racism Trump is fueling, for the same purpose: whipping up the base.

 

Who is funding this horse manure? Much of the money that’s flowing into Republican coffers is coming from the same place it’s always come from: Wall Street.

my emphasis

 

Profits before people. Self-enrichment ahead of societal needs. Ayn Rand selfishness over religious generosity. That is the problem.

[barmar]

I certainly don't hate others. Things are just better.

And Mussolini made the trains run on time (yes, I know this isn't actually true, but it's the same attitude).

 

I'm an investor, so I've made lots of money during the Trump administration. But is all the damage he's doing to society really worth this? Are "things" really better when hundreds of immigrant children are being held in squalid conditions in detention centers? Are "things" really better when we're increasing water and air pollution, instead of taking steps to halt climate change? Are "things" really better when we're walking back universal health care?

 

It's easy to say that things are just better when you cherry-pick the "things" that matter. And most of these things only matter to rich white guys.

[ldrews]

And Mussolini made the trains run on time (yes, I know this isn't actually true, but it's the same attitude).

 

I'm an investor, so I've made lots of money during the Trump administration. But is all the damage he's doing to society really worth this? Are "things" really better when hundreds of immigrant children are being held in squalid conditions in detention centers? Are "things" really better when we're increasing water and air pollution, instead of taking steps to halt climate change? Are "things" really better when we're walking back universal health care?

 

It's easy to say that things are just better when you cherry-pick the "things" that matter. And most of these things only matter to rich white guys.

 

Are you not cherry picking?

[sharon j]

Interesting analysis of Trump supporters:

 

 

Not sure I entered this link correctly.

[ldrews]

And Mussolini made the trains run on time (yes, I know this isn't actually true, but it's the same attitude).

 

I'm an investor, so I've made lots of money during the Trump administration. But is all the damage he's doing to society really worth this? Are "things" really better when hundreds of immigrant children are being held in squalid conditions in detention centers? Are "things" really better when we're increasing water and air pollution, instead of taking steps to halt climate change? Are "things" really better when we're walking back universal health care?

 

It's easy to say that things are just better when you cherry-pick the "things" that matter. And most of these things only matter to rich white guys.

 

OK, I have more things to say. Hundreds of immigrant children are being held in detention centers because their parents (or third parties who purchased them from their parents) entered the US illegally. Don't you think the primary responsibility for the situation rests with the parents?

 

With regards to water and air pollution, as I read the US has improved conditions in the US during the last few years. Water and air quality are better. The main polluters are Asian countries and the members of the Paris Accords. Shouldn't you be directing your ire at them?

 

With respect to climate change, the contribution of human activity is seriously in question. A recent study released by a Finnish university asserted that human activity contributed very little to recorded temperature change. This research was supported by another recent study in Japan.

 

And finally, you assume Universal Healthcare as a given. And yet several studies have shown that Universal Healthcare would essentially bankrupt the world. And Universal Healthcare has never been an existent condition of humanity, so no one is walking anything back.

[hrothgar]

OK, I have more things to say.

 

Damn... I was so hoping that you were dead.

 

Hundreds of immigrant children are being held in detention centers because their parents (or third parties who purchased them from their parents) entered the US illegally. Don't you think the primary responsibility for the situation rests with the parents?

 

1. It is not illegal to claim asylum in the United States. Your entire premise that these people are entering the US illegally is incorrect.

 

2. I place primary responsibility on the government and citizens of the United States who have been responsible for destabilizing the Northern Triangle.

 

With regards to water and air pollution, as I read the US has improved conditions in the US during the last few years. Water and air quality are better. The main polluters are Asian countries and the members of the Paris Accords. Shouldn't you be directing your ire at them?

 

The US / Canada / Australia still lead per capita emissions by an overwhelming margin.

If you look at historical emissions, the US is ahead by miles

 

And, of course, we're doing butkus to actually stop emissions what with rapist in chief reversing all of our recent improvements.

 

With respect to climate change, the contribution of human activity is seriously in question. A recent study released by a Finnish university asserted that human activity contributed very little to recorded temperature change. This research was supported by another recent study in Japan.

 

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

[ldrews]

Damn... I was so hoping that you were dead.

 

 

 

1. It is not illegal to claim asylum in the United States. Your entire premise that these people are entering the US illegally is incorrect.

 

2. I place primary responsibility on the government and citizens of the United States who have been responsible for destabilizing the Northern Triangle.

 

 

 

The US / Canada / Australia still lead per capita emissions by an overwhelming margin.

If you look at historical emissions, the US is ahead by miles

 

And, of course, we're doing butkus to actually stop emissions what with rapist in chief reversing all of our recent improvements.

 

 

 

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

 

Great to hear from you again! Glad you are still alive.

 

It is not illegal to claim asylum at a port of entry, provided you have made application at the first country you entered and have been denied. It is illegal to cross the border anyplace other than a port of entry. You may still claim asylum, but that does remove the crime of illegal entry. 90% of asylum claims are denied, so if the person is part of that 90%, then they are in the US illegally. At the moment many of those illegal entry claimants are being held in custody in detention centers. If the claimants do not wish to be held in detention centers they have the option of not crossing the border illegally. Since it is their choice to enter illegally, then the primary responsibility for the consequences are theirs.

 

By your logic, since the US is currently one of the more impactful countries in the world, then all of the world's problems are the responsibility of the US. I reject that position.

 

Please provide a link to back up your claim that the US and Canada lead the world in per capita pollution. My understanding is that China and India are, by far, the worst offenders.

 

As for what the US is doing, please see https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/progress-cleaning-air-and-improving-peoples-health.

[cherdano]

And finally, you assume Universal Healthcare as a given. And yet several studies have shown that Universal Healthcare would essentially bankrupt the world. And Universal Healthcare has never been an existent condition of humanity, so no one is walking anything back.

You do know that "Universal Healthcare" (I didn't know this had to be capitalized. Reminds me of the previous capitalised adjective-noun combination I read tonight, the "Big Bad Mouse" [The Gruffalo's Child, Julia Donaldson].) exists in many countries in various forms, and thus far hasn't bankrupted any of them? Right?? I guess "studies have shown" that Canada, UK, Germany, Switzerland, Singapore, Japan, ... do not exist!

 

Man, I genuinely didn't think your posts would be even worse when you returned.

[hrothgar]

It is not illegal to claim asylum at a port of entry, provided you have made application at the first country you entered and have been denied. It is illegal to cross the border anyplace other than a port of entry. You may still claim asylum, but that does remove the crime of illegal entry. 90% of asylum claims are denied, so if the person is part of that 90%, then they are in the US illegally. At the moment many of those illegal entry claimants are being held in custody in detention centers. If the claimants do not wish to be held in detention centers they have the option of not crossing the border illegally. Since it is their choice to enter illegally, then the primary responsibility for the consequences are theirs.

 

This is a change that the Trump administration made last week and represents a major change in US policy

It has no bearing what-so-ever on the overwhelming majority of people in custody and will probably be overturned by the courts

 

Please provide a link to back up your claim that the US and Canada lead the world in per capita pollution. My understanding is that China and India are, by far, the worst offenders.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

 

(Note, when I orginally checked this, I was looking at 2015 emissions and the US was ahead of Saudi Arabia

 

As for what the US is doing, please see https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/progress-cleaning-air-and-improving-peoples-health.

 

The clean air act was put in place in the 1970s.

 

I was discussing the enormous series of environmental rollbacks that the Trump administration has done in the last two years

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html

[cherdano]

‘We will never be a Socialist or Communist Country. IF YOU ARE NOT HAPPY HERE, YOU CAN LEAVE! It is your choice, and your choice alone. This is about love for America. Certain people HATE our Country…They are anti-Israel, pro Al-Qaeda, and comment on the 9/11 attack, “some people did something.” Radical Left Democrats want Open Borders, which means drugs, crime, human trafficking, and much more. Our Country is Free, Beautiful and Very Successful. If you hate our Country, or if you are not happy here, you can leave!’

I see nothing in there that has anything to do with how much light your skin reflects. If you do, that's your problem.

Pro tip, for when you want to prove that you aren't racist. Don't try justify your hostility against someone of a different race by making up a series of blatant obvious lies.

 

Just saying.

[ldrews]

This is a change that the Trump administration made last week and represents a major change in US policy

It has no bearing what-so-ever on the overwhelming majority of people in custody and will probably be overturned by the courts

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

 

(Note, when I orginally checked this, I was looking at 2015 emissions and the US was ahead of Saudi Arabia

 

As for what the US is doing, please see https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/progress-cleaning-air-and-improving-peoples-health.

 

The clean air act was put in place in the 1970s.

 

I was discussing the enormous series of environmental rollbacks that the Trump administration has done in the last two years

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html

 

To me the NYTimes is no longer a credible source of information.

[hrothgar]

To me the NYTimes is no longer a credible source of information.

 

 

Good thing that the goal here is to demonstrate that you're an ignorant troll rather than trying to change your mind...

 

Even so, its pretty damn sad that your brain is so closed that you can't accept a list of facts with citations that contradict your world view.

 

This probably also explains why your ideas about C02 emissions per capita are so farcical.

[ldrews]

Good thing that the goal here is to demonstrate that you're an ignorant troll rather than trying to change your mind...

 

Even so, its pretty damn sad that your brain is so closed that you can't accept a list of facts with citations that contradict your world view.

 

This probably also explains why your ideas about C02 emissions per capita are so farcical.

 

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

[ldrews]

This is a change that the Trump administration made last week and represents a major change in US policy

It has no bearing what-so-ever on the overwhelming majority of people in custody and will probably be overturned by the courts

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

 

(Note, when I orginally checked this, I was looking at 2015 emissions and the US was ahead of Saudi Arabia

 

As for what the US is doing, please see https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/progress-cleaning-air-and-improving-peoples-health.

 

The clean air act was put in place in the 1970s.

 

I was discussing the enormous series of environmental rollbacks that the Trump administration has done in the last two years

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html

 

So I looked up the EPA report on air pollution trends https://www.epa.gov/air-trends

 

All of the trends are down except one, and that is still lower than it was in 1980. Don't you think this is good progress?

[Chas_P]

I find it telling that you keep conflating racism with skin color...

 

Interesting. I find exactly the same thing about you.

[Chas_P]

And Mussolini made the trains run on time (yes, I know this isn't actually true, but it's the same attitude).

 

I'm an investor, so I've made lots of money during the Trump administration. But is all the damage he's doing to society really worth this? Are "things" really better when hundreds of immigrant children are being held in squalid conditions in detention centers? Are "things" really better when we're increasing water and air pollution, instead of taking steps to halt climate change? Are "things" really better when we're walking back universal health care?

 

It's easy to say that things are just better when you cherry-pick the "things" that matter. And most of these things only matter to rich white guys.

 

This is a really interesting post. First you say

I'm an investor, so I've made lots of money during the Trump administration.

 

Then you say

And most of these things only matter to rich white guys.

 

So are you saying that you've now become one of the "rich white guys" and therefore apologizing for your success? I'm not looking for a fight. I just want to understand your reasoning.

[hrothgar]

So I looked up the EPA report on air pollution trends https://www.epa.gov/air-trends

 

All of the trends are down except one, and that is still lower than it was in 1980. Don't you think this is good progress?

 

Drews, Drews, Drews...

 

Too stupid to be able to read and understand a chart.

 

No one disputes that things have gotten better since 2010 / 1980. The question at hand is what impact the Trump administration's policies have had on this trend.

If you compare the most recent numbers with the ones from the close of the Obama administration, you'll see that things are now moving in the opposite direction.

[kenberg]

This is a really interesting post. First you say

 

Then you say

 

So are you saying that you've now become one of the "rich white guys" and therefore apologizing for your success? I'm not looking for a fight. I just want to understand your reasoning.

 

I'll take a crack at it. I am not an investor in any active sense, buying and selling, reading the various financial pages, etc. and I did not make a lot of money. But saying that I did not make a lot of money is not the same as saying that I am a poor white guy. I am pretty sure I understood Barry's statement just as he intended. He made a lot of money over the past couple of years, not that he is now rich but his investments paid off, but he hopes for better from a presidency than a rising stock market. I have some stocks, I honestly couldn't name exactly what I have, I am pretty sure that they are worth more now than they were two years ago, but they were also worth more two years ago than they were four years ago. But that's not the essence, not for me. I don't want our president telling people of color, or people of no color if that's the phrase for me, that they or I should go back to where we came from. I don't want a president who, if for some reason we were out on the town together, I would have to pretend that he is not with me, that I don't know him. The man is repulsive. He embarrasses the country. Money is not an adequate compensation for that.

 

On Trump and money, here is something I have been wondering about. I really see Trump as a scam artist, the type who knows how to get out and leave someone else holding the bag. But I, and I guess others, have not yet acted on this.The DJIA is higher, quite a bit higher, than it was a couple of years back. Yes, but that's short term. I am far from convinced that Trump really knows what he is doing. I see him as a know it all who doesn't know all that much and who is good at taking the money and running when things go bad. He brags about it like he brags about, well, lots of things. I don't have the patience for detailed study of financial markets but I am very uneasy about who is in charge. But I have not yet acted on this. Wisdom or lethargy, I am not sure.

[y66]

From The Squad and the Speaker by Norm Ornstein at The Atlantic:

 

Rambunctious freshmen come into the House in a wave election, shake things up, challenge the leaders, divide the party. That is a pretty good capsule description of “the squad,” the four freshman congresswomen whose squabble with Speaker Nancy Pelosi has now been overshadowed by the astonishingly racist attacks on them by the president of the United States, and by the defense of those attacks by nearly all congressional Republicans. For now, the tensions between the squad and the leaders has been submerged, as Democrats, starting with the speaker, have come to their defense and closed ranks to condemn Trump’s racist and ignorant remarks. But the tensions over tactics, strategies, and outcomes are still there, and will inevitably reemerge.

 

In some respects, there is nothing new about tensions between freshman members of the House and its leadership. The wave classes of 1958, 1964, and 1974 for the Democrats, and 1994 and 2010 for the Republicans, brought similar struggles. Looking closely at them helps reveal both what they share with today’s tensions and what’s genuinely distinctive about this moment.

 

Democrats gained 48 seats in 1958, the second midterm election of Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency, including seats won by a substantial number of non-southern liberals that added to their large majority in the House. The 63 freshmen included a number of notables who played a big role in the House in subsequent decades—including Bob Giaimo of Connecticut, John Brademas of Indiana, Dan Rostenkowski of Illinois, Jim O’Hara of Michigan, Ken Hechler of West Virginia, and Bob Kastenmeier of Wisconsin. But in many ways, the biggest influence came from a House member who left for the Senate that year, Minnesota’s Eugene McCarthy.

 

McCarthy was a liberal agitator who had bristled at the continuing oversize role of southern conservative Democrats, known then as Boll Weevils, after the insect that infects cotton. He organized a group of like-minded members into McCarthy’s Marauders, including George McGovern, Stewart Udall, Frank Thompson, and Lee Metcalf, all of whom went on to long and significant political careers. They held a weekly Friday luncheon to plot strategy. McCarthy focused liberals on trying to capture influence commensurate with their numbers; after the new class of ’58 came in, they masterminded the creation the next year of the Democratic Study Group, which had an outsize influence on the House. The DSG crafted the major reforms of the early 1970s that were implemented with the votes of the huge freshman class of 1974—reforms that persisted until Newt Gingrich, in one of his first acts as speaker in 1995, found a way to kill them.

 

The Democratic Study Group became the strategic base for House liberals, but also had a broader reach. Powerful committee chairs used their near-monopoly on information to maintain control over votes in committee and on the floor. The new group became a major information outlet on legislation, challenging that monopoly. Speaker Sam Rayburn was a master at balancing power centers in the House, and was not thrilled at the audacity of these junior members, although they gave him no public or frontal challenge. But Rayburn was also not happy with the arrogance of right-wing committee chairs such as Howard “Judge” Smith, who used the House Rules Committee to kill any bills he did not like—and did not limit his antipathy to civil-rights legislation. So Rayburn used the impetus of the new members to thwart Smith and open up opportunities for liberal legislation. That enabled passage of much of the progressive Kennedy program, and the Great Society that followed in 1965–66.

 

That program, including landmark civil-rights and voting-rights bills, federal education reform, Medicare, and Medicaid, among others, was facilitated by the arrival of 71 Democratic freshmen in the 1964 elections. The net gain of 36 seats gave Democrats a two-thirds majority. Significantly, despite these gains, Democrats lost a number of once-safe seats in the South to Republicans for the first time since Reconstruction, heralding the coming regional realignment and the weakening power of the Boll Weevils. The new freshman class brought a number of important liberal members to Washington, including John Tunney, Sid Yates, Lee Hamilton, Andy Jacobs, John Culver, John Conyers, Bill Ford, John Gilligan, and Tom Foley. They bristled at the efforts of committee chairs to limit their role, and experienced tension with Speaker John McCormack, who was not a strong leader and did not champion their desire for a larger impact. But given that there was a president elected in a landslide who promoted their substantive agenda, their main role was to provide the votes for the bills that Lyndon Johnson backed.

...

Now comes the Democratic class of 2018, 60 new Democrats from a net gain of 40 seats. The most striking thing about the class, as many have noted, is its remarkable diversity: More than half are women, and 40 percent are Hispanic, Native American, or other people of color. By contrast, the huge Democratic Watergate class had two women and one lone African American. But the class also boasts ideological diversity, with a large number of the freshmen joining both the Progressive Caucus and the more center-left New Democratic Coalition (with some overlap, and several joining the more conservative Blue Dog Coalition). Watching them, and spending time with many of them, I have also been struck by their enormous talent—including from some with no previous political or governmental experience, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; others who have been in the military or in intelligence, such as Abigail Spanberger and Elissa Slotkin; some, such as Dean Phillips, with a business background; and the most experienced of all, former Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala.

 

Given that the net gain of 40 seats came mainly from districts Donald Trump had won in 2016, or where he came relatively close to winning, the Democrats’ most vulnerable seats today are largely occupied by more pragmatic and moderate members. That itself makes the class of 2018 different from the others: In 1974, even though many of the gains came from districts Nixon had won in 1972, the Democrats who made up the class were generally far more liberal than their districts, and driven to change the status quo in Congress. The Republican classes of 1994 and 2010 included a few moderates, but mostly, whether the districts were ones previously held by Republicans or taken from Democrats in blue areas, the new members were far more conservative, and far more radical in their approaches to politics, than previous freshman groups.

 

There is a commonality, of course, in the dynamic generated by each of these classes that come to Congress in wave elections. There is no doubt that, like the challenges faced by Speakers Rayburn, McCormack, Albert, Gingrich, and Boehner, Pelosi has to deal with divisions in her caucus, and faces pressure to put aside pragmatism and respond to the more insistent base that has been elevated by the influx of new members.

 

But there are differences as well. The story, focused as it is on the squad versus the speaker, is about four remarkable, different, and outspoken freshmen out of 60. While they have allies in their desire to be more confrontational with the Trump administration, to move more radical legislation and to head straight to impeachment without passing Go, there is nowhere near the larger center of gravity for upending the status quo that we saw with the classes of ’74, ’94, or ’10. And that is true of the Democratic caucus at large.

 

Pelosi is intent on protecting those members who won in the wave but have to respond to constituents who are not naturally inclined to vote for Democrats. Keeping the House from getting too far out over its skis is a constant challenge for her. Of course, the difficulty is heightened by the breadth and reach of social media and the 24-hour news cycle; if we had had a small group like the squad in 1974, for example, with the other members of the class arrayed ideologically like this one, I do not think that group would have been the dominant story.

 

But the ability of an individual with some celebrity to reach a huge audience via Twitter, and to use the leverage of social media to amplify a message that includes criticism of leaders, makes the story bigger. It is made greater yet by two other realities: a Republican tribal media and leadership that reinforce the narrative in order to make the squad the face of the Democratic Party and to divert attention from the Trump scandals and malfeasance, and a media that loves the narrative that Democrats are in disarray because it wants to show that it is not biased and can criticize both sides.

 

The diversity of the Democratic coalition in Congress is not just ideological; accommodating the massive changes that have taken place requires a set of skills that previous speakers did not have to employ. House Democrats reflect the diversity of the country, while Republicans move even more to be a congressional party of middle-aged and older white Christian males, with barely trace elements of women or people of color. And Pelosi also has to deal with a bombastic and narcissistic president who has no ability to make legislative deals or find coalitions; a dominant White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, who came from the radical class of 2010, helped found the Freedom Caucus, and has no interest in compromise; and a Senate counterpart, Mitch McConnell, who has shown little regard for the long-standing norms of governance.

 

No one is better equipped to deal with these challenges than Nancy Pelosi. But no one should envy her task.