“We have to talk about how fucking DIFFICULT existence is in the US. Everything is broken – banking, labor, housing, health care. Administrative systems are horrifyingly inept and inefficient. The one thing Trump keeps saying is “We’re gonna make it easier.” He’s lying, but he keeps saying it.” — from a thread by Fuck Theory on Bluesky
From the same thread: “You cannot understand the mental state of the average USian without understanding the sheer amount of energy and frustration demanded by the most mundane daily life tasks. The amount of time and effort required to schedule a doctor’s appointment, correct a billing error with the electric company, cancel a subscription to something, get a canceled flight refunded: these things drain people’s souls.”
Mother Jones makes a similar argument: the Biden/Harris campaign emphasized preserving the system when many Americans think the system needs massive renovation. Trump promised to make Americans’ lives better — well, if they were white, male, straight, cis, etc. — and that was enough.
Then there’s the AOC/Trump split tickets who see both of them as challenging the status quo.
I think there’s some truth to all that. As Mother Jones notes, Harris/Walz weren’t out to shock the system. No questioning the electoral college or the excessive money in politics. No dropping the filibuster. Way too conservative on immigration. The Dems called Trump a threat to democracy before the election, since then they’ve largely treated the transfer of power as routine, nothing to make a fuss about.
On the other hand, a lot of the policies they proposed or enacted did (or would have) made a difference. Allowing Medicare to cover in-home care would be a huge game-changer for a lot of families dealing with older parents (and for people of any age who need in-home care) and a radical change in how we tackle such things. Biden lowered Medicaid and Medicare drug costs; Trump reversed him. But (as Mother Jones notes) the administration didn’t promote them and I don’t think the media played them up as much as they deserved.
Which may reflect that a lot of government reporters find that sort of thing boring; I’ve read columns (one by Maureen Dowd, one by David Broder) where the writer rolls their eyes at a candidate proposing health-care reforms or how to fix global warming — jeez, how tedious! And sometimes expressing bafflement that the audience was fascinated — what, they actually care about healthcare policy?
It’s possible that Trump, promising to smash the system, appealed to people. Maybe what people wanted wasn’t a technical fix, where you simply turn to the right expert, but something radically new (as Rabbi Danya Rutenberg puts it about the current political environment). And as I’ve mentioned before, they somehow hand-waved all the promises he made to do things they didn’t want, perhaps because smashing the system meant that much to them.
On the other hand, a lot of his cries for reform were about punching down at trans people, POC, women. Kicking trans soldiers out of the military. Blocking DOD celebration or acknowledgement of Juneteenth, MLK Day, etc. Appointing unqualified people while he and his surrogates scream that anything — like last week’s plane crash — can be blamed on hiring POC, LGBTQ or women. For a lot of voters, that’s the system they want him to break, the non-existent system where blacks, women and gay people have seized control and women have too much power.
Should the Dems have fought harder and called out that bullshit more? Definitely (though I think Biden and Harris were less conciliatory than Obama or Clinton). I don’t know it would have helped. I don’t know the media would have covered it fairly: there’s a lot more resistance to radical reform from the left than from the right (no specific examples) and the right-wing media would have whipped it up into an outrage of the day. Still the right thing to do, though, just as speaking up for trans, gay, women, POC, etc. is important now.
Like I said, no conclusions, just thoughts.
