Conservatives have one super power and one major weakness. Progressives have one super power and one major weakness. Every election cycle sees the collision of these strengths and these weaknesses. We saw both flare up during that fateful debate and we continue to see it in the aftermath. The sad truth is that the Democratic party has placed themselves in a no win scenario of their own making.

Republicans can craft a narrative and they have the discipline to stay on that narrative. That is their superpower. Whether that narrative has any truth to it, whether it is raging hypocrisy, or whether it ignores large swaths of truth doesn’t matter. Of course, we are seeing their weakness in full display here in Texas. They couldn’t govern a two car funeral. Yet, I digress.

The whole business about Joe Biden and Ukraine early on in the Trump presidency was a test balloon. Trump was able to paint Hillary Clinton as corrupt and right or wrong that label stuck. So maybe he could paint Biden as corrupt. Obviously that has never worked. He continues to try to fight a two-front war but the vast majority of people don’t see Biden as corrupt. They do see him as old and that is the other plank they have fought on. Watching conservatives fight on both fronts is maddening. One cannot be a criminal mastermind and senile at the same time. I suspect deep down inside they know this, but they almost see it as an insult buffet. You take your pick.

As Democrats/progressives we do one thing really well. We govern. When we are in charge things get done. Legislation passes and people in control do the things day to day that need to be done for things to run smoothly. The economy starts humming and people get the services they need. When polled without labels, people routinely favor what Democrats and progressives do and what they call for. That is our superpower. When we look back at these last three and a half years we see a ton of good in the Biden presidency.

Our weakness is that we care what people think. If you think back to every major progressive achievement, you see we have spent far too much time and energy asking people that will never support it to weigh in. We lost a public option in the Affordable Care Act that way. Now, we see ourselves at the precipice of a national crisis. We see a collision of the GOP strength (discipline in messaging) matched squarely against our weakness (we care what others think). What is one to do?

We blew this one folks. Joe Biden should always have been a one term president. A successor should have been groomed (the positive meaning of that word) and introduced to the public long before now. At this point it doesn’t even particularly matter if he is capable of doing the job for another four years. Politics and reality are at best estranged lovers. What we shouldn’t do is worry about the 40 percent that will vote Trump religiously. Those folks won’t vote for anyone you put up. The key now is the other 60 percent.

Yet again, this is where we burn ourselves. We worry about the narrative.Kamala Harris is too liberal and too abrasive. Gavin Newsom is too California and California is a hell hole. Bernie and Elizabeth are too old and too extreme. Secretary Pete is just too gay. Remember, these are all things the 40 percent will say and they are the folks that would never vote for them anyway. I personally don’t care what they say. I say let’s ask the 60 percent.

Anyone you put up at this point will have about a week or two where they are the darling. Then, the right wing noise machine when craft a new message and start chipping away. That’s the way these things work. So, as hard as it is we have to dial out the noise. We cannot listen to people that won’t vote for anyone we put up. This is all about people that might support the cause. Who are they more likely to support? The clock is ticking.

A group is advertising against Joe Biden and his support of Ukraine. They have mentioned how we have given Ukraine 66 billion dollars and how we could be using “all that” money at home to solve our own problems. They are calling themselves common sense for something or other, so I thought I would take a look at their arguments in case you have friends and family uttering the same things.

I should say first that we should ignore the name of this organization. They know very well what they are arguing and it has little to do with common sense. It always pays to look up who is supporting them financially and where their support is going politically. Do they have ties to Russia? I could spend time on that, but there are earnest people making the same arguments, so we will focus on that.

Let’s start with the sum of money. 66 billion dollars is a lot of money and it sounds like a huge sum. In 2022, 6.27 trillion dollars has been allocated. That means that the 66 billion referenced accounts for a little more than one percent of the federal budget. Let’s remember that the aforementioned Biden (or really Congress since they pass the budget) has cut the deficit by a heftier percentage than at any time in history. So, it’s not like we are talking about runaway spending here.

This is not an annual expenditure. It obviously is in response to the crisis. So, let’s focus on common sense. This is what we often call a “straw man” argument. Why are we ignoring these problems at home when we help Ukraine? Well, when you are talking less than one percent of the budget you should clue yourself in that this is a false choice. It isn’t help Ukraine or feed the hungry. It isn’t help Ukraine or clothe the naked. It isn’t help Ukraine or fight “uncontrollable” crime at home. You can easily do all of those things and I think most people would acknowledge that it would take far more than 66 billion to address all of those concerns.

In point of fact, this is anything but common sense. We live in an ever shrinking world and we see a better life economically and in terms of our security when democracies are allowed to thrive. Boil this down and you have one country that wants its own autonomy while the other wants to control it. Deciding to help or not help isn’t about common sense. It is about whether it is in our best interest to help. Is it a better world if we allow Russia to do whatever it wants? It is the same question as with China and it’s neighboring countries. It’s the same as the Middle East. Pick any region of the world and ask the same questions.

This is where one of those friends or family will point out that we can’t afford to help everyone. This is absolutely true, but any decision about who we support cannot be boiled down to common sense. It is much more intricate than that. There are all kinds of factors that go into deciding to help Ukraine and not some other country.

They want the 66 billion spent here. Would they go to the family starving on the street and help them? Well, why do you choose to help this family but not that family? Is it really common sense or is there something else at play here? Again, this is for your earnest family and friends. I suspect we know for those that are creating this ad and we know it has nothing to do with common sense.

A friend asked me who I thought would win the governor’s race in Texas. We know who is going to win the governor’s race in Texas. We knew before Beto even entered the race. We knew it was Greg Abbott no matter what was said in any debate, any ad, or anything that might happen between then and election day.

Abbott has been governor for eight years. Ignore the thousands of deaths during COVID. Ignore the dozens of deaths during the great freeze. Ignore the numerous children killed in school shootings. Think back to any of the Abbott ads on the radio or television. Have any of them touted anything he has actually done as governor? How sad is it for a guy to basically run on the platform of “my opponent is too extreme” when he’s been governor for eight years?

One particular ad had a woman who lost her son to murder. The murderer had been let out on bail by the judge. The Abbott campaign is using this as a reason not to vote for Beto. Huh? The governor doesn’t set bail and Beto hasn’t held elective office since running for Senate in 2018. By any reasonable measure, Abbott has been a horrible governor and he is going to win re-election. Many around the state have given him the nickname Governor Death and he is going to win re-election. Dan Patrick has been a horrible lieutenant governor and he is going to win.

If you want any further proof then consider the case of Hershel Walker in Georgia. He is within the margin of error and he can’t find a coherent thought with a flashlight and road map. He actually flashed a toy badge on stage during the debate and said he was a cop. He paid off a girlfriend to get an abortion and tried to do it a second time and somehow claims to be pro-life. Yet, he could still win the Senate seat there.

It’s easy to blame gerrymandering and restrictive voter laws in these situations and that’s true to a certain extent. I’m sure that peels off five to ten percentage points and that can be enough in a number of races. However, we have to ask ourselves why that is enough when considering candidates like this. We have to ask why an attorney general that has been under indictment for his entire term will get another one.

Somewhere along the line we have to look inside and ask ourselves why a party that continually puts up smarter candidates with smarter policy ideas seem to lose to these dullards. These are policy ideas that a majority of the population support. There must be something else. I personally think it is a combination of things. I think it’s a combination of really bad branding like “defund the police” and other catch phrases that just backfire. It’s also the relative ease of taking things like “wokeness” and weaponizing it against the left. Most people don’t honestly care about gay marriage, transsexuals, or other issues one way or another. They are just tired of being told they aren’t sensitive enough.

Cohesive communication isn’t easy, but the Republicans have managed to do it for decades. Break it all down and it’s incredibly simple but it is darn effective. You find something that resonates and you keep repeating it. That’s what we don’t do. We are everywhere. We talk about climate change, the wealth gap, equality issues, saving democracy, and helping out kids with college, health care, and gun control. I know I’m leaving stuff out. It’s time to find a cohesive message that works and stick to it.

Situations can often get complicated and we further complicate them when we obfuscate for our own advantage. The situation with supply chains is both complicated and simple at the same time. Of course, anyone that can grasp that paradox isn’t likely to appear as a talking head on television anytime soon.

The latest in a long line of supply chain issues is baby formula. It would seem that people should be able to get by without it, but that is one of the areas where talking heads can be purposefully obtuse. Not all women can breast feed and not all of them want to. It’s that whole bodily autonomy thing rearing its ugly head again.

Abbott had to shut down its production when some children were getting sick. The FDA intervened because that is what they are supposed to. It was not that dissimilar from when Bluebell shut its factories down for a short time. Formula is just slightly more important than ice cream. Yet, the concept is the same. When people get sick you have to find out what is going on.

People love to complain about these things and they love to point the finger, but ultimately they really don’t want to do anything about it. The Republicans have recited the chorus of their favorite hymn these days: blame Joe Biden. As we know, the president of the United States spends countless hours each day pouring over supply chains and individual products. It’s not like he’s doing anything else.

So, the House of Representatives got the ball rolling by passing a bill to help with supply chain issues. Whether the Senate will also pass it is unknown. The Senate would struggle to pass a bill asserting that water is wet. You have a 50-50 split which is difficult enough. Then, you have the 60 vote filibuster threshold, Joe Mancin and Kirsten Sinema, and the craven politics of Mitch McConnell.

Nearly 200 Republicans in the House voted against a measure to alleviate these issues. They decided the problem doesn’t need government intervention. That’s fine as a philosophy but the likes of Jim Jordan have blasted Biden and the Democrats on Twitter for not solving the problem. His tweet says it all.

What do you suggest Jim? If you vote against nearly every measure to solve the problem then you either don’t really care about Americans and their formula shortage or you just want to exploit the problem for political gain. Of course, there is a third door here, but far be it from me to point it out. You could actually govern. You could say that the Democrats’ plans are all wrong and we should do something else instead. In this case he has tried nothing and he’s all out of ideas.

Fox News has a solution. See, the problems stem from the fact that we are giving too much formula to those babies on the border. You know the ones I’m talking about. They are the ones the Trump administration cravenly ripped from their mother’s arms so they could put them in cages. Well, we should just take their formula and give it to American babies.

These illegal children don’t deserve it. Let’s ignore that the numbers we are talking about are much lower than what they were under Trump. According to the report, 22,500 children are being held at the border. Even if every last one of them was an infant needing formula, we are talking about less than one percent (about 0.6%) of the total number of babies in the United States. Jonathan Swift would be proud. This is your “pro-life” party ladies and gentlemen.

A lot has been made of the so-called “replacement theory” since the kid in Buffalo shot up a grocery store in a predominantly black neighborhood. Since we are always aiming to be helpful, I thought I would break it down for those folks that don’t make watching Tucker Carlson a habit.

Replacement theory is the far-right white supremacist theory that liberals, progressives, and leftists are determined to allow or even encourage minorities to move to the United States in droves so they can get a permanent majority in Washington and in key states.

That’s a very simple statement and it doesn’t require much explanation, but it does have far-reaching implications. The kid supposedly travelled to a black neighborhood on purpose. Has anyone ever wondered why there are so-called “black neighborhoods” and “white neighborhoods” in the first place?

The notion of replacement theory relies on two very insidious ideas. First, it relies on the notion that anything really belongs to any of us. Sure, there is private property, so when we finally pay back the bank then our home will literally belong to us. Our cars literally belong to us.

However, that is not what far right conservatives are referring to. They are referring to America in the larger sense. It belongs to them. That means that all policies have to continue to perpetuate this madness. This is why we oppose the estate tax. This is why we preach trickle down economics. This is why we fight a drug war that disproportionately affects people of color.

These policies are all designed to make sure that those in power remain in power. Furthermore, they are able to convince the poorer amongst us that this is ultimately a good thing. Even though they will not get the assistance they need and will ultimately remain poor, it also means that none of “them” will get that assistance either.

That brings us to the second insidious idea. The basic assumption is that if you are black, Hispanic, Asian, female, or a member of the LGTBQ+ community then you are destined to be a Democrat. It ultimately isn’t even worth trying to appeal to them. It’s destiny after all.

It’s a not so subtle conversion of people into cattle. They just follow the rest of the herd. It ignores the fact that numerous people from any group might have very conservative views on a number of subjects. They could be persuaded if their key issues were addressed. They could be persuaded if you treated them as individuals with self-determination. They could be persuaded if you treated them like equals and human beings.

Sure, they’ll traipse out the occasional Alan Keyes, Candace Owen, Marco Rubio, or Amy Coney Barrett. See, there are some women and minorities that are conservative. It isn’t literally everyone. Yet, let’s consider the implications of this point of view for a second. Why are we so afraid to allow people of color to vote in large numbers? The idea that this is not about racism is downright hilarious. Why exactly should we assume that those people would never vote for us in the first place?

Not only does it reduce America to a zero sum game, it provides a unique way for poor, white men to keep score. I’ll never get ahead by continuing to vote Republican, but I can damn well make sure that they will never get ahead too. So, ultimately it starts as an irrational fear that Democrats will take over and transfer ownership of America to all of its inhabitants. The truth of the matter is that if they had anything worth selling to the masses then they would buckle down and present their case to everyone. They know they can’t do that. They don’t have a case and they don’t have anything worth selling. It’s only about what they perceive as worth keeping.

Sometimes you can be surprised where you find good writing. Bill James is the preeminent baseball statistician from the last 50 years. However, what makes him unique is not necessarily how good his statistics are, but in how artfully he uses them to craft a narrative. I still remember his foreword in the first edition of the Fielding Bible.

He simply described watching video of Adam Everett and Derek Jeter play shortstop. He instinctively knew that he was watching the best and the worst defensive shortstops in the game. Without seeing the numbers he couldn’t tell you which one was which, but the eyeball test didn’t fail. They were polar opposites of each other.

The same thing is happening in Texas in the governor’s race. You can approach these things with snark, sarcasm, and all of the disdain you can muster. I imagine many people will. What I’m prepared to say beyond a shadow of a doubt is that one of these candidates is the kind of human being we should all aspire to be. The other is just not a very good person. I’m not sure of any other way to put it.

The juxtaposition can be seen most clearly in what is happening with a North Texas family. Greg Abbott has them under investigation because they have a transgender teen. Beto O’Rourke visited them on Mother’s Day and even cooked dinner for them.

To be perfectly fair, it is reasonable to ask whether O’Rourke would have visited them in a year when he wasn’t running for statewide office. I’m guessing he wouldn’t have. Would he have helped them cook dinner if the cameras weren’t there taking pictures? Again, I’m guessing the answer is no.

Then again, we could ask the same of Abbott. Would he be investigating a family for child abuse if this weren’t an election year? Would he threaten Texas families with charges and family separation if the movers and shakers in his party weren’t applying that pressure? My guess is also no.

So, here we are. We are left with the most vivid example of the difference between the two parties. One party wants to help make the world a better place and safer for all of its citizens. One party does not. One party wants to reach into homes and into people’s bodies to impose its will. One party does not. At this point it doesn’t make much sense to point out who is who and which is which. Everyone must answer that for themselves. What we can’t do is assert that they are all the same. Clearly they are not. One of these must win and one of these must be driven from polite society. I’ll leave the which is which up to you.