Are Democrats Pathetic?

By David Corn  June 4, 2022

President Joe Biden arriving at the White House on May 30, 2022. Lenin Nolly/AP

I have known many Democratic officeholders over the decades. Most are smart and give a damn about issues and getting stuff done. They’re good at politics. Hell, they got elected, right? That usually takes a lot of hard work and diligence. Once in a position of power, they toil long hours. They want to succeed and be of service to their constituents and to advance decent values. Yet as a party, they sometimes seem to be lacking in...I don’t know, fortitude? Grit? Determination? Toughness? Now it is easy to knock the Democrats. Yet we shouldn’t forget they have twice in the past 30 years defeated an incumbent president—not an easy feat. They have passed important legislation, from the New Deal to the Great Society to Obamacare to Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act. They drew 7 million more votes for their presidential nominee in 2020 than the Republicans did, and managed (barely) to save the nation from a second Trump term (for now). Still...

The puzzlement is that the Democrats have not been able to better exploit Donald Trump and the Trump years and discredit the GOP. Consider three elemental facts of the Trump era: In a profound act of betrayal, Trump aided and abetted a foreign adversary that attacked the American political system to help Trump become president; he oversaw an erratic and inept pandemic response that led to hundreds of thousands of preventable American deaths; and he tried to subvert the American political system in order to overturn an election and, with lies and disinformation, incited an attack on the US Capitol. Oh yeah, he was impeached twice. But despite Trump’s record of misdeeds, incompetence, and treachery, the Ds have not been able to make effective use of him as a foil.

Yes, the Democrats booted him. Yet Trump has not been sufficiently tarred as a guy responsible for the deaths of many Americans and rendered essentially unemployable in American politics.

This past week, the World Health Organization released stats for the numbers of deaths caused by the pandemic around the world. It focused on “deaths above normal” levels—that is, the number of deaths beyond what would be expected absent Covid-19. This includes, obviously, deaths caused by the coronavirus but also deaths that might have been Covid-related, such as those that occurred because people could not obtain medical care when hospitals and health systems were overwhelmed by Covid. Among high-income nations, the United States ranked fifth in “deaths above normal,” with 932,000 or 15 percent more deaths than expected in 2020 and 2021. Only Romania, Poland, Chile, and the Czech Republic had higher rates. Other rich countries did much better: South Korea (1 percent), Canada (4 percent), Japan (-1 percent). Japan had fewer deaths than expected, which could be attributed to the widespread implementation of Covid safeguards that might have prevented other deaths from occurring. Why doesn’t the guy who was in charge of the United States during the pandemic get more blame for America’s lousy record? Trump’s failure in this paramount task has not delegitimized him. Congressional Democrats did hold hearings examining the Trump administration’s Covid response, but not in a fashion that registered with the public and made Trump a political pariah.

This is similar to what happened with the Trump-Russia scandal. Here the Democrats failed to turn Trump’s complicity in the Russian assault on the American political system—he denied and downplayed the attack to help Vladimir Putin get away with it, sought to benefit from it, lied about his business deals in Russia, and impeded the Russia investigation—into a serious political deficit. They did face a tremendous obstacle: Trump’s incessant bleating that this was a “hoax” and a “witch hunt,” and Republicans and conservative media relentlessly echoing that disinformation. Yet they never figured out a way around this.

Now the House committee investigating January 6 will get its turn. It is scheduled to start hearings on the evening of June 9 (prime time!). Will this Democratic-led panel—assisted by sane Republicans Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger—be able to advance a narrative that firmly establishes Trump as a fundamental threat to American democracy? That would mean that a party that supports him is also a danger to the nation.

It’s easy to point out that many Americans now care more about the cost of gasoline and the price of bacon than the Russian attack of 2016, the Covid pandemic, or the riotous mob of January 6. It’s also obligatory to note that it is hard to govern and politick at the same time. President Biden and the Democrats have the tough burden of legislating in the face of obstructionist Republicans and confronting such tough problems as inflation, the infant formula shortage, and Russian aggression. It’s difficult to focus on political messaging while responsibly driving the car of government. When Trump was president, he only cared about messaging, and messaging is a breeze when you feel free to brazenly lie. (This is the best economy ever!) And we can also recognize that even when public opinion is solidly on the side of in-power Democrats—many gun-safety measures they now propose are backed by over 80 percent of Americans—the system makes it hard for the Ds to deliver. (See the filibuster.) But here is another possible instance of Democratic failure: If so much of the public is with them on this, can’t they at least succeed in portraying the Rs as the party responsible for dead school kids?

It's long been said—I’ve said it!—that the Democrats just don’t play rough enough when it comes to slamming Republicans. Biden campaigned as a guy who would be less divisive and heal the soul of America. That’s a pretty thought—and it did help him win the election—but that’s an impossible mission if the other side is out there claiming you have a secret plan to destroy the nation and turn it into a socialist hellhole run by antifa and BLM. After the horrific Buffalo mass shooting, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was on NPR discussing the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, which would set up offices at the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and the FBI to focus on investigating and tracking domestic terror threats. The House Democrats passed the measure over fierce Republican opposition, but the legislation will probably die in the Senate due to the GOP. During the interview, Hoyer not once took the opportunity to lambaste Republicans for standing in the way of this bill. Instead, he discussed the technicalities of the measure and addressed complaints about it. He should have let loose on the Republicans. It remains to be seen in the wake of the Uvalde school shooting if the Democrats can finally achieve significant gun-control measures or effectively brand the GOP as the party that does nothing to stop such massacres.

Certainly, there’s a big chunk of Americans—maybe a third of the population—who cannot be reached, who are with Trump no matter what, who see themselves as foot soldiers in a do-or-die culture war with the libs. Forget about them. They are lost. They are in a cult. They believe the Big Lie. But Trump and the Rs can only gain power if voters outside the cult support them. Recent polls showing a hypothetical Trump-Biden matchup in 2024 as neck-and-neck indicate that Trump remains a viable option for voters who are not Trump zombies. The Democrats need to reach these people and persuade them that Trump and the GOP are bad for America.

The former guy and his party comrades have provided the Democrats an abundance of material. It’s a wonder the Ds cannot put it to better use. Is this a reflection on them or the country?

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com.

Thought You Should Know

* A well-informed source tells me that the Justice Department has notified federal judges in Washington, DC, that they expect to arrest 200 more January 6 rioters. The feds so far have nabbed at least 846 of Trump’s insurrectionist shock-troops, and they are still, over a year later, identifying culprits. A new wave of indictments could bring the total of arrests to more than 1,000. Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports that a federal grand jury “has issued subpoena requests to some officials in former president Donald Trump’s orbit who assisted in planning, funding and executing the Jan. 6 rally,” noting this shows that “the Justice Department investigation—which already involves more defendants than any other criminal prosecution in the nation’s history—has moved further beyond the storming of the Capitol to examine events preceding the attack.” The focus and extent of this aspect of the federal investigation is not publicly known. As you might recall, in previous issues, I suggested that Attorney General Merrick Garland put aside Justice Department custom and inform the public what inquiries the department is conducting regarding the unprecedented and insurrectionist attack on the Capitol. He should still do that.

* As Talking Points memo reports, “Republican Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) member Robert Spindell, who was one of the fake Trump electors in the MAGA scheme to overturn the 2020 election, now appears poised to become the chair of the six-member board after a fellow GOP commissioner abruptly resigned on Wednesday.” The commissioner who resigned, Dean Knudson, was under assault from Republicans for refusing to support Trump’s Big Lie about the election. “Two of my core values are to practice service above self and to display personal integrity,” Knudson said, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “And to me, that integrity demands acknowledging the truth even when the truth is painful. In this case, the painful truth is that President Trump lost the election in 2020—lost the election in Wisconsin in 2020. And the loss was not due to election fraud." Knudson deserves credit for challenging the Trump cult’s propaganda. But his departure from the commission could allow a Big Lie proponent to become chair of an agency that will oversee the 2024 election in a key swing state. And for more on the extensive national scheme being mounted by Republicans to gain control of the voting system—and win the ability to block election results they don’t like—see this recent exposé. The GOP threat to democracy is real and growing. 

Dumbass Comment of the Week

I was hoping we might get a break this week from stupid remarks from the gun fetishists. But that was like hoping I could dunk a basketball. In the aftermath of the Uvalde nightmare and subsequent shootings, the gun extremists kept spewing lunacy. This was especially so during a House committee hearing on gun safety on Thursday. Though there were loads of idiotic comments at this event from the gun-lubbers, Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) took this week’s prize with his defense of assault rifles, when he said, “In rural Colorado, an AR-15 is a gun of choice for killing raccoons before they get to our chickens."

Let me get this straight: We have dead kids in schools because Buck’s constituents cannot build better chicken coops? And if we’re going to cite the Second Amendment, can’t we also point out that the authors of the Constitution had only muskets to use when defending their hens from rampaging raccoons? As several readers noted when I tweeted about Buck’s statement, if you can’t hit a raccoon with a .22 or shotgun, you probably shouldn’t be handling an AR-15. Buck’s comment reminded me of this Monty Python bit. It’s satire—but not too far from the reality of gun-nuttery:

A major honorable mention goes to William Barr, Trump’s former attorney general/lapdog. This week John Durham, the special counsel appointed by Barr to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation, fell flat on his face. A jury rejected his case against Democratic lawyer Michael Sussmann, who Durham had accused of lying to the FBI when he met with the bureau in September 2016 to share computer data that possibly indicated a curious link between the computer servers of the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, a major Russian financial entity. By acquitting Sussmann, the jury dealt a massive blow to Durham, who had claimed that Sussmann’s actions had been part of a Clinton campaign plot to falsely cast Trump as being connected to Russia. In fact, Durham’s main objective—and Barr’s goal—has been to demonstrate that the FBI’s Russia investigation was the “hoax” that Trump has long claimed it was. Durham’s loss in this high-profile case did not help the cause, as I wrote here. But this did not stop Barr from hurling BS after the verdict. Appearing on Fox, he said:

I’m very proud of John Durham, and I do take responsibility for his appointment. And I think he and his team did an exceptionally able job both digging out very important facts and presenting a compelling case to the jury. The fact that he, well, he did not succeed in getting a conviction from the DC jury, I think he accomplished something far more important, which is he brought out the truth in two important areas. First, I think he crystalized the central role played by the Hillary campaign in launching as a dirty trick the whole Russiagate collusion narrative and fanning the flames of it. And, second, I think, he exposed really dreadful behavior by the supervisors in the FBI, the senior ranks of the FBI, who knowingly used this information to start an investigation of Trump and then duped their own agents by lying to them and refusing to tell them what the real source of that information was.

There is so much inaccuracy in that brief statement. Sussmann’s approach to the FBI had absolutely nothing to do with the bureau opening its Trump-Russia investigation, which occurred two months prior to the Sussmann meeting. Describing the Russia probe as the outgrowth of a Clinton dirty trick is an act of disinformation. The information at the center of this trial—iffy computer data about these two sets of servers—was not used to initiate the FBI’s Russia investigation. That probe was up and running—launched because of other information the FBI had obtained—long before Sussmann knocked on the bureau’s door. Barr appears to be purposefully lying here.

When Barr assigned Durham the task of investigating the Russia investigation, he had a simple goal in mind: to show that Trump had been set up by the FBI. When the Justice Department inspector general in late 2019 issued a report concluding the FBI had legitimate cause to investigate the Russian assault on the 2016 election and to probe the Trump campaign, Durham released a statement declaring, “We do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.” Trump cultists were encouraged. Durham seemed bent on proving that the FBI investigation was bogus from the get-go and Trump was right: It was all a hoax and a witch hunt. Yet Durham’s investigation has turned up not a whit of evidence that confirms this, and the Sussmann case, which he obviously bungled, did not even address this question. Still, Barr is trying to spin a loss into a win and misrepresenting the significance of the case. He’s pulling off his own hoax.

Bloomberg columnist Tim O’Brien and I joined Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC to discuss #DurhamFail:

The Mailbag

Not surprisingly, most of the mail was in response to my recent column on the Uvalde shooting and how the NRA has turned gun rights into a matter of theology for conservatives. There was much venting and heartfelt despair expressed. I obviously share the pain and disgust and thank everyone who wrote in about this. I do read every email that comes in, especially in moments like this.

Alfred Higgins emailed:

Thanks for your ever insightful and articulate essay on the obstruction of gun law reform posed by Republicans in Congress. I would restate what you already know. Even massive public opinion counter to the “gun rights” voting block has been inadequate to move common sense legislation because of the built-in incentives for obstruction of majority rule in Congress as well as the SCOTUS. Part of the cynical calculations of the NRA and other gun rights activists for over fifty years has been “Learned Hopelessness” as famously articulated by the overseers of Devil’s Island and a principle of all repressive regimes since politics was invented. By reiterating the exhausting talking points and refusing to consider or debate any rational policy to curtain gun violence, the NRA and its political shills repeatedly reinforce the message of hopelessness to all citizens, with the eventual goal of forcing acceptance of that hopelessness. I hope that you can address this in your newsletters, but at the same time reinforcing hope for change.

Yes, the gun fetishists have succeeded in creating a narrative: After every massacre there is a cry for change and reform, and then nothing happens. This can lead to a sense of hopelessness. We’re still waiting to see if this time it will be different.

Tom Johnson writes:

As a Louisiana-born, seminary-degreed, evangelical Christian (living in Texas), I couldn't agree more with your sentiments in this article. I despair of ever seeing common sense return to our culture in regard to the gun issue. I fear that the following is another instance of tilting at windmills, but I will give it a go. What I am referring to is the question of why there is not more consternation and debate over the Supreme Court decisions regarding "the right to bear arms." I am just astounded that no one seems to question the conservative interpretations of the Second Amendment. My astonishment is over the fact that the Second Amendment in no way says what the mostly conservative court decisions have determined.

In my humble opinion, it is patently obvious that the Second Amendment does not grant private ownership of firearms for personal use or protection. The clause granting the right to "keep and bear arms" is clearly predicated on the first clause of the amendment. That clause clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms was for defense of the state, because there was no standing army for the defense of the state. Logic would necessitate the negation of the second clause if the first clause was no longer viable. In reviewing Supreme Court decisions regarding this amendment, almost all liberalizations occurred when there were conservative majorities on the court. The last, most blatant, liberalization was by one vote on the court. Yet I have not come across any instance where the wording of the amendment was used to contradict the verdicts reached...

My analysis would logically lead to the conclusion that what is needed is a constitutional convention to rewrite the Second Amendment. I realize that there is a snowball's chance in hell for that to happen. But if the unconstitutionality and irrationality of the conservative court rulings is not actively challenged, the unwarranted deaths will just continue to mount.

There, of course, has been much discussion about the Heller decision, which wrongfully stated there is a constitutional right for individuals to own guns. It will be hard to undo that decision, especially with a court with a conservative supermajority. (Thank you, Mitch McConnell.) But I doubt a constitutional convention is the answer. It could open a gazillion other cans of worms. The good news is that legal experts do believe that even under Heller there is room for a healthy amount of gun regulation. Of course, the right-wing troglodytes on the court will get the last word on that—but only if Congress can manage to pass any of these measures.

David Williams has this to say about this newsletter’s Watch, Read, and Listen List:

You've got great cultural tastes, so you may have already made note of this but if you haven't, I highly recommend this series—Tehran—on Apple+. 

Thanks, David. I did watch the first season of Tehran and enjoyed it. The show examines one of my favorite themes in popular culture: the moral ambiguity of spy work. Season 2 was just released, and I will be turning to it shortly. (Had to finish Ozark.) But it’s been two years since the first season aired, and with such a gap I don’t remember as much as I’d like. I probably will do what I often do to prepare for a new season of a show: watch the last episode of the previous season. It’s a good way to jog the old noggin.

MoxieCam™

“What’s for lunch?”

“Moxie, you only get breakfast and dinner.”

“I’d like to see the manager.”

Read Recent Issues of Our Land

May 28, 2022: What to hope for after the Uvalde massacre; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Candace Owens); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

May 25, 2022: The anti-ness of the Trumpified right; Our Land in photos; Tokyo Vice vs. Miami Vice; Sarah Shook and what makes a song cool; and more.

May 21, 2022: Why a threat to Pennsylvania is a threat to us all; Dumbass Comment of the Week (saying goodbye to Madison Cawthorn); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

May 17, 2022: Special Book Excerpt: How John Lennon’s murder led to preventing mass shootings; and more.

May 14, 2022: The January 6 committee gets ready for prime time; Dumbass (and Disappointing) Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more

May 10, 2022: Can Joe Biden convince America the GOP is a threat?; Slow Horses gallop; an old new Brian Eno-John Cale tune; and more.

May 7, 2022: Imagine if elections were boring (guest column by James West); and more.

May 3, 2022: Reality and reality TV at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner; the excessive glamour of WeCrashed; a reminder to watch The Survivor; and more.

April 30, 2022: Elon Musk and Twitter—what to worry about; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Russian Nuclear Annihilation Edition); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™ (an Impossible Burger commercial?); and more

April 26, 2022: Trump’s lust for revenge spreads through the GOP; The Batman mopes; the Peruvian origins of punk rock; and more.

Got suggestions, comments, complaints, tips related to any of the above, or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com.