A Dangerous Lie

Trump Says That We Have Lost Wars Because of Woke Thinking

Recently, our Grifter-in-Chief (GC) told one of the most dangerous and misleading lies that he has told in a political career based mainly on lies. He said, 

We won World War II. We won everything before, and as I said, we won everything in between, … And [after WW II] we were very strong, but we never fought to win. We just didn’t fight to win.” He added, “We could have won every war, but we really chose to be very politically correct, or ‘wokey,’ and we just fight forever.

In other words, our military forces could have won if they had not been betrayed and constrained by “woke” politicians. At first glance, this appears merely uninformed, but don't be fooled. It is dangerous. It is dangerous because it leads to the idea that if we had just “fought to win,” we would have won in places like Viet Nam and Afghanistan. It tells us that if we go to war with a more positive attitude, we will be sure to win.

The Truth About Vietnam and Afghanistan

Anyone who is old enough to remember the wars in Viet Nam and Afghanistan knows that this is false. We lost in those places not because our troops failed in the field but because the goal of our intervention was a goal that could not be reached by military means. In Afghanistan, for example, our troops defeated the Taliban militarily and thereby bought time for the Afghan government to solidify its position, but the Afghan government was corrupt and unpopular and could not solidify its position. No amount of positive thinking on our part could convert a weak, corrupt and unpopular government into a strong, popular, democratic government.

The same thing happened in Viet Nam. Our troops fought heroically and bought time for the Vietnamese government to become a popular, democratic government, but - like the Afghan government – the Vietnamese government was weak, corrupt and unpopular. It could not compete with the patriotic appeal of Ho Chi Minh. In both places, we lost because weak, corrupt and unpopular governments could not become strong, popular, democratic governments that could stand on their own. They could survive only as long as we propped them up, and eventually, we came to the unavoidable conclusion that the cost of propping them up was too great. "Wokey" thinking had nothing to do with the outcomes of those wars.

A Disaster in the Making

The GC’s claim that our armed forces were betrayed by “woke” politicians is similar to the myth that was propagated by German conservatives after their country's defeat in World War I.  That myth claimed that the German army did not really lose. It was stabbed in the back by socialists and Jews.  The myth served the purposes of Germany’s conservative politicians and provided one of the bases of the popularity of the Nazi Party. Our GC undoubtedly intends to use his myth for a similar purpose, and we must not let him do that. We must expose his claim for the lie that it is. The German myth ultimately produced a disaster for Germany. By the end of World War II, the country was completely in ruins, and the scholars who had made Germany the world's leader in the natural and social sciences had almost all left the country. The new myth will very likely produce a similar disaster for us if we allow it to spread. We cannot allow that to happen.

Why Is There No Effective Opposition to Trump?

 Trump is Not Popular So, Why is There no Effective Opposition to Him?

A recent article in The Economist discusses the lack of effective opposition to Pres. Trump in the United States. The article says,

If a single political idea has tied Americans together over their first quarter of a millennium, it is that one-person rule is a mistake. Most Americans also agree that the federal government is slow and incompetent. Together, these things ought to make it impossible for one man to govern by diktat from the White House. And yet that is what this president is doing: sending in the troops, slapping on tariffs, asserting control over the central bank, taking stakes in companies, scaring citizens into submission.

The effect is overwhelming, but not popular. President Donald Trump’s net approval rating is minus 14 percentage points. That is little better than Joe Biden’s after his dire debate last year, and no one fretted that he was over-mighty. This is a puzzle. Most Americans disapprove of Mr. Trump. Yet everywhere he seems to be getting his way. Why?

The article goes on to answer its question by pointing first to the fact that Trump is moving so fast that the institutions that might exercise some control cannot keep up. In addition, the article says, his control of the Republican Party is so complete that “… the party’s organizing idea is that Mr, Trump is always right, even when he contradicts himself.” Finally, the independent institutions that might constrain him suffer from a coordination problem. Their interests are not always aligned.

The Democrats Offer No Alternatives to Trump's Policies

I suggest that there is another reason for the lack of effective opposition to Trump: the Democratic Party offers no clear policy alternatives to the voters. We live in a time when working Americans are suffering economically, but the Democratic Party has not unified around a set of economic policy proposals to benefit working Americans. Gov. Newsom of California and Gov. Pritzker of Illinois show the problem clearly. They are popular among those who hate Trump, but their popularity is based entirely on their clever and very public opposition to his attempts to take over policing in their states. Standing against Trump or even against fascism is not the same as offering a program to benefit working Americans.

The Democratic Party is not without ideas. The party's left wing does have policy proposals to offer the voters, but the proposals have mostly been rejected by the party’s leaders and by so-called “centrist” Democrats on the grounds that the proposals are “too radical.” The policies are not really radical, but the people on the left wing of the party have never pointed that out. They don't explain how their proposals flow from basic American values. Instead, the left likes to talk about “revolution" in vague undefined terms and about "socialism" with no clear definition for that word, either.

Trump's Republicans Offer Concrete Proposals

Trump and the Republican Party offer proposals to deal with the concerns of the voters. The proposals are fraudulent, but they are persuasive. The Democrats offer no alternatives except to say that Mr. Trump is a fascist who is destroying our democracy.  That is true. He is trying to destroy our democracy, but that fact is not uppermost in the mind of a woman trying to support herself and her child on her earnings as a waitress. She has more immediate problems, and when Trump tells her that he will make sure that she won’t have to pay income tax on her tips, she is bound to listen. Similarly, a couple that is living paycheck to paycheck and barely able to pay its rent even with two incomes cannot spend much time worrying about the state of our democracy. When Trump tells the couple that their plight is due to the foreigners who have taken American jobs, they are bound to listen, especially when the Democrats are not speaking to them at all.

Democrats May Win in 2026, But in the Long Run, They Must Decide to Stand for Something That Benefits Working Americans

Democrats may win enough congressional seats in 2026 to end Trump's control of Congress, but in the long run, the party will not stop hemorrhaging voters’ until it unifies around a set of policy proposals that promise to benefit working Americans. Being against Trump is not enough. The Democratic Party must be for something, too.

Stress the Basic American Values That Underly Progressive Policy Proposals

Link Policies to Values Explicitly 

In last week’s post on this blog, I said that progressives must retrieve the ability to talk about justice with the vocabulary of class, and I provided examples of the use of a class-based vocabulary from Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s campaign web site. However, using the vocabulary of class to describe and promote policy proposals by itself will not be enough. Democrats must also link their proposals explicitly to basic, American values. They must show how their proposals flow from those values.

Basic American Values

Values From Our Founding Documents

Basic American values may be found in the founding documents of our republic, and commitment to those values is part of what it means to be American. Our Declaration of Independence says,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men….

Our Constitution tells us that our government was established in order to:

…establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity ….

These words say that our government has a positive duty to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare. Democrats can link their policy proposals to this positive duty.

Widely Held Values

Widely held American values may also be found outside of our founding documents. Ideas like equality of opportunity or playing on a level playing field may be used. Finally, we can reclaim patriotism by linking it to each individual’s responsibility to promote the strength, cohesion or competitiveness of our country.

An Example: Linking Basic American Values to the Policy of Free Post-Secondary Education

We can use the policy of free post-secondary education to illustrate each of these approaches.  

The Constitutional Approach

Here is the constitutional approach. Our government should use tax money to provide free post-secondary education because our government has a duty to establish justice and promote the general welfare. A just society cannot be based on the idea that the children of the wealthy who have done nothing to earn their parents’ wealth should have an unearned advantage. They should not be able to start their adult lives without heavy debts while the children of ordinary, working Americans have their financial lives crippled by debts. A government with a responsibility to establish justice and promote the general welfare should not allow such injustice to continue.

An Argument Based on Equality of Opportunity

Democrats can also link the policy of free post-secondary education to the idea of equality of opportunity. We Americans believe that fair competition is fundamental to our system, but a system that saddles some people with heavy debts that others do not have to bear is fundamentally unfair. It is like forcing some runners in a race to run with weights strapped to their ankles. Such a system gives an unfair advantage to the runners who do not have the weights on their ankles. A government with a responsibility to establish justice and promote the general welfare should not allow such injustice to continue.

An Argument Based on Patriotism

Finally, Democrats can relate the policy of free post-secondary education to our patriotic duty to do what we can to strengthen and develop our country. In the brutal international competition for economic primacy, we need all of the trained and educated workers that we can produce. We should not waste a large share of our potential by making it difficult for young people to obtain the training that they need and that our economy needs them to receive. A government that has a responsibility to provide for the common defense should do what is necessary to make sure that we have a sufficient supply of trained people.

This does not include only people trained in the STEM fields. The people who manage the technical folks need a much broader view of the world than that provided by training in computer programming or engineering, and our government needs people with a broad view as well. So, education in the humanities is also important.

Say It Over and Over Again

Whichever approach to linking to values is used, it should be made explicit, and it should be repeated every time the issue is discussed. Democrats should never allow the link between the policy and the values that justify it to be assumed. Instead, they should point to the connection over and over again. They should never allow the issue to be discussed without an explicit reference to the underlying values. That is how Democrats can build a consensus in favor of the policy of free post-secondary education, and the same approach may be used with any other policy position. The repetition of the link to values will gradually establish itself in the minds of voters and will help to build a consensus in favor of the policy.

Using the Vocabulary of Class Solidarity: the Example of AOC

AOC Uses the Vocabulary of Class

 In last week’s post, I said that if Democrats want to defeat the MAGA movement, they will have to recover the ability to talk about class oppression, and in an earlier post, I said that the anti-Trump movement will have to make hard choices about what it stands for. Fortunately, there are leaders in the Democratic Party who understand what needs to be done, and the best known of these is Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (AOC). Her campaign website is full of ideas about how the party can move forward.  (In the interests of transparency, I should say that I do not work for AOC or her campaign, and I am not recommending that you do so or that you vote for her. I am using her campaign website as an example because her positions are particularly clear and detailed.)

Her List of Issues Prioritizes Class-Based Concerns

Her list of campaign issues includes (in this order):

1. Medicare for All
2. Housing as a Human Right
3. A Peace Economy
4. Justice for Workers and Small Businesses
5. Real Public Safety
6. Honor in Immigration
7. Just Recovery for Puerto Rico
8. Green New Deal
9. Elevate Public Education
10. Women's Rights
11. Support LGBTQIA* Rights
12. Aging With Dignity

2.    Of these 12 issues, only 4 (numbers 6, 7, 10, 11) refer to benefits for specific social groups like races or genders. Number 12 refers to seniors, but seniors are different because everyone who lives long enough becomes a senior. No one is born a senior.

Moreover, the order of the items in the list shows that she prioritizes issues that affect all working Americans. The first five issues in her list are important to all working Americans. Not one of them mentions a races, genders or even generations.

Her Way of Talking Emphasizes Class Solidarity but Not Socialism

Her descriptions of her positions on these issues show how she thinks that Democrats ought to talk about them. She does not talk about socialism or class conflict on her campaign website although she has described herself as a democratic socialist. She simply says that her policies would be good for all working Americans. 

•          On Medicare for All, she says, “Medicare for All uncouples healthcare from your job.  It allows everyone to receive quality care that is affordable at the hospital, pharmacy or doctor’s office. It will cover primary, mental, dental, vision, women’s health, and emergency room care in addition to prescription drugs.” She is also cost conscious. “A national healthcare system has stronger buying power and can negotiate lower prices for drugs and medical equipment as well as curb the astronomically high administrative salaries."

• On Elevate Public Education, she says, “Our schools should never be on the chopping block, even when budgets are tight. Now is the time to strengthen our education system and make it more affordable to all, so that students are prepared for jobs in a post-COVID economy.” Her website adds, “Rising tuition costs have made college and trade school inaccessible for millions and saddled millions of others with student loan debt.  That is why Alexandria is working to liberate people suffering from student-debt and make our public college system affordable once again.”

• On Justice for Workers and Small Businesses, she says, "Far too often the United States government chooses to side with corporate wealth at the expense of working people and small business. This must end." 

This is a vocabulary of class solidarity among working Americans, but it is not a vocabulary of socialist revolution. It focuses on specific issues and demands incremental changes rather than revolution.  It focuses on policies that restore equity for all working Americans and not on issues that divide working Americans along the lines of race or gender. That is the way that Democrats should talk. That is the way forward.