A ConservaDem trashes Democratic progressives, because of course ...

Francisco Panizza writes about how Trump's theatrical refusal to accept the results of the 2020 election fits into his right-populist politics, Trump: Once a populist always a populist LSE Blog 11/13/2020). His comments address the "cultural cleavage" expression about (supposedly) not being heard that I mentioned in my last post

When it became clear that Trump had lost the election the commentariat thought that he should behave as a good old liberal democrat and concede. Once again, they are being left disappointed. Why should he? By claiming electoral fraud and refusing to concede, he is fuelling [sic] the long-held grievances of his base. In 2016, Trump told his supporters that their voices were not being heard, now he is telling them that their votes are not being counted. In both cases his supporters believe that they have been denied their claim to incarnate the true American people and the exercise of their sovereign rights.

By alleging mass fraud that would require the complicity of Democratic Party voters, the party’s machine and Democratic-leaning electoral authorities, Trump is creating an antagonism that is both wider and deeper than the one he set up against Hillary Clinton in 2016. In fact, one of the weaknesses of Trump’s 2020 electoral campaign was that it was difficult for him to demonise Biden, as he did with Clinton. Now, he is denying legitimacy to his government and othering his voters as cheaters. By further polarising American politics, Trump is also strengthening his grip on the Republican party, as seen by the lack of any substantial challenges to his allegations of fraud from the Republican establishment. Today, Trump owns the votes, owns the narrative and owns the party. [my emphasis]

Conservative Democrats, of course, couldn't wait until Trump actually concedes - well, to be fair, he's not likely to ever personally concede - to start fighting the Real Enemy. Which in their view, means progressive Democrats. So, the intra-party fight is on (again). Hopefully, this will go on for the next four years. Because the conservative Dems won't stop it during that time. So the progressives can't, either. Politics is about conflict, after all. See Mr. Madison's Federalist #10. In which he observes, that "the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property."

ConservaDem Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin falls back on the we-aren't-being-heard theme in explaining why Democrats should be, uh, more like Donald Trump. The guy who just lost the Presidential election by more than five million votes. (Mayank Aggarwal, Biden’s lead in popular vote now more than 5 million Independent 11/11/2020)

Tim Alberta does stenography for her in Elissa Slotkin Braces for a Democratic Civil War Politico 11/13/2020:

“You know, the one thing I will say about Donald Trump,” Slotkin began. “He doesn’t talk down to anybody. He is who he is, but he doesn’t talk down to anyone. And I think that there is a certain voter out there because of that who identifies with him and appreciates him.” (This “certain voter,” she noted, is the MAGA enthusiast who appreciates that Trump does not condescend to them while ignoring how he belittles and demeans others.) [emphasis in original]

Which is why I don't find trying not to look down on the voters is particularly deep strategic insight. Isn't this something that pretty much every candidate in any democracy knows they sure try to avoid doing?

In addition:

“It’s not just that he eats cheeseburgers at a big celebratory dinner. It’s not just that he does things that the common man can kind of appreciate. And it’s not even because he uses kind of simplistic language—he doesn’t use complicated, wonky language, the way a lot of Democrats do,” Slotkin said. “We sometimes make people feel like they aren’t conscientious enough. They aren’t thoughtful enough. They aren’t ‘woke’ enough. They aren’t smart enough or educated enough to just understand what’s good for them. … It’s talking down to people. It’s alienating them. And there’s just certain voters who feel so distant from the political process—it’s not their life, it’s not their world. They hate it. They don’t like all that politics stuff. Trump speaks to them, because he includes them.” [my emphasis]

Uh, isn't bitching about voters who just "don’t like all that politics stuff" a way of saying you "look down" on them. Should Democrats show they are listening to them by saying "politics is awful, I hate it and you should to"? Hard to see how that makes sense for a candidate actually running a political campaign in an election. But ConservaDems insights are sometimes difficult to decipher. Even if they avoid that thar "complicated, wonky language"!

Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, this kind of talk means the Democrats should look to stage Sister Souljah moments to show white voter that minorities bug them, too. It's the principle of The One True Thing David Frum Ever Said: "while Republican politicians fear their base, Democratic pols hate theirs." (Gibbs on the Left FrumForum 08/10/2010)

Alberta's article gives another long explication of the ConservaDems attacks on progressives. Don't look for any discussion of the popularity of, say Medicare For All. Or any explanation of how Democrats can get Republicans to stop calling them names in election campaigns. Since conservatives have been attacking their opponents as "socialists" since, oh, 1865 or so. (See: Heather Cox Richardson, Marx is Not Around the Corner Moyers on Democracy 10/28/2020.)