How to Fight Back
What does a Democratic counter-offensive look like?
Trump’s demolition derby and the budget battle provide the best opportunity Democrats have ever had to SHOW LEADERSHIP. We fight with everything we have, but we also have to help the public envision us as a viable alternative. We must contest and replace the underlying justifications for their actions: that the federal government is inherently bad and that tax cuts create jobs. Here is a BOLD PLAN to force the debate back onto our terms.
Use your best judgment. If you agree with what I recommend here, please help me get the word out by forwarding this email and sharing it on social media. Thank you!
A Democratic Counter-Offensive
Trump, Musk, and Voght, et al. are operating on the premise that the federal government is so hopelessly broken that we should zero out all federal funding and start the budget from scratch, making each program justify its existence. This is known as “zero-based budgeting.” They have been doing it by “impounding” the funds, which is illegal and wildly unconstitutional. Now, they are also doing it the legal way, through Congress, through the budget appropriations process.
Here is the problem. For sixty years, a billionaire-funded network of corporations, politicians, PACs, news networks, churches, foundations and think tanks have demonized “Washington” and government itself - public attacks that we have abjectly failed to counter. For this reason, too many Americans see drastic action as justifiable. Some even see Trump’s willingness to break the law to do it as the actions of a uniquely great leader.
This has always been their strategy. It’s not bad to destroy the federal government if it is hopelessly corrupt. It is not bad to slash taxes on the rich if that’s the best way to create jobs. (And it’s not bad to work with Russia if they’re not really our enemy.)
We fight their illegal moves in every way we can, and we will beat back some of their actions in court. However, our best bet at stopping Trump is to WIN BACK CONGRESS. Either way, we must do everything in our power to build the political will behind our efforts.
The best way to fight their actions now and defeat them next year, is to challenge, defeat, and replace the underlying assumptions that justify their actions.
We start by making the unapologetic case for government itself, not just for individual programs and policies. So when they say that we should justify the existence of all of our government programs, we should say BUCKLE UP, BUTTERCUP, because we’re going to BRING IT.
SAY THIS:
“Those who attack government are attacking all of us, the American people. We have the right to exercise our collective power to shape the society in which we live, particularly when it comes to fighting for economic fairness against the overwhelming power of concentrated wealth.”
Face Our Fear
We have to stop giving in, or worse, not even trying, because we fear criticism. It’s coming either way: we may as well work it to our advantage.
Most Americans in both parties actually want the federal government to play a strong role in solving a whole range of problems. The only reason supporting “government itself” feels politically risky is because we have let the opposition set the terms of the debate for far too long.
We Democrats need to learn that in order to win public opinion, sometimes you have to pick a fight in the public debate and even be willing to lose that fight.
Getting attacked is the proof that you are authentic and willing to take a risk. Not backing down is the proof that you have guts. In fact, your conviction in the face of opposition is what convinces people that you might actually be right. This has been one of Trump’s most effective strategies.
Pick the Right Fight
The work of the federal government is absolutely vital to the well-being of the American people and our country as a whole. Our actions to save our government from an overwhelming assault by billionaires and corrupt politicians must be as bold and unprecedented as our opponents’ actions to destroy it.
We change the entire dynamic of the debate by refusing to fight on their terms and launching a new fight around the questions we should be asking.
The WRONG FIGHT: “Which spending/programs we should cut.”
The RIGHT FIGHT: “Which revenues should we increase?”
OUR POSITION: No cuts. First, we figure out what people need from their government. Then, we raise the revenue to fund the government we need.
Last time, Republicans refused to meet unless tax increases were off the table. We could refuse to meet unless spending cuts are off the table. That is how you play hardball.
SAY THIS:
“The federal government we have now is the output of collective decision making by generations of Americans on both sides of the aisle. Every program we have exists for a damned good reason. If anything, we need more staff and more funding, not less.”
We don’t have to apologize for defending the so-called “status quo” but that doesn’t mean we have to stop there. We can fight for something even better.
A Budget for the People
We pick this fight by PROPOSING OUR OWN BUDGET, or at least an outline, that involves increasing funding to the levels that we know these programs actually need.
We should be asking: What would it take to fully staff air traffic control? To prevent bird flu? To make corporations behave like good corporate citizens? To make immigration safe and orderly? To maintain our lead in medical innovation? To prevent unrest in other countries so it doesn’t end up here? You get the idea.
This approach dovetails nicely with our current efforts to publicize the damage being wrought by the arbitrary and unconstitutional withholding of Congressionally approved funding for everything from USAID to the CFPB. We could have a marathon press conference running all day, every day, with government employees explaining what they do in their jobs and why it matters, and then chop it up into 1 min videos for social media.
One thing we do not talk about is being willing to “shut down the government.” That is what Trump/Musk/Voght are trying to do. We’re the ones fighting FOR government.
Demonstrate Leadership
Our current plan is DEFENSE: to gain concessions from Trump and Republicans by withholding votes for their version of the federal budget. This plan is OFFENSE: propose our own budget and fight tooth and nail to peel off a few Republican votes for our plan.
I know it is absurdly unlikely that we would get Republican votes (although we would not need many) and even if we did, our budget would be D.O.A. at the White House. Nonetheless, it is incredibly important that we demonstrate to the American people what we would do if they PUT US BACK IN POWER. That means we don’t just perform fighting. We actually fight with everything we have. We lean on our Republican colleagues. We show the American people that Democrats have a MotherForking spine.
We do everything in our power to ratchet up the political costs to Trump and Republicans of either cutting programs or shutting down the government.
They may pass a budget without us, in which case we will make sure they own the consequences. And if Republicans can’t pass a budget without our votes, we start the negotiations much, much deeper in our own territory and force them to move a lot further to meet us in the middle.
INTERMISSION
I would have put the rest into a separate newsletter, but this strategy is a one-two punch. Above is “What do people really need from government?” and below is “What is the right way to pay for it?” If you want to take some time to absorb what you have already read, this would be a good time for a break!
The Case for Taxing the Rich
Two Sides to the Equation
The RIGHT FIGHT: “How do we increase revenues?”
OUR POSITION: We reverse the revenue gap created by decades of allowing corporations and the obscenely rich to grow fat off the benefits of government and hand the bill to the American people.
SAY THIS:
“You want to talk about balancing the budget? Let’s talk about how Trump’s tax cuts for the rich blew a giant hole in the revenue side of the equation.”
This “revenue gap” and “revenue side of the equation” language is important. There are two sides to balancing any budget. Our debate has always been about “cutting spending so we can afford to cut taxes.” We need to flip that to “raising the revenue so we can pay for the government people need."
How the Rich Get Rich
We say, “Republicans are for tax cuts for the rich.” We mean, “They’re not on your side.” Here is why that won’t get the job done. Most people will say they oppose tax cuts for the rich, but ultimately, people give Republicans credit for doing something “unpopular” for the “good of the economy” which they interpret as being “fiscally responsible.” Once again, we are debating on Republicans’ terms.
We only win by destroying the underlying premise that tax cuts for the rich are the primary driver of economic growth. As I have said before, Democrats cannot win the public debate around “who's better at handling the economy” until we debunk and replace the “free market” narrative with better explanatory narratives for how the economy works.
The WRONG FIGHT: “Do tax cuts for the rich create jobs?” Talking about what we’re against, only normalizes what we’re against.
The RIGHT FIGHT: “Does the accumulation of excess wealth at the top hurt the economy and suppress wage and job growth?” Hint: the answer is YES.
OUR POSITION: The ultra rich got that way due to the contributions of the American people as laborers, consumers, and taxpayers. Corporations and billionaires have a moral obligation to pay back that debt.
THE ECONOMIC NARRATIVE
Low taxes on excessive profits and extreme wealth creates incentives to strip-mine companies for short-term gain by cutting jobs and suppressing wages.
High taxes on excessive profits and extreme wealth creates incentives to roll profits back into the business, into productive investment: developing your workforce, expanding capacity, and creating more jobs.
Excess accumulation of wealth at the top warps and destabilizes the whole economy.
Investment can be productive or constructive, but it can also be destructive, speculative and/or extractive.
Speculative: Billionaires and giant investment funds often use their money to create market bubbles (like in housing and A.I.) and buy into wildly overvalued Ponzi schemes (like crypto), putting our entire economy at risk.
Extractive: They use their enormous cash advantage to warp markets or monopolize whole industries, so they can squeeze workers, hike prices and crush competition from small businesses.
Wages generate economic growth. Increase wages and that money gets spent in the community and multiplied many times over. Wages create the real economic demand that drives business expansion and the growth of good jobs.
Public investment (paid for by the American people) drives growth by providing infrastructure, education, medical and technological innovation, transportation systems, the energy grid, increased manufacturing capacity, financing, and the consumer incentives and government contracts that businesses (from family farms and small businesses to giant companies like Tesla and Starlink) depend on, and without which they could not succeed.
In a healthy, stable, and fair economy, prosperity is broadly shared.
We should tax the heck out of billionaires and massive corporations, and lower taxes on working people and small businesses, because they are the ones who really drive job growth.
THE MORAL CASE
The richest corporations and individuals have a moral obligation to pay their fair share for the public resources and services provided by the American people, from which they have gained the lions’ share of the benefit. Note that our current messaging does not explain what makes “paying their fair share” actually fair.
The richest corporations and individuals are also those who have extracted the most from the American people as workers and consumers.
In a fair society, owners and workers would share the benefits of their partnership. Massive accumulation of wealth only happens when owners take more than their fair share. They use their money to elect politicians (like Trump and Republicans) who will get rid of the rules that keep us safe, protect workers, prevent fraud, promote competition, and keep wages up and prices down, which is exactly what they are doing right now.
We need to convince people that giving the already rich more money is an absolutely terrible idea. I think we can do that.
HOMEWORK
And if all that wasn’t enough, I am giving you homework.
Once you have absorbed all of the above, if you want to learn more about how to actually execute this strategy, read this previously published post, in which I provide step-by-step instructions for taking back this particular debate.
Repost: The Art of War
We have to set the terms of the public debate. We set the agenda, change the questions being debated, and change the criteria by which voters judge whose actions are wrong or right.
Thank you for sticking with me. Thank you for helping me spread the word. Thank you for subscribing and making it possible for me to do this work. I could not do this without you.
I know this is hard. We can get through this, but it may take some time. Don’t forget to take care of yourself and stay connected to the things that bring you joy.
In solidarity, always,
Antonia
My work is completely financed by subscribers like you. All content is free, but many people choose to be paying subscribers. Subscribe now to make sure you don’t miss any issues, or upgrade to a paying subscription to help support this work!
NOTES:
More background reading…
I would also recommend to people getting involved with your county party and pushing them to implement these ideas. I know it's annoying to consider that you have to become more involved with an organization that you are uphappy with, but these organizations aren't going to change on their own. My husband is a party official in our county and I run a local Dem club. At the county party level, it is still a lot of old guard that kind of resent who they consider the "Johnny-Come-Latelys" (people who got involved with the party after 2016). It's frustrating, but it's not going to change until the people that want to party to change are more numerous than the people who talk about the way we used to do things. And, as frustrating as it is, that requires people getting more involved with the party machinery, not less.
Right on target, another bullseye! While we're at it, can we please stop calling the Musk/Trump shit show a "shock and awe" campaign? Anyone who is shocked or awe struck must have been asleep for the last eight years. What we're seeing is the same old Trump cycle of brag, blame, and cut. How about we call it the "Musk/Trump Crime Wave"?