What's funny is that I remember people writing post mortems like this for the Republicans not too long ago. Many times actually. Most recently in 2020 and 2022, but also throughout the Obama administration.
The truth is that both parties have serious but *non-fatal* flaws, and both need serious reform. The Democrats have a national brand that's too married to the images and excesses of far left progressivism. The Republicans have become a personality cult with no principles or guiding light, save an aversion to the left and a misguided, unquestionable loyalty to Donald Trump.
Until we reckon with how broken both parties are, and yet how resilient there are as well, we'll keep missing the bigger picture, I fear. But I appreciate Creswell's insights nonetheless.
While I agree that both parties have serious flaws, and need serious reform, once again you are missing the point of Trump and the republicans. Speaking for myself and all of those people I know voted for Trump, we’re well aware of his flaws and principles. But we also know that he is trying to do his absolute best for OUR country. With clear steps and follow up.
Unfortunately this last president, had no clear way forward, and neither did Harris. To my eyes neither one wanted what was best for our country, but what was an ideological vision with not grounding.
I totally agree with this. The left is so tone deaf now that they might as well be completely deaf. I disagree with one assertion the left gives for losing, they didn't lose because of an uneducated populous, they lost because of an educated populous. We listened and researched.
The internet in general--and X in particular--has allowed the populace to become educated in ways not previously easily available. X's "community notes" serve as a non-partisan fact check. We no longer need Snopes to try to spin what runs counter to the narrative du jour. See bullshit? Call it bullshit.
When the lights are on all the time, it's hard to keep people in the dark. Some people--many, in fact--don't want the lights on. But last November it was pretty clear that most voters did. When the MSM tells you things that are patently wrong, it's hard to believe anything that they say. Without MSM, there would be no Democrat party. And now even with it, they're sucking wind.
Don't expect Republicans to argue wit them over what passes as their messaging. I think Napoleon was the one who said that he didn't want to interrupt his enemies when they were busy making mistakes.
While what was written about the political/messaging mistakes made by the Democrat Party is true, nonetheless, there would be nothing that the nation would gain from the Party becoming less virulent and more politically aware, as, even if it were to make a move in that direction, it is and always will be incorrigible, forever a negative influence upon true progress, prosperity, safety, and fairness. The more it remains politically defeated, the better for all.
Are we now calling legitimate critiques of blatant authoritarian behavior "attacks"? The MAGA movement makes no pretense of being democratic—it fits the definition of fascism almost perfectly: an extreme form of racialized nationalism, backed by capitalist interests, led by a cult-like figure who convinces his followers that they, the majority, are somehow victims of a marginalized minority.
Wasn’t January 6th a clear manifestation of anti-democratic ideology—an ideology further fueled by Trump’s open musing about serving a third, unconstitutional term? At what point do we recognize these actions as threats to our democratic foundation and raise our voices in defense of it?
This man—an adjudicated sexual predator and now convicted of 34 felonies—is once again violating ethical boundaries, reportedly using the White House as a venue for personal business. He has weakened the Western alliance, alienated traditional allies, pardoned political cronies, attacked freedom of the press, weaponized the Justice Department against opponents, and now flirts with a constitutional crisis by defying the authority of the judiciary.
On this issue, I must strongly and unequivocally disagree with you.
Thank you for taking the time to engage. I’d like to offer a brief response.
First, I used the word “attack” in a descriptive—not pejorative—sense. An attack can be justified or unjustified, and I have no problem with critics forcefully challenging Trump when the critique is grounded in fact and logic, and not expressed through physical violence.
As for Trump’s musings about serving a third term, I would caution against taking them at face value. He often engages in provocation or trolling, and his critics frequently take the bait. That doesn’t excuse careless rhetoric, but context matters.
Regarding January 6, I have no sympathy for anyone who assaulted others or destroyed property. That behavior is indefensible. But beyond that, it’s a complex event with legal and political dimensions that continue to unfold.
You raise the charge of fascism. I respectfully disagree. “Fascism” is a term with contested definitions, even among historians, and in contemporary discourse it's often deployed more as a political slur than a precise label. When it becomes shorthand for “people I oppose,” it loses explanatory power.
On Trump’s legal convictions: It’s undeniable that he’s now a convicted felon. But it’s also fair to ask whether the legal system has been used, at times, as a political tool—what some call lawfare. Was the overriding motive to enforce the law impartially, or to prevent a political opponent from returning to power? That’s a legitimate question, and one that should be asked no matter who is in office.
I’ll stop there to avoid being long-winded, but I do appreciate your engagement and the seriousness of your concerns.
Trump is a buffoon totally enabled by the buffoonish actions of his opposition.
Specifically:
They opened our borders to all with no vetting and now raise holy hell when the worst among them are sent home.
They believe that a man can become a woman and can play women’s sports and enter women’s private spaces, and that children who might grow up to be gay should be mutilated in pursuit of the impossible
They discriminate on the basis of race and sex today because in the past there was discrimination on the basis of race and sex.
Those are the avowed policies of the Democratic Party. A party of buffoons.
What's funny is that I remember people writing post mortems like this for the Republicans not too long ago. Many times actually. Most recently in 2020 and 2022, but also throughout the Obama administration.
The truth is that both parties have serious but *non-fatal* flaws, and both need serious reform. The Democrats have a national brand that's too married to the images and excesses of far left progressivism. The Republicans have become a personality cult with no principles or guiding light, save an aversion to the left and a misguided, unquestionable loyalty to Donald Trump.
Until we reckon with how broken both parties are, and yet how resilient there are as well, we'll keep missing the bigger picture, I fear. But I appreciate Creswell's insights nonetheless.
While I agree that both parties have serious flaws, and need serious reform, once again you are missing the point of Trump and the republicans. Speaking for myself and all of those people I know voted for Trump, we’re well aware of his flaws and principles. But we also know that he is trying to do his absolute best for OUR country. With clear steps and follow up.
Unfortunately this last president, had no clear way forward, and neither did Harris. To my eyes neither one wanted what was best for our country, but what was an ideological vision with not grounding.
What is the evidence for this? He's been enriching himself through crypto schemes and pay to play dinners at Mar a Lago.
I totally agree with this. The left is so tone deaf now that they might as well be completely deaf. I disagree with one assertion the left gives for losing, they didn't lose because of an uneducated populous, they lost because of an educated populous. We listened and researched.
The internet in general--and X in particular--has allowed the populace to become educated in ways not previously easily available. X's "community notes" serve as a non-partisan fact check. We no longer need Snopes to try to spin what runs counter to the narrative du jour. See bullshit? Call it bullshit.
When the lights are on all the time, it's hard to keep people in the dark. Some people--many, in fact--don't want the lights on. But last November it was pretty clear that most voters did. When the MSM tells you things that are patently wrong, it's hard to believe anything that they say. Without MSM, there would be no Democrat party. And now even with it, they're sucking wind.
Don't expect Republicans to argue wit them over what passes as their messaging. I think Napoleon was the one who said that he didn't want to interrupt his enemies when they were busy making mistakes.
While what was written about the political/messaging mistakes made by the Democrat Party is true, nonetheless, there would be nothing that the nation would gain from the Party becoming less virulent and more politically aware, as, even if it were to make a move in that direction, it is and always will be incorrigible, forever a negative influence upon true progress, prosperity, safety, and fairness. The more it remains politically defeated, the better for all.
Are we now calling legitimate critiques of blatant authoritarian behavior "attacks"? The MAGA movement makes no pretense of being democratic—it fits the definition of fascism almost perfectly: an extreme form of racialized nationalism, backed by capitalist interests, led by a cult-like figure who convinces his followers that they, the majority, are somehow victims of a marginalized minority.
Wasn’t January 6th a clear manifestation of anti-democratic ideology—an ideology further fueled by Trump’s open musing about serving a third, unconstitutional term? At what point do we recognize these actions as threats to our democratic foundation and raise our voices in defense of it?
This man—an adjudicated sexual predator and now convicted of 34 felonies—is once again violating ethical boundaries, reportedly using the White House as a venue for personal business. He has weakened the Western alliance, alienated traditional allies, pardoned political cronies, attacked freedom of the press, weaponized the Justice Department against opponents, and now flirts with a constitutional crisis by defying the authority of the judiciary.
On this issue, I must strongly and unequivocally disagree with you.
Mr. Washington,
Thank you for taking the time to engage. I’d like to offer a brief response.
First, I used the word “attack” in a descriptive—not pejorative—sense. An attack can be justified or unjustified, and I have no problem with critics forcefully challenging Trump when the critique is grounded in fact and logic, and not expressed through physical violence.
As for Trump’s musings about serving a third term, I would caution against taking them at face value. He often engages in provocation or trolling, and his critics frequently take the bait. That doesn’t excuse careless rhetoric, but context matters.
Regarding January 6, I have no sympathy for anyone who assaulted others or destroyed property. That behavior is indefensible. But beyond that, it’s a complex event with legal and political dimensions that continue to unfold.
You raise the charge of fascism. I respectfully disagree. “Fascism” is a term with contested definitions, even among historians, and in contemporary discourse it's often deployed more as a political slur than a precise label. When it becomes shorthand for “people I oppose,” it loses explanatory power.
On Trump’s legal convictions: It’s undeniable that he’s now a convicted felon. But it’s also fair to ask whether the legal system has been used, at times, as a political tool—what some call lawfare. Was the overriding motive to enforce the law impartially, or to prevent a political opponent from returning to power? That’s a legitimate question, and one that should be asked no matter who is in office.
I’ll stop there to avoid being long-winded, but I do appreciate your engagement and the seriousness of your concerns.
We suspect the author of this piece might not disagree with much of this. We'll await his answer.
Trump is a buffoon totally enabled by the buffoonish actions of his opposition.
Specifically:
They opened our borders to all with no vetting and now raise holy hell when the worst among them are sent home.
They believe that a man can become a woman and can play women’s sports and enter women’s private spaces, and that children who might grow up to be gay should be mutilated in pursuit of the impossible
They discriminate on the basis of race and sex today because in the past there was discrimination on the basis of race and sex.
Those are the avowed policies of the Democratic Party. A party of buffoons.