Democrats had a good week last week. Defying the expectations of some, Kamala Harris emerged as a credible presidential candidate. The now-presumed Democratic nominee is raising millions of dollars in funds, signing up thousands of volunteers, and rising in the polls. All that is great. But the prospect of a second Trump presidency remains. Democrats have not broken the code to reach voters skeptical about the direction of the Democratic party. That is a problem.
Democrats often assume, with justification, that they are the party of empathy and common sense. Democrats reject racism and oppose income inequality. Unions embrace the party. So why do so many working Americans still show up at Trump rallies, sporting MAGA baseball caps and telling reporters that the 2020 election was stolen and that Democrats are cheating again by replacing Biden on their 2024 ticket with Harris?
Over the weekend, I gained new insights into the minds of voters who appear immune to the buzz that Harris has generated. These voters are not “haters” but fashion themselves as “independents.” If you push them, they will explain that, unlike you, they listen to both sides. One such “independent” voter last week told me that the criminal prosecutions of Trump were “bogus” and politically motivated. Unintentionally quoting Trump, I was told “Trump did nothing wrong.” When I asked about the rape in a department store dressing room, I was told, “It never happened. He did not know her.”
Some “independent” voters are also buying into Trump’s characterization of Harris as a “crazy ultra-left-wing radical” who would open the border, defund the police, and federalize elementary and secondary education. Harris, of course, has not endorsed any of that agenda, but it doesn’t matter. Harris was a senator from California. Isn’t that proof enough of how leftist she is?
The skepticism relating to Harris extends to her qualifications. She is a lawyer and experienced prosecutor who served as Attorney General of California before being elected to the Senate. That experience, I was told over the weekend, “is irrelevant.” In response, I suggested that Trump is a failed businessman who has been found guilty of business fraud in New York, got his start with a large gift from his father, and has been bailed out of financial trouble several times by bankruptcy. My skeptical friend told me, “Those things never happened.”
Failing to recognize a dead end in the conversation, I returned to the subject of Harris and noted that the speeches she has made since Biden’s withdrawal from the race were coherent and intelligent. My friend did not dispute that characterization but simply repeated the claim that Harris is “not ready.” This prompted another woman in the room to ask, “What about Hillary Clinton?” The response was, “She also wasn’t ready.” Service as Secretary of State and in the U.S. Senate proves nothing, apparently.
The conversation continued on a sharp downward trajectory towards a shouting match or name calling. I ended the conversation by excusing myself to watch the Olympic opening ceremony. My TV was showing the controversial reenactment of Da Vinci’s “Last Supper.” One word describes it, “weird.” I would use the same word to describe political discussions where my facts are rejected as “fake” by others.
How do you discuss issues with people who appear to believe many of Trump’s documented lies? I am still seeking an answer.
How do you get someone to listen to a Trump rally, hear the nonsense the ex-president spouts off about Hannibal Lecter, his golf game (“I knock the crap out of the ball”) and dozens of other subjects? I don’t know.
When I press supposedly “open-minded independents” to focus on Trump’s own words, I am told that I don’t get that Trump is only joking. If this claim is correct, I also don’t get what a joke is.
Trump’s rhetoric since the Republican convention has been, in a word, disgusting. His selection of the self-destructing J.D. Vance may be more responsible for Harris’ rise in the polls than the speeches that Harris has given, but I hope not. I like to think that Harris is not only “ready,” but also willing and able. Two of these three qualities don’t apply to Republican Supreme Leader Trump.
J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. He writes on politics, government, and, too infrequently, other subjects.
Chris Gordon says
I once believed that Lyndon Johnson was evil. I have since come to a more realistic view of his presidency. i believe that a similar awakening will come, one day, to our MAGA friends and neighbors. Keep the faith. Even the most ignorant among us are salvageable when they are repeatedly confronted with the factual truth.
John Dean says
Thanks for the comment. You make an excellent point.
Gren Whitman says
Yes, his rhetoric is “disgusting,” and today (7/31), too late for your article, Donald Trump enmired himself even deeper into racist muck by stating, “I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black.”
As Mother Jones quickly pointed out, “White man tells Black journalists his Black opponent is not Black.”
Dems, GOPs, and “independents” should take notice: Perhaps this felon’s capacity for being disgusting is bottomless.
Patty Heaps says
Spare me your outrage. How dare someone point out that she has used whatever race, skin color or ethnicity suits the occasion. Screen shots abound of different headlines with different “identities” – black, Asian, Indian or any mix of the three. While Google and others may have censored those images, the internet is forever.
David A Turner says
J.E., well prepared arguments in your article today. Good on you for talking politics with a dedicated Trumper. I enjoyed your recounting the experience. I’ve heard some breathtaking comments from several of them myself. The personality description you offer of Trump provides a huge argument for conservative and moderate undecideds to vote for Harris — sooner the better. And undecideds will determine the election — not Chestertown’s liberals nor Rockville’s conservatives. So it’s important.
Unfortunately for your argument, those on my team find a great many of his proposed policies highly favorable — i.e., Schedule F for the bureaucracy and closing the Border; and a great deal (almost all) of Kamala’s actual policies dead wrong, for example, her wanting to hold Israel more responsible for Gazan casualties than Biden does and, obviously, opening the Border. (No, we’re not fooled by her “weekend conversion”.) One huge place where we find ourselves in flux regards the candidates’ policies on abortion. Many, many undecideds believe it should be an easy option for women. If that’s someone’s top, overweening issue, vote Harris.
What I’m saying is that your argument is not quiet as clear cut as you may hint. Should a voter’s basic decision come down to candidate’s personality (and stability) or policy (and beliefs)? Right now, I’m still waiting for the mainstream media to ease up on their flood light, cheerleading coverage, and let us see the actual woman. As a careerlong government speechwriter I can tell you that she’s currently heavily scripted and when discussing any policy seriously — except abortion — she’s on teleprompter. Even her “call backs” with audiences are rehearsed.
Do you think her idea of having a debate with Trump is very much in order? Or should ours’ be a predetermined decision right now to vote Harris?
John Dean says
Thank you for your comment. I understand your skepticism about Harris–as Reagan said, “Trust but verify.” I don’t have any problem with voters watching the Harris campaign closely until they are comfortable with her qualifications and positions.
Due to January 6 and many of the things Trump has said that are either lies or racist, there is no scenario that will get me to vote for Trump. This having been said, I believe Trump and Harris should debate. Those voters who are undecided or skeptical about either candidate may benefit from a direct exchange between the two candidates.
Again, thanks for your comment and for reading the piece.
James Nick says
Mr Turner says he finds a number of trump’s policy proposals to be “highly favorable”, including, but not only, Schedule F. Schedule F was actually created at the end of the trump administration via executive order. Its goal was to strip protections from civil servants perceived as disloyal to the president and encourage expressions of allegiance to trump when hiring. Fortunately, it was too late and Biden rescinded it. Estimates of the number of civil servants that would have been affected range from 50K to 100+K.
Trump has announced his intention to reissue Schedule F “on day one” of his next administration. He has made it clear in countless ways that if he were to win he would expect total loyalty from cabinet secretaries down to the most junior agency employees.
When combined with the recent SCOTUS rulings effectively granting presidents monarchical powers, implementing Schedule F, as envisioned by Project 2025{1), is the very operational definition of an authoritarian state. It’s what authoritarianism looks like when put into day-to-day practice. Think people in North Korea who are required to continually show their allegiance to Dear Leader with their over-the-top exhibition fealty and patriotism.
Schedule F would allow an American president to abuse his power to punish, intimidate, and silence opponents by making government aid, contracts, licenses, merger approvals, tax benefits, permits, civil penalties, relief aid, grants, and regulatory waivers contingent on showing personal fealty without interference from a compliant congress and Supreme Court.
For example, NOAA would not be allowed to study or speak about climate change like in Texas and Florida now. The CDC would not be permitted to collect or disseminate data about pandemics that could undermine the administration’s party line. The FDA would be directed to remove any and all drugs from the market that had anything to do with treating, say, gender dysphoria or abortion regardless of safety, effectiveness, or need. The FED would be directed to set interest rates on the basis of political necessity, not actual economic data. And so on and so on across all government agencies. No one could ever be sure they were getting the truth.
Public officials are required to take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not swear allegiance to a president. It is THE very core tenet of democracy.
This is what Mr Turner is advocating by supporting Schedule F.
1.https://static1.squarespace.com/static/659f18e58ecd8b48c167275a/t/65a845a81c397a74fc70942f/1705526706337/Authoritarian+Playbook+for+2025.pdf#page=33
John Dean says
Thank you for this explanation of one of Trump’s (Project 2025) most dangerous proposals. You can summarize the proposal as “an effective way to drive talent out of the Federal Government and kill federal programs from the inside.”
David A Turner says
James and John, sorry, I just now noticed y’all’s heartfelt comments re. my posting. It’s Saturday evening and here goes:
Good reform is not the prerogative of only the Left. But you’d sure think so. When a conservative reform pops up regarding federal management, most liberals (Republican and Democrat) believe it’s illegitimate and already out-of-order. It’s their territory after all. But tweaking governance and its institutions in order to improve them may also be accomplished by the Right. Especially when decades of experience validates the need for such change. I am both a conservative and a lifelong student of government and its employee management — ever since I walked the halls as a graduate student at the LBJ School of Public Affairs in Austin and called the Senators’ roll in the Texas State Senate chamber. I fail to view my opinion on operating government and its public workforce as wrongful or intrusive. It’s just unorthodox.
Today’s social and political environment demands that future steps in this area must deviate from the direction they’ve taken since FDR and Woodrow Wilson. Surely you’ve noticed? Too many Americans believe the game has become unfair to their interests and their remedies (elections). It appears the dice in Washington are loaded.
“The legal basis for Schedule F appointments was a section of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. § 7511(b)(2)), which exempts from civil service protections federal employees ‘whose position has been determined to be of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating character’.” — Wikipedia
Is that a clear enough rationale? For context think back to BBC’s “Yes Minister” comedy television series.
John, again I appreciate your stating your concerns. But allow me to point out the problem that will be solved by Schedule F is hoary with age in D.C. And I acknowledge it’s highly partisan in nature. Republicans and conservatives have complained that much (most) of the higher career levels of the Executive Branch (GS13s and above) effectively comprises an additional policy arm of congressional Democrats and liberals inside Washington. Even Lyndon Johnson acknowledged this valid concern when he proposed plans to move the capital from the liberal East Coast to the conservative/moderate Midwest to redress the severe bias.
The only real flaw with Schedule F is that its implementation was unpalatable to Democrats because it doesn’t also include a “give” for liberals. I’ve noticed such accommodations have become de rigueur whenever a strong reform hits Washington DC, and its proponents seriously expect it to be enacted — of whatever issue or slant. But such as we are, conservatives and Heritage Foundation continue to lack the finesse to adjust our reform proposals when we unveil ours. What can I say? We’re a flatfooted honest lot.
Like you, perhaps, I’ve worked in Executive Branch policy-making positions as a “careerist” — for most of my 45-years as a public servant. Again and again, I’ve witnessed this slice of federal employees embrace and enact proposals that emerge from the Left. But during conservative administrations they resist, delay and outright deny implementation of the various presidential initiatives. From Nixon to Obama. So, of course, I also notice that the alarm against Schedule F is being rung primarily by gentlemen and ladies of the Left. Actually, exclusively so. It’s your ox that’s being gored, some of your power diminished. You’ll notice I’m ignoring the alarm bells being struck by so-called non-partisan think tanks embracing the bureaucracy, by government labor unions, and by the increasingly few Rockefeller Republicans.
Of course, I’ve also noticed there have been senior executives who are personally liberal, but who forthrightly embraced doing their bit during a conservative Administration’s initiatives. It almost made me tearful it was so very rare.
Should employees who honestly go forth and follow (never determine) an Administration’s initiatives be worried? “Only those bad apples who are derelict of their duties or outright trying to thwart their agencies’ actions need to worry about their job security,” writes the Heritage analysist.
Thanks again.
Gren Whitman says
Common sense suggests to me that replacing qualified civil servants in D.C. with Trump toadies will not be a successful recipe for good government.
David A Turner says
Gren: Thanks. And I entirely understand this reform bewilders you and others coming from the liberal camp. I would urge you to more carefully define “common sense.” Common belief in the DC region would, of course, say replacing government managers and policy makers (overwhelmingly liberal) with “Trump toadies” is a bad recipe. But just for a moment put yourself in the shoes of an increasingly angry voter base and then speculate what replacing those government officials would do to help ease your grief. We don’t believe we’re getting a fair deal in D.C. I don’t believe you’d put up with what we’re told to endure (from our own common sense perspective) for one single minute.
James Nick says
Trying to justify the implementation of Schedule F, Mr Turner writes that “… Republicans and conservatives have complained that much (most) of the higher career levels of the Executive Branch (GS13s and above) effectively comprises an additional policy arm of congressional Democrats and liberals inside Washington…” because he has witnessed “careerist” federal employees embrace and enact proposals that emerge from the Left while during conservative administrations they resist, delay and outright deny implementation of the various presidential initiatives…”
For those very few people that are still following this thread, let me acquaint you with Trofim Denisovich Lysenko. According to his Wikipedia page, in the early 20th-Century, the Communist Party was looking to promote members of the proletariat into leadership positions in agriculture, science and industry. Party officials were looking for promising candidates with backgrounds similar to Lysenko’s: born of a peasant family, lacking formal academic training or affiliations to the academic community. In today’s parlance: an anti-elitist.
Lysenko strongly rejected scientifically sound genetic science in favor of his own pseudoscientific ideas later termed Lysenkoism. Stalin bought what Lysenko was selling, hook, line, and sinker and he soon became the director of the Institute of Genetics of the Soviet Academy of Sciences.
It was an unmitigated disaster. Lysenko used his political influence and power to suppress dissenting opinions and discredit, marginalize, and imprison his critics, elevating his theories to state-sanctioned doctrine. Thousands of mainstream biologists were dismissed, imprisoned, or executed in the Soviet campaign to suppress opponents of Lysenko. Research and teaching in the fields of neurophysiology, cell biology, and many other biological disciplines were harmed or banned. This purge contributed directly to the famines that killed millions of Soviet people; the adoption of Lysenko’s methods by China had similarly calamitous results, culminating in the Great Chinese Famine of 1959 to 1961. Lysenko wasn’t given the heave-ho until 1965.
Only 35 years later, in 2000, Joe M. Allbaugh was a Republican Party apparatchik who helped manage George W. Bush’s presidential election campaign. After the election, Bush picked Allbaugh as his nominee to head the Federal Emergency Management Agency. With only a BS degree in political science, Allbaugh had had no experience in anything remotely related to emergency management.
Allbaugh resigned from FEMA in March, 2003, and was replaced by Michael Brown, his old friend from Republican state politics who had padded his legal and emergency services credentials to get the job. Michael “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job” Brown resigned in September, 2005 in the wake of what was widely considered to be incompetent handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina by state, local and federal officials.
These are examples of what happens when people are appointed to government positions at any level on the basis of party loyalty and allegiance to political leadership instead of competence in their area of expertise.
If trump had won the last election and Schedule F had been in effect, we would still be battling a Covid pandemic with hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin and bleach instead of vaccines and Paxlovid. We would be nuking hurricanes. Hillary Clinton would be locked up. And the FBI would still be looking for all the elite, deep state Satan-worshipping pedophiles who are running the world.
Maybe it’s just the case that federal employees embrace and enact proposals that seem “leftist” because they actually are experts in their field and flatly reject and resist all the populist, ridiculous, unsound and unworkable theories and policies coming from the Right.
David A Turner says
Mr. Nick, okay, here goes: The problem with an unchangingly dogmatic career bureaucracy is hardly that they are unchangingly correct all the time. Sadly for every nation where bureaucracies aren’t changed out periodically, their dogmatic managers are NOT always right. An apparatchik isn’t necessarily communist — he or she is a blindly devoted official, follower, or member of an organization, according to Webster’s. When Bill Maher blasts trendy educational institutions turning out blind woke graduates, he worries those grads are going to someday influence career government or, Lord help us, free enterprise.
Like Maher, I worry about what’s happening — specifically in federal government. That’s why I support Schedule F.
Your two examples ignore almost all the problems with nations stuck with only one variety of dogmatic believers. By the way, scientific and rational bases are not utilized only by liberal executives and managers when implementing public policy. Is it insulting to make your assertion? Maybe. Conservatives use reason and science, too. Or don’t you believe so? Do you actually believe conservatives like me in government are barbarians?
Under Schedule F government policy implementers can be changed out in the agencies according to voters wishes. The Stone Age will not re-emerge if 10% conservative bureaucrats slide into these jobs occasionally. When Schedule F was studied before Biden abolished it, that’s the estimated number of policy jobs expected to be impacted.
Allow me to give you an example of what unaccountable managers can “accomplish” if not held to a better standard than in our current regimen. When I was a low policy minion back in President Carter’s early Department of Energy, a clique of the Energy Conservation Division’s bigwigs were progressives and tight with the most radical left outfit inside Carter’s West Wing — Stuart Eizenstat’s.
Combined, they were almost unstoppable. After they joined with left-leaning Democratic congressional staffers on one particular proposal, they were downright frightening. Their proposal was to develop full-fledged maximum domestic square footage allowances for individuals in our nation. They claimed, of course, that their allowances would only be recommendations — at first. Sadly, we didn’t have a News Nation or FOX News back then to expose this operation. Editor Charles Peters’ Washington Monthly was the only journalistic organization covering it — boosting it to DC’s larger liberal community. I liked Charles very much and, later, he me — neo-con vs. conservative. Nonetheless, yuck.
When moderate-to-conservative Energy Secretary Charles Duncan (formerly of Coke-a-cola and Duncan Foods) got wind of his bureaucrats’ dream factory churning along underneath him he went to bat against them with their previously supportive President Carter. I had believed Carter was a moderate liberal. He actually wasn’t. Carter had to choose between, on one side, the career DOE staffers plus Eizenstat’s, or his rather substantial appointee sitting in his Cabinet… he did the correct thing.
Even given that defeat, they kept on raising their various red banners even under newly elected President Ronald Reagan.
We never did get back to John’s point about undecideds and voting. You have just seen how earnestly I hold my beliefs. Does that give you any idea of how difficult it is for folks like me to determine who we will vote for in November? Conservative and moderate undecideds are not the lightweights Biden, now Harris, diehards may think.
Mr. Nick, thank you for this stimulating discussion and for transporting me back to one of my earliest lessons in federal bureaucracy. However, how about taking a break and letting Diedre chew me out for awhile?