Omgg I have waited forever to hear this. Great article!! The Democrats need a new playbook. It’s the only way to win. Thank you so much for your observation. I just hope this sinks in.
I agree but what exactly can they do right away re gerrymandering? They’ve boxed themselves in with the non partisan commission while the repubes have free rein. We could take our chances with the courts but wouldn’t they have to decide against us since we have laws against it?
Legislature could go into session and immediately pass a law ending the non partisan commission, and while at it pass new maps. And if it's in their constitution, pass a law giving the governor power to suspend the commission.
I really mean rhetorically, as with our rhetoric. For too long Dems have valued politeness and bipartisanship over effectiveness. So when I say curb stomp them, I mean to vilify them, much as Republicans have sought to do to Dems since Newt Gingrich in the 90s, except where they need to make things up to attack us, we can actually use the truth. For instance, on the Epstein thing, Dems should just be straight up referring to the Republican party as the PedoParty. I’ve checked the numbers when you look at party/ideological leadership and cases child abuse, it’s something like 80% Republicans 20% Democrats. On the political side you guy people like Hastert, Folley, Jordan, etc. Then on the ideological side there’s the hundreds of pervs that the SBC has been protecting for decades. And then among the base there’s the fact that where Dems in the base will demand someone who gets caught to be have their political career destroyed, Republicans will embrace them, just like with Roy Moore.
That Dems don’t refer to Republicans as the PedoParty on national TV blows my mind.
So yeah, I never call for physical violence. But when it comes to rhetoric, I believe it should be a no holds barred kind of deal.
What Dems need is more imagination. That, I think, is the point Mikey Cohen keeps making when he says use 3 word mottos because they work: "tariffs are taxes." None of this long stuff, like "when they go low, we go high."
Definitely! That is one of the biggest points I tried to make throughout the "Relentless Playbook"
Slogans are powerful, especially those that are easy to repeat, easy to remember and emotionally engaging.
But honestly, I don't think it's a lack of imagination. I think that Dems look down on slogans. It seems to me that they feel as though when they communicate, they must sound high minded for them to feel validated. They can't help but list statistics or complicated ideas with many twists and turns. It's another version of MAGA does X, ergo we must not, lest we become like them.
Great writing Lukium. The only problem I see is Democratic leadership. They will continue giving strongly worded responses while the maggats continue breaking laws.
You know, it might help to think of this in terms of WWII: Republicans are Germany & Democrats are France. Along comes hotshot America to save the day--that's who we have to emulate.
This argument oversimplifies the Prisoner’s Dilemma game, particularly in ignoring the fact that if we use their “ends justify means” rationale for our response in kind, they win, by changing the rules. The challenge is to understand what a tit-for-tat response entails - not just doing whatever they’re doing, but finding an opportunity to “defect” that actually affects them. There are always simple answers to complex problems, and they are never solve the underlying problem. If we follow this advice from , we are actually cooperating in their authoritarian actions. We lose.
This is hardly an "ends justifies the means" strategy. I think you're the one oversimplifying things. By your logic we shouldn't have fought World War 2 because by doing warfare we were becoming like the Nazis. If you'd like to make a real argument against mine that isn't a vague assertion about the connection between my suggestion and tit-for-tat,this could be an interesting conversation. For example what would you consider a tit-for-tat that you find acceptable that might meaningfully and clearly communicate to Republicans that it's in their best interest not to detect?
I think I would argue that “winning” WWII is a bit of wishful thinking. Hitler needed to be dealt with, but that should have happened by ‘34 or ‘36, and long before Munich. Every war is a failure of reason and morality. I grew up in the ‘50s, aware that while we had won the war, we still had to practice duck and cover, even knowing that such actions were theater compared to the A-Bomb images and news reels we were seeing. We gained a few years of peace and prosperity for the US (if not for most of the former colonies and the USSR and its vassals) but lived with constant reminders of threats from enemies inside and out.
We are not in a war, yet. The Prisoner’s Dilemma, and the elaborate game developed around it, depends on specific rules applied to the players, who’s freedom of action was strictly constrained (“prisoners”, right?). Republicans are trying to ignore the rules, even the concept of rules, and would love us to play that game because they don’t need rules, THEY HAVE ALL THE MONEY! They feel they are in control of the entire game - Congress, the courts, information media (including digital), and most importantly, they think they control the financial game. (I don’t think they actually do, but for now the big money is backing them).
What Newsome is doing does not deal with larger problem, but neither does it surrender to the winner-take-all game of the Republicans. It’s up to YOU, the observer and analyst to go deeper, much moor radical, to define the real danger to us as individuals and a society. And, unfortunately, the reality is that this system may only be changed by some period of fascism, especially if we don’t start talking about this.
Let me know if this makes any sense. I was born before Hiroshima, and have no illusions that we can go down that road again.
I’m a big fan of the Prisoner’s Dilemma, since Hofstader popularized it in Scientific American decades ago. In that game, neither prisoner has any control over the rules. That does not apply to our current situation with the Republicans, in general.in this situation it means we need to through what defection, from our side, really looks like. And it may have nothing to do with redistricting, per se.
The fundamental reason why tit-for-tat works is precisely it’s clarity in measure and timing, i.e., if you do X, I will immediately do X in reverse to you. The idea that we should try to philosophy some other thing that could potentially may be our defection runs precisely counter that clarity. If the thing that they are doing to us now is redrawing district maps to steal Congressional seats, then the thing that most clearly qualifies in a tit-for-tat is to do the exact same thing, immediately. Any other thing that you can possibly imagine in the universe is, by definition, less qualified under what it means to be a tit-for-tat strategy.
This is precisely why I dismissed your assertion of it being an “ends justifies the means” analysis. If that were so, I would probably be calling for something far more extreme. For example, I could suggest that since blue states control most of the ports in the country, they should pass laws that are legally neutral and yet disproportionately impact the economies of red states. And to be clear, Maryland and California could decimate the economy of red states if they wanted. Now were I suggesting that, then that would in fact be something that’s a lot more akin to “ends justifies the means” since it is in almost every way distinct from taking 5 Congressional seats now if they’re taking 5 congressional seats now.
I think that’s my point, there’s no simple tit for their tat. Gavin’s move is entirely in line with that, if you believe the rules are important and/or a guide to effective action. As a tactical move I think it’s entirely appropriate, given the constraints he accepts (e.g., the Constitution). If we say there are no constraints, they’ve won the war.
The Constitution doesn’t prohibit gerrymandering, and neither does Congress—thanks to Democrats who declined to outlaw it when they had the chance. So the frame you’ve set up is false. It isn’t “either Democrats surrender, or Democrats become like Republicans.”
I don’t usually burrow too deep into philosophy on this Substack, but I think this case deserves it. The only way your dichotomy works is if you assume a rigid deontological view—the idea that rules are absolute, no matter the motive or the outcome. But deontology collapses the moment you test it. Picture a starving child dying outside a grocery store. A strict deontologist refuses to steal food, even to save the child. Every attempt to justify saving the child ends up smuggling in consequentialism anyway.
And once you admit that outcomes matter, the logic is clear: rules have no inherent value. They are valuable only for the ends they serve. If Republicans break rules to end democracy, Democrats may break rules to save it. That is not “becoming like them”—it is the opposite. To deny that would mean claiming the Nazis were righteous because their killings were “legal.”
And no, this is not an “ends justify the means” argument. It is the opposite: not all ends are justified. If you agree that ending democracy is a bad outcome, then you must also agree that preserving it by the least harmful but effective means is justified. History shows that in moments of brinkmanship, tit-for-tat is the strategy that prevents collapse and stabilizes the game.
And in this case, the original dichotomy fails even before we reach that level. Gerrymandering is not illegal. So Democrats do not abandon principle by doing it. On the contrary, if Republicans gerrymander to strip people of voice and autonomy, then Democrats have a duty to gerrymander in defense of those rights.
So whether you reason from consequentialism or deontology, the conclusion converges: Democrats not only can but must respond in kind, and in time. To unilaterally disarm is not virtue. It is surrender and cowardice.
Omgg I have waited forever to hear this. Great article!! The Democrats need a new playbook. It’s the only way to win. Thank you so much for your observation. I just hope this sinks in.
It will sink in when Democratic voters chose a smarter type of Democrat.
True. If they can call a special session we can too. So why don’t they? I think a call to Newsom is in order. . . .
I agree but what exactly can they do right away re gerrymandering? They’ve boxed themselves in with the non partisan commission while the repubes have free rein. We could take our chances with the courts but wouldn’t they have to decide against us since we have laws against it?
Legislature could go into session and immediately pass a law ending the non partisan commission, and while at it pass new maps. And if it's in their constitution, pass a law giving the governor power to suspend the commission.
I've been saying that our motto should be: When they go low, we slap them even lower.
💯 My most read article says among other things:
"when they go low, curb stomp them - rhetorically"
Hehe. No violence...but we can dream, my Dreamer friend. :)
I really mean rhetorically, as with our rhetoric. For too long Dems have valued politeness and bipartisanship over effectiveness. So when I say curb stomp them, I mean to vilify them, much as Republicans have sought to do to Dems since Newt Gingrich in the 90s, except where they need to make things up to attack us, we can actually use the truth. For instance, on the Epstein thing, Dems should just be straight up referring to the Republican party as the PedoParty. I’ve checked the numbers when you look at party/ideological leadership and cases child abuse, it’s something like 80% Republicans 20% Democrats. On the political side you guy people like Hastert, Folley, Jordan, etc. Then on the ideological side there’s the hundreds of pervs that the SBC has been protecting for decades. And then among the base there’s the fact that where Dems in the base will demand someone who gets caught to be have their political career destroyed, Republicans will embrace them, just like with Roy Moore.
That Dems don’t refer to Republicans as the PedoParty on national TV blows my mind.
So yeah, I never call for physical violence. But when it comes to rhetoric, I believe it should be a no holds barred kind of deal.
What Dems need is more imagination. That, I think, is the point Mikey Cohen keeps making when he says use 3 word mottos because they work: "tariffs are taxes." None of this long stuff, like "when they go low, we go high."
Definitely! That is one of the biggest points I tried to make throughout the "Relentless Playbook"
Slogans are powerful, especially those that are easy to repeat, easy to remember and emotionally engaging.
But honestly, I don't think it's a lack of imagination. I think that Dems look down on slogans. It seems to me that they feel as though when they communicate, they must sound high minded for them to feel validated. They can't help but list statistics or complicated ideas with many twists and turns. It's another version of MAGA does X, ergo we must not, lest we become like them.
Or else they feel it would be a waste of their expensive kolledge educations. LOL
Great writing Lukium. The only problem I see is Democratic leadership. They will continue giving strongly worded responses while the maggats continue breaking laws.
You know, it might help to think of this in terms of WWII: Republicans are Germany & Democrats are France. Along comes hotshot America to save the day--that's who we have to emulate.
This argument oversimplifies the Prisoner’s Dilemma game, particularly in ignoring the fact that if we use their “ends justify means” rationale for our response in kind, they win, by changing the rules. The challenge is to understand what a tit-for-tat response entails - not just doing whatever they’re doing, but finding an opportunity to “defect” that actually affects them. There are always simple answers to complex problems, and they are never solve the underlying problem. If we follow this advice from , we are actually cooperating in their authoritarian actions. We lose.
This is hardly an "ends justifies the means" strategy. I think you're the one oversimplifying things. By your logic we shouldn't have fought World War 2 because by doing warfare we were becoming like the Nazis. If you'd like to make a real argument against mine that isn't a vague assertion about the connection between my suggestion and tit-for-tat,this could be an interesting conversation. For example what would you consider a tit-for-tat that you find acceptable that might meaningfully and clearly communicate to Republicans that it's in their best interest not to detect?
Thanks for the reply!
I think I would argue that “winning” WWII is a bit of wishful thinking. Hitler needed to be dealt with, but that should have happened by ‘34 or ‘36, and long before Munich. Every war is a failure of reason and morality. I grew up in the ‘50s, aware that while we had won the war, we still had to practice duck and cover, even knowing that such actions were theater compared to the A-Bomb images and news reels we were seeing. We gained a few years of peace and prosperity for the US (if not for most of the former colonies and the USSR and its vassals) but lived with constant reminders of threats from enemies inside and out.
We are not in a war, yet. The Prisoner’s Dilemma, and the elaborate game developed around it, depends on specific rules applied to the players, who’s freedom of action was strictly constrained (“prisoners”, right?). Republicans are trying to ignore the rules, even the concept of rules, and would love us to play that game because they don’t need rules, THEY HAVE ALL THE MONEY! They feel they are in control of the entire game - Congress, the courts, information media (including digital), and most importantly, they think they control the financial game. (I don’t think they actually do, but for now the big money is backing them).
What Newsome is doing does not deal with larger problem, but neither does it surrender to the winner-take-all game of the Republicans. It’s up to YOU, the observer and analyst to go deeper, much moor radical, to define the real danger to us as individuals and a society. And, unfortunately, the reality is that this system may only be changed by some period of fascism, especially if we don’t start talking about this.
Let me know if this makes any sense. I was born before Hiroshima, and have no illusions that we can go down that road again.
I’m a big fan of the Prisoner’s Dilemma, since Hofstader popularized it in Scientific American decades ago. In that game, neither prisoner has any control over the rules. That does not apply to our current situation with the Republicans, in general.in this situation it means we need to through what defection, from our side, really looks like. And it may have nothing to do with redistricting, per se.
The fundamental reason why tit-for-tat works is precisely it’s clarity in measure and timing, i.e., if you do X, I will immediately do X in reverse to you. The idea that we should try to philosophy some other thing that could potentially may be our defection runs precisely counter that clarity. If the thing that they are doing to us now is redrawing district maps to steal Congressional seats, then the thing that most clearly qualifies in a tit-for-tat is to do the exact same thing, immediately. Any other thing that you can possibly imagine in the universe is, by definition, less qualified under what it means to be a tit-for-tat strategy.
This is precisely why I dismissed your assertion of it being an “ends justifies the means” analysis. If that were so, I would probably be calling for something far more extreme. For example, I could suggest that since blue states control most of the ports in the country, they should pass laws that are legally neutral and yet disproportionately impact the economies of red states. And to be clear, Maryland and California could decimate the economy of red states if they wanted. Now were I suggesting that, then that would in fact be something that’s a lot more akin to “ends justifies the means” since it is in almost every way distinct from taking 5 Congressional seats now if they’re taking 5 congressional seats now.
I think that’s my point, there’s no simple tit for their tat. Gavin’s move is entirely in line with that, if you believe the rules are important and/or a guide to effective action. As a tactical move I think it’s entirely appropriate, given the constraints he accepts (e.g., the Constitution). If we say there are no constraints, they’ve won the war.
The Constitution doesn’t prohibit gerrymandering, and neither does Congress—thanks to Democrats who declined to outlaw it when they had the chance. So the frame you’ve set up is false. It isn’t “either Democrats surrender, or Democrats become like Republicans.”
I don’t usually burrow too deep into philosophy on this Substack, but I think this case deserves it. The only way your dichotomy works is if you assume a rigid deontological view—the idea that rules are absolute, no matter the motive or the outcome. But deontology collapses the moment you test it. Picture a starving child dying outside a grocery store. A strict deontologist refuses to steal food, even to save the child. Every attempt to justify saving the child ends up smuggling in consequentialism anyway.
And once you admit that outcomes matter, the logic is clear: rules have no inherent value. They are valuable only for the ends they serve. If Republicans break rules to end democracy, Democrats may break rules to save it. That is not “becoming like them”—it is the opposite. To deny that would mean claiming the Nazis were righteous because their killings were “legal.”
And no, this is not an “ends justify the means” argument. It is the opposite: not all ends are justified. If you agree that ending democracy is a bad outcome, then you must also agree that preserving it by the least harmful but effective means is justified. History shows that in moments of brinkmanship, tit-for-tat is the strategy that prevents collapse and stabilizes the game.
And in this case, the original dichotomy fails even before we reach that level. Gerrymandering is not illegal. So Democrats do not abandon principle by doing it. On the contrary, if Republicans gerrymander to strip people of voice and autonomy, then Democrats have a duty to gerrymander in defense of those rights.
So whether you reason from consequentialism or deontology, the conclusion converges: Democrats not only can but must respond in kind, and in time. To unilaterally disarm is not virtue. It is surrender and cowardice.