Even though I have some views on this, I'm weary of the endless debate about what liberals should do to win back American voters. I read the same polls as everyone else, and that's really all of us have to go on. The truth is that unless you have a remarkably large and diverse set of personal friends (you don't), your personal inclinations are hopelessly parochial. My only advice is not to kid yourself with selective poll readings. Suck it up and take the good with the bad.
However, I do have plenty of personal opinions, some based on my own moral compass and others informed by the evidence—and I'm happy to share them. Some would probably be good for the liberal movement and others wouldn't, but at least they aren't just guesses. Here is Shorter Kevin Drum:
Universal health care (strongly for it); illegal immigration (in favor of E-Verify and moderate toughening in general); trans issues (wary of gender-affirming care for teens but opposed to bans); globalization (still for it); China hawkery (on the fence); abortion rights (radically supportive); wokeness (hearts are in the right place but ditch the performative silliness); education (Black-white gap is disgraceful); Gaza etc. (on Israel's side with ever increasing reservations); religion (non-aggressive atheist); death penalty (slightly against); housing crisis (basically just a California problem); YIMBY (on the fence); guns (opposed but accept there's little we can do); climate change (of course it's real and serious); nuclear (mostly supportive); crime (not a growing problem); voter ID (sure, but first make national ID free and mandatory); prison sentencing (way out of control); safety net (a huge liberal success that's both popular and in little danger); long-term nursing care (pay 100% via Medicare); deficit/taxes (no choice but to raise taxes moderately on everyone); terrorism (will mostly die on its own over the next decade); AI (we will have legit AGI by 2033 and, yes, it will take over most of our jobs by 2040-50); democracy (not truly in any lasting trouble); cost of college (mostly a fake issue); affirmative action (prefer class-based preferences); Fox News (a cancer on the country, needs to be destroyed and the earth salted behind it); free speech (pretty close to absolutist, always ask "who's going to do it" if someone proposes an exception); COVID vaccines (100% safe and effective); permitting reform (probably needed, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater); Joe Biden (still think he was a pretty good president overall); government effectiveness (DOGE is a stupid sham, Congress needs to fix the rules).
Have I missed any big ones?
Corporate personhood is obviously a crime against humanity.
+2
We could probably stop here, many corrections would flow from this point.
Which is why it exists in every common law jurisdiction and probably in every country on Earth? Are there any exceptions?
Like a lot of 19th century ideas it's utility is long passed.
Corporations are not people because they don't die, and they have no other characteristics of human life. To give them the rights of a person while having none of the qualifying conditions or responsibilities of a person allows them to amass power and to influence the character of society to better conditions that promote their own singular parasitic interest, and not the interests of human life. Any benefit to humanity comes to be an afterthought or side effect of corporate hording and the promotion of the kinds of personalities who can most shamelessly and effectively thrive in an environment of brutish expedience.
We got along nicely for over 200 years with corporations only being legal ‘persons’ for the purpose of entering into contracts.
Industries that extract finite natural resources, like mining, petroleum and gas, should be nationalized. No one invented it and all value added is after the fact.
This is how it's done in a lot of other countries.
There are probably much more efficient ways to achieve the sort of goal you have in mind via Georgist tax policies...
This is the sort of thing where Ds and Rs COULD collaborate. Both Ds and Rs have recently raised the idea of making US tax policy more Georgist. We'll see if anything comes of it.
Why?
I am trying to think of any country that does this and not coming up with any. Even crazy places like Venezuela still rely on plenty of private companies to extract oil.
Many countries do have government control over all mineral rights, but they still hire private companies to do some of the extraction, often on some kind of royalty basis.
Not thinking about it very much I am guessing.
"Industries that extract finite natural resources, like mining, petroleum and gas, should be nationalized."
Careful. It's probably not (as much of) a problem in a vast, diverse economy like that of the US, but many other countries that have nationalized mining/oil companies are hideously corrupt. If the nation can collect revenue from selling commodities, as opposed to collecting revenue from merely taking a slice of economic activity (via income taxes etc.), the nation is less incentivized to care about what the public thinks.
Norway?
Religious organizations shouldn't have special rights of any kind and should be treated in law exactly like every other social club or entertainment venue.
And they have no place in education or health care.
That's a good one. I'll go one further: the Establishment Clause should allow for a reasonable degree of skepticism with respect to the place of religion in society. Yes, some kinds of government policies along these lines could well cross a line into actual persecution of religionists (which would be a violation of the Free Exercise clause). But the courts have bent too far toward an accommodationist stance of organized religion. If some state wants to maintain a very bright, secularist line between government and religion because its voters deem that's the policy best in keeping with the First Amendment, it should be allowed to do so.
The other day it finally dawned on me how to think of cryptocurrencies. They're an investment in crime.
It's like buying shares in a crime-based hedge fund. When cryptocurrencies are going up it's because the prospect of crime and corruption is going up.
Why should this be legal?
It shouldn't be.
Since people are reading manifestoes, why not read another one?
I keep trying to explain that the Republican party of 2024 is not that of 2000.
https://americancompass.org/tax-cuts-for-the-coalition-we-have/
Like any party, it's a coalition and who knows who any particular internal negotiations will play out. But it's simply dishonest to keep claiming that there are no prominent voices within the GOP that have similar concerns to Kevin, and most centrists.
You have it backwards, as always.
1. Good.
2. Vague, "moderate toughening" on what, numbers allowed in, deportations, punishment for hiring companies?
3. One of Mr. Drum's recent weak spots, there is no good reason to be "wary".
4. Good.
5. Vague.
6. Good.
7. Another weak spot, you can't take the Orange County entirely out of the liberal.
8. He has exactly one issue that he goes on about re: education and this is it.
9. This remark would have been maybe appropriate a year ago, at this point it's shamefully out of touch with the realities moving forward.
10. Same.
11. Wishy-washy and unserious.
12. Pretty sure it's a problem for most big cities in the country, California happens to have a lot of big cities.
13. Wishy-washy and unserious.
14. Ibid.
15. Yes.
16. Yes.
17. Not a growing problem in reality but a major problem in perception, and that needs to be addressed.
18. I guess.
19. Yes.
20. I guess we're going to find out!
21. Whatever, not a major issue if you aren't in your 60s with cancer or related to someone who is.
22. We can solve the budget by raising taxes massively on the rich and the only constraint is that the rich don't want to do that.
23. I'll believe it when I see it, that a thing that has been around since the dawn of history will just fizzle away because of environmental lead.
24. I don't believe this, and this is a curiously apocalyptic and devastating prediction to toss off so lightly.
25. Seems to be that it's in _massive_ trouble as long as our current information infrastructure is as corrupted as it currently is, and there are lots of signs of things only getting worse, globally.
26. Overstated but generally correct, but also we've devalued what a proper "education" means for most people.
27. Easier said than done.
28. Yes.
29. Okay.
30. Yes.
31. Unless this is related to housing, seems relatively unimportant.
32. A very good administration with the two glaring, massive, legacy-ruining failures, on Gaza and failing to exile Donald Trump from politics forever.
33. Not sure what "rules" he's referring to.
Trans issues.
Within a few decades, certainly by the end of the century, everything about your biology will be essentially cosmetic. When that happens no one will care about trans issues.
So, why can't we get used to not caring now? People are covered in tattoos and get their skulls and personal junk impaled with all manner of stupid things right now and no one tries to outlaw it, however unattractive it might be.
Pardons.
There should be a Constitutional amendment stating that a pardon, from a president, governor or anyone else, is not allowable in the case of the pardoned person having acted in the either the political or any other interests of the person granting the pardon. Old Bush should not have been able to pardon Weinberger for instance, but some subsequent president would have been able to, someone who could be said to have never been within the scope of benefit of Weinberger's actions.
Forget amendments. You won't get one on anything in your lifetime. If you insist on demanding amendments, then you also have to describe your strategy for getting 2/3 of both the Senate and the House to vote for it as well as 3/4 of the states. If you don't have even the ghost of a strategy for that, then it isn't worth wasting breath discussing.
And in any case, this amendment would introduce judges into the process. Look at Trump's judges. You really want to do that?
You want to spin your wheels on an actual worthwhile amendment? How about one stating unequivocally that a president is not immune for any criminal acts committed while in office. Or one establishing term limits and an orderly replacement process for the supreme court? You won't get any of those either, but they would be far more significant than preventing a few ill considered pardons that have no effect in the grand scheme of things.
Way too specific and fine-tuned for an amendment. Just take away the pardon power from the Executive Branch and give it Congress. The latter can then set up a process (ie, a pardon board or some such).
Yes, I know a lot of people hate Congress, but unless you want to get rid of the pardon power altogether, we do need a process.
Immigration: E-Verify + a lot more immigration judges + a guest worker program so that their living and working conditions can be protected.
Housing is a huge issue in Knox County, Tennessee. Goes way beyond California, altho California transplants are part of the problem.
I'm a bit shocked that Kevin posted a "shorter Kevin Drum" post -- one that even briefly mentioned crime -- without ever using the word "lead".