Timothy Burke
banner
timothyburke.bsky.social
Timothy Burke
@timothyburke.bsky.social

Professor of History at Swarthmore College. Writes at timothyburke.substack.com, continuing from his old blog Easily Distracted. Remembers when there was no Internet, and stays up late because someone is wrong on it.

Political science 50%
Sociology 17%

Whitehouse means well, but this sort of thing just has to stop. Someone's feelings *are* wrong--saying that everybody is right or everybody has a point is just a polite way of condescending. Unity takes real agreement--and willingness to say "We screwed up". The Dem leadership screwed up.
No one’s feelings are wrong. That’s not my point. We’re in a real battle, against a corrupt and malevolent foe, with huge stakes. We must win.

Well, parties *have* fractured in the US before, also. It's just been a while.

Either she's just confessed to being unqualified to do anything requiring discretionary judgment and emotional intelligence or she's revealing that she thinks everybody listening is completely stupid. Which is another kind of disqualification in a politician.

Democrats who've made statements on caving making it worse. Shaheen thinks that negotiations on ACA extensions can start now. Kaine thinks this will protect federal workers from "baseless firings". Either they believe these things (appallingly stupid) or they don't (gross cynicism).

Reposted by Timothy Burke

No one’s feelings are wrong. That’s not my point. We’re in a real battle, against a corrupt and malevolent foe, with huge stakes. We must win.

I think it's the basic idea of neoliberal leadership transferred over to government. Advance via seniority after an initial "meritocratic" hire, maintain the institution but avoid discussions of values or purpose, prize incrementalism in a quasi-spiritual way, and refuse to believe in adversaries.

I will say this for Senator Fetterman. Every time I think he's shown PA voters his maximum capacity for cowardice and political incompetence, he manages to do it one better.

Schumer said the Dems will "keep fighting". Keep fighting their own voters? Keep fighting off effectiveness? Keep fighting being held accountable for anything? As far as I can tell the Democratic leadership is good at one thing only now, which is sending fundraising messages to my phone.
Democrats have been fighting for months to address America's healthcare crisis

For the millions who will lose coverage
For people with cancer who won't get the care they need
For working families who can't afford to pay $25K more a year for healthcare

We will keep fighting

Proceduralists get screwed in negotiations because they don't have any goals or values in the first place. The negotiation IS the goal. The Democratic leadership is proceduralist in this sense. They never lose because they aren't trying to win anything in particular.

I use em dashes and parenthetical asides a lot, especially in my online writing. I get kind of irritated by the idea that em dashing is an obvious AI tell. Where do you think LLMs learned it?
HAPPY FOUR SEASONS TOTAL LANDSCAPING DAY TO ALL WHO CELEBRATE
A List of Things Said to Have Been Ruined by Women

🧵

Welp, I'm not exactly surprised, but guess what, this turned out to be right on the money.
Somewhere around 8pm tonight, the New York Times and other legacy newspapers are going to pivot towards "Zohran Mamdani: why his initiatives are failing". The first thing he tries to do concretely is going to have a swarm of hostile press all over it from the first second of its existence.

You know what I'd vote for as an actual platform? A party where everybody believes it's an important general obligation to say "I made a mistake, sorry."

Look, honestly, among the things that left-liberalism has just got to take on board is that constitutionalism, proceduralism, institutionalism, were all death traps. Honestly, the pre-liberal republicans won this argument: virtue, culture, etc. matters more than systems and designs.

There's a lesson in there that we're reluctant to learn, which is that it was a mistake to invest that labor in that way, because it lulled us into believing that institutions are machines that run in a certain way once you've built them enough in the right fashion.

Yup. He's smart, he's got smart people around him, so I'm going to assume that they know this is coming. One thing he needs to do is make sure that Tri-State elected Dems all line up behind big projects and to throw a bit of gentle shade on anyone who doesn't.

Considering that Mikie Sherrill's major TV ad in the NJ gov race was just her flying a helicopter over NJ as a demonstration of military prowess, I'm not sure where the mainstream take that she's run hard on being anti-Trump is coming from--she's been very wary of making that a central thematic.

Somewhere around 8pm tonight, the New York Times and other legacy newspapers are going to pivot towards "Zohran Mamdani: why his initiatives are failing". The first thing he tries to do concretely is going to have a swarm of hostile press all over it from the first second of its existence.

It's really striking is where "long experience in politics" ought to translate into "don't make certain kinds of dumb mistakes that have been made over and over again". It rarely does come out that way. If anything, the more experienced you are, the more likely you are to fall into those traps.

But I think empirically if you were going to create a big spreadsheet of mayors, governors and presidents and assign them "experience in politics" scores and index that against "effectiveness and accomplishment" scores, my instinct that that the two scores would have weak relatedness at best.

I do think it's important for people who head executive departments, have seniority on legislative committees, or who are in the circle of advisors around an elected executive. That's where you want people who've been around the block a few times, though even there some fresh blood is important. 4/

In political leadership, at least--and I suspect in organizations generally--a long resume based on steady movement up a hierarchy for a person who started in politics in their late 20s or 30s is not really good evidence of competent leadership. 3/

Seeing political leadership as a product of experience in the sense of a professional resume has been a core part of Democratic politics since the 1990s--it shows the deep embeddedness of a neoliberal vision of meritocratic hierarchy structured around seniority for all professional elites. 2/

Watching the NYT keep trying to figure out what angle to play in trying to make Mamdani's candidacy look bad has been a fascinating exercise in polite dishonesty. I'm particularly struck by the mutability of the "but this candidate is inexperienced" argument, however. 1/

I'm a Dodgers fan from my earliest childhood until now but I gotta say two things: 1) that was a great World Series and 2) honestly, the Blue Jays were a better team than the Dodgers in the Series itself and lost only by the sum total of maybe six plays determined by inches.

From here on in, expect any historical quotation, speech or evidence that contradicts or embarrasses Trumpism to be erased, lost, or changed. Materials held by government agencies including the National Archives are especially vulnerable. Digitized material also. Hold on to published books you own.

I think this is right on, and about more than young people. Trump's GOP, even in its earlier Tea Party manifestation, offered ordinary people a sense of agency and meaning--there were things to do. The Democrats for decades have said, "Vote for us, give us money, and leave the driving to us".

I'd draw the line at knowing they have licensed an app called Glassboxx before I even saw that it was some kind of DRM bullshit.