There's something to be said for a conservative wing of the Democratic Party that can work with, but occasionally fights with, the left wing. Like the old days, but with less racism.
To debunk Noah Millman’s argument, we have to look at the "Rational Choice" trap he falls into. He treats politics like a technical exam where the party with the best-written "language" and "framework" wins.The counter-argument is that politics is driven by Identity and Charisma, where policy is merely the "burnishing" (the justification) for the leader’s personal appeal.
The Rationalist Trap vs. The Charisma Reality
Millman’s focus on "plans" and "language" misses how modern movements actually gain and hold power.
Identity Over Information:
Millman worries that Democrats don't have a plan for the "unraveling petrodollar system." In a charisma-based model, voters don't need a white paper on currency; they need a leader they identify with who promises to protect their interests. If the identification is strong enough, the specific policy solution is secondary.
The "Language" Fallacy:
Millman argues that Democrats lack a "language" for a multipolar world. However, a charismatic leader invents the language. When a leader has a mandate of charisma, their rhetoric becomes the framework. Trump didn't win by mastering the language of trade; he won by being a charismatic avatar for a specific identity, and the tariffs were just the tool used to "burnish" that persona.
Policy as "Intellectual Armor":
In Millman's view, policy is the foundation. But in the real social identity-driven world of democratic voting, once the people identify with a particular a coalition and a leader, the policy is built specifically to support that person's "vibe" and keep the charisma engine running.
Millman is pure Rational Choice Voter Theory, which is no longer (among political scientists) accepted as a model of how democracy works. See Aachen Bartel and Donald Trump.
The Bottom Line:
Millman is looking for a "coherent approach" to the world. A charisma-first debunking suggests that if the Democrats find a leader who captures the public's imagination, that leader could "make it up on the fly" (as Millman accuses the current administration of doing) and still be wildly successful, because the public is voting for the person and their shared identity, not the program and policy.
I fear you have misunderstood my argument, which is entirely about governance, and not at all about how to win the next election. The premise of the piece is that they could well win without figuring out how to govern in a post-Trump world, and then fail to govern it successfully because they have not thought seriously about how to do so.
I think recognizing the state of the world does not necessitate getting down on that level.
The US has voted in presidents as repudiations of the previous administration throughout history. I want someone who can skip ahead to the point in history where we recognize that All This was a failed experiment in reactionary politics. That doesn't mean the world won't still be in it, but, again, we don't need to go through extended dark times to recognize that they are dark times. We want to be better than this, we have been better than this, we will be better than this.
I think it will be a skilled communicator who can both talk about looking forward but also realize that we want accountability and that requires looking back.
There's something to be said for a conservative wing of the Democratic Party that can work with, but occasionally fights with, the left wing. Like the old days, but with less racism.
How do Dems plan to soar with the DSA albatross around their necks?
They will never get my vote again as long as those Jew-hating Nazi-communists are in the tent.
To debunk Noah Millman’s argument, we have to look at the "Rational Choice" trap he falls into. He treats politics like a technical exam where the party with the best-written "language" and "framework" wins.The counter-argument is that politics is driven by Identity and Charisma, where policy is merely the "burnishing" (the justification) for the leader’s personal appeal.
The Rationalist Trap vs. The Charisma Reality
Millman’s focus on "plans" and "language" misses how modern movements actually gain and hold power.
Identity Over Information:
Millman worries that Democrats don't have a plan for the "unraveling petrodollar system." In a charisma-based model, voters don't need a white paper on currency; they need a leader they identify with who promises to protect their interests. If the identification is strong enough, the specific policy solution is secondary.
The "Language" Fallacy:
Millman argues that Democrats lack a "language" for a multipolar world. However, a charismatic leader invents the language. When a leader has a mandate of charisma, their rhetoric becomes the framework. Trump didn't win by mastering the language of trade; he won by being a charismatic avatar for a specific identity, and the tariffs were just the tool used to "burnish" that persona.
Policy as "Intellectual Armor":
In Millman's view, policy is the foundation. But in the real social identity-driven world of democratic voting, once the people identify with a particular a coalition and a leader, the policy is built specifically to support that person's "vibe" and keep the charisma engine running.
Millman is pure Rational Choice Voter Theory, which is no longer (among political scientists) accepted as a model of how democracy works. See Aachen Bartel and Donald Trump.
The Bottom Line:
Millman is looking for a "coherent approach" to the world. A charisma-first debunking suggests that if the Democrats find a leader who captures the public's imagination, that leader could "make it up on the fly" (as Millman accuses the current administration of doing) and still be wildly successful, because the public is voting for the person and their shared identity, not the program and policy.
I fear you have misunderstood my argument, which is entirely about governance, and not at all about how to win the next election. The premise of the piece is that they could well win without figuring out how to govern in a post-Trump world, and then fail to govern it successfully because they have not thought seriously about how to do so.
Thanks Mr. Millman! Very thoughtful & relevant questions!
I think recognizing the state of the world does not necessitate getting down on that level.
The US has voted in presidents as repudiations of the previous administration throughout history. I want someone who can skip ahead to the point in history where we recognize that All This was a failed experiment in reactionary politics. That doesn't mean the world won't still be in it, but, again, we don't need to go through extended dark times to recognize that they are dark times. We want to be better than this, we have been better than this, we will be better than this.
I think it will be a skilled communicator who can both talk about looking forward but also realize that we want accountability and that requires looking back.