The Beached Whale
Messaging for leaders who actually want to lead. Playing to Win - part of a series about directional alignment.
This essay is cross-posted on Substack. Visit The Reframe to see it on the main site.
Cousins, I'm sick. Sick at heart, but also just sick. Some kind of cruddy cold I probably picked up at a PTA fundraiser.
I'm not as sick as the American Nazi Party, though—which is to say the Republican Party. They're the sickest puppies you've ever seen. If you want to understand the basis for this observation of mine, I point you to the rest of the essays on this site. They're literal Nazis by action and by rhetoric and by their goals and methods, and they are in charge, and while I remain hopeful that they can be defeated, real hope is a thing that looks at the worst so it can both imagine the best and accept the better, and the reality is that with them in charge, it's probably going to get worse before it gets worse.
And I'm not as sick as the Democratic Party, either—a group on death's door or maybe in death's foyer. It's a suicide, if—as some believe—a whale beaching itself is suicide. If you're not familiar with The Democratic Party, this is a gang of increasingly superannuated fuddy-duddies whose response to a rampaging fascist nightmare led by a couple of billionairist tyrants (I won't go through the usual litany but my god) is to protect at all costs the norms and rules that have already been burned to the ground, while making no effort to protect the Constitution or the hundreds of millions of human beings it safeguards, promising that what they've done is realistic and strategic, then napping over a long weekend. Some days some of them sell us out, other days others of them sell us out. There always appear to be just enough sellout votes to make sure that out is how we get sold.
As example, let's talk about Senate Minority Leader and seventeen-time cover boy of Glasses Pushed Down magazine Chuck Schumer, who best represents the present of this beached whale of a party that best represents this beached whale of a country. To keep it short, Schumer had an appropriations bill before him, and he led his party in a pre-emptive surrender to the dictatorial smash-and-grab of defunding and vindictive sabotage our billionairist co-presidents are engaged in, which is something that also cedes the power of Congress to the would-be dictators, and codifies the legality of all the illegal bullshit they're doing. The Senate's rules are organized (in no small part due to the leadership-in-majority of Chuck Schumer) to allow the minority party to create maximal obstruction, an advantage which the fascist Republicans used extensively when they were in the minority, but which Schumer opted to not use—not now, even now, in the midst of the greatest internal crisis our nation and our Constitution has seen in over 150 years. It was an utter betrayal. If you want the long version of why, this is pretty good.
I know there are those who will instruct me that a government shutdown is a real problem, and that a defiant shutdown would make things even easier for fascists (somehow) than a Congressional stamp of approval just did, so Schumer is just doing what is needed to win, which is keeping his powder dry and saving it for the exact right moment, a moment that seems to always exist just over the horizon. Usually these instructors will also tell me that they, too, are concerned about the present fascist menace destroying our country, but we've got to be realistic.
Speaking of realistic, let's talk about a guy who would like to represent the future of the party: Gavin Newsom.
Gavin Newsom is the governor of California, which tends to vote for Democrats. He's a guy whose gig appears to involve unhinging his jaw to swallow fascist messaging whole, while shellacking himself with a thin veneer of progressivism. We might have already been skeptical of the guy when he made a performative show of personally participating in clearing out homeless encampments. Clearing out homeless encampments is when authorities come through a place where people who have nothing are huddled, and force them to leave, and then take away the last little bit of nothing they still have—tarps and tents and whatnot—and throw their last possessions in the trash. It's an almost impossibly cruel and horrifically common act of institutionalized hatred toward the people our society has most failed, who we persecute and abandon at a far greater cost than it would take to simply give them housing and enough money to live on. In policy and direct action, Newsom publicly embraced the fascist framing that the people who endanger our society most are those most endangered by it, then invited America to celebrate the embrace.
I know there are those who will instruct me that homeless people are a real problem, and that being seen as "soft" on homeless people is a political loser, so Newsom is just doing what is needed to win, which is following public opinion. Usually these instructors will also tell me that they, too, are concerned about unhoused people, but we've got to be realistic. I suppose following public opinion is one way to become what some people would call a "leader." But even if one is to accept this explanation, Newsom's gone and gotten even more depraved: He's started a podcast.
I jest, I jest! A podcast from a leading Democrat could actually be a hopeful sign that the party is taking its finger off the pulse of the country circa 1983 and catching up to at least the most recent decade by trying to reach people where they are. But Newsom's first guest was aging Hitler Youth member and founder of the extremist right wing Turning Point Charlie Kirk. Even this I suppose could be useful, if Newsom was using the platform to dress Kirk down and put him and his corrosive messaging in its proper framing, but no—Newsom spent their time together agreeing with a lot of Kirk's fascist messaging, particularly about another marginalized population currently targeted for some of the most vigorous exclusion and hatred and violence by our tyrannical government, that being trans people.
I know there are those who will instruct me that the modern fascist shibboleth "trans girls in sports" is a real concern for regular Americans, and that being seen as "soft" on trans people is a political loser, so Newsom is just doing what is needed to win, which is following public opinion. Usually these instructors will also tell me that they, too, are concerned about trans people, but we've got to be realistic.
And maybe public opinion has turned against homeless people and trans people, but my question is how did that happen? And my answer to that question is that fascist leaders have worked very hard to turn public opinion that way, away from a more natural empathy and into channels of fear and hatred. It's the same way that they normalized and mainstreamed the unpopular white supremacist ideas of racial resegregation and book banning and the vile Nazi lie called "replacement theory" and many other outrages against society and humanity and basic decency, and they started when those opinions were unpopular.
From this we might learn that people follow those who lead the people; they don't tend to follow those who follow the people. We might learn that ... if we're being realistic, that is, and I know how dedicated to realism many apologists of elected Democratic followers are.
Speaking of the apologist mentality, let's return to Chuck Schumer and his rationale for betraying us all. Maybe there is some better ideal future moment to oppose the American Nazi Party than this current moment. Yet I cannot help but ask myself how did we get to this current moment in the first place? and notice how many far far far far better past moments there were to take the Democratic Party's vast storehouses of dry powder and set them off. These were auspicious moments which were also not seized upon, for the exact same reason as this less-auspicious moment, as Chuck Schumer and Democrats like him sat and waited for the perfect future moment, a moment when the American people finally understood how terrible the Republicans are, and the Republicans became unpopular enough, finally, for our ostensible leaders to follow the people into a real opposition that they had, until then, opposed.
Here's the thing: The Republicans are unpopular for their actions. They've set themselves as the party of bosses and layoffs, which are two things that everyone understands and dislikes. They're eating the country and all its lovely people, and the people in the country are noticing and clogging town halls with people who are all extremely angry for extremely good reasons.
There's a lot of energy in opposition to our present gang of fascists to harness, if there were anyone who wanted to harness it.
The moment of unpopularity is here. It's here. It's now.
The Reframe is totally free for all readers, and is made possible by its readers through voluntary subscriptions.
If you find value in these essays, and only if you can afford to, please consider becoming a paid sponsor. It really helps writers to have patrons.
The problem is, Democrats are also hugely unpopular—not for their action, but for their inaction. To be blunt, nobody is interested in following a beached whale, because a beached whale isn't going anywhere. People follow leaders, and the leaders of the Democratic party have, as a strategic matter, opposed all leadership, and quashed their true leaders.
Since a lot of Democrats seem to believe that this is all just a game, I'll use a sports metaphor to demonstrate.
When you're watching sports, often you'll choose a team to root for.
You expect your team to play to win, or at least to play. If they don't, you will probably stop rooting for them. If your team's coach doesn't bother suiting up a team for a stretch of games, and just stands on the sideline watching the unopposed opposing team score, you might think the team needs a new coach. If your team's players, when suited up, don't play but rather sit on the floor or the grass or the ice or whatever, you might think that team needs new players. Imagine how confused you'd be if they told you that they weren't playing this game, because they were expected by most fans to lose, so they intended to save their energy for more winnable games.
If some players start scoring on their own goal, you might begin to gently wonder what the fuck is wrong with them. Imagine how confused you'd be if they told you that they had found that them scoring on the opposing goal was very unpopular with the opposing team's fans, while scoring on their own goal made the opposing team's fans cheer and cheer and cheer.
You might still hate the opposing team, but eventually fuck this team in my opinion is what you'd start to think about the team you'd been rooting for. It would be time to find a new team; one that would suit up, and play—and actually play to win.
And of course this isn't sports: It's real life, and it is literally life or death for millions of people, or tens of millions. When people are in desperation for somebody to fight for them, and those best positioned to lead that fight fail to fight and barely manage to even appear, then those who are in desperation will fall into despair. I'd like to avoid despair, for myself and others.
The Democratic Party as it has been is dead, I think, a demise it met trying to protect an old version of America that had already been killed. The party's death was a suicide, in the end, in the manner of a whale beaching itself; perhaps tired of the swim, or perhaps accessing some mysterious collective ancestral whale memory from millennia past when the tectonic plates were different than they are now, and mistakenly seeking the depths that were in a place where now there is shore. In any case, there it is, on the sand, and the new America will be what fascists and billionaires and other scavengers want it to be, which is a corpse they can eat right down to the bones.
Or: It might become something new and better, if we are willing to fight for something better. I think something better will actually prove more popular than we're going to eat you down to the bones, and even if it isn't we should probably give it a try.
We should think about what comes next, and the messages for a team that actually wants to play—and not only to play, but to play to win.
I'd like to think about that team now.
My book of essays, Very Fine People, is now available. Click to buy personalized signed copies or direct purchase at a discount.
Let me quickly dispense with a few arguments that this conversation almost always devolves into.
We should be clear that this is not a call to give up in our fight against the Republican fascist threat, but rather a call to acknowledge that the Democratic Party is an obstacle to that fight that will have to be overcome before we can conduct that fight, in the same way that one cannot fight a house fire until one has broken down the locked front door.
I think there are two ways this could go as regards our democracy: Either our democracy is truly done and there are no more free and fair elections coming up, or there remain enough shreds of democracy to regain the levers of government. I am not spending space today dissecting and litigating this argument. The former possibility must be acknowledged, but I also note that nothing abets the fascist mission more than assuming that their intent has been accomplished already—in surrendering ahead of time, in other words, just like the Democratic leadership does. My observation is that nothing prevents us from pursuing both possibilities, and we should all proceed as if both are correct simultaneously, even if we have our beliefs and doubts on the matter. So: Vote as if it matters, act as if it won't.
And there are I suppose two ways the Democratic Party could reconstitute: We could take it over, or else we could start something new. I am more inclined to the former (because that's how white supremacist christians got their overt white supremacist Republican Party) but I don't really care to argue with those who prefer the latter. There are people within the Democratic Party with fight still in them. There are those outside the party who organize and fight. Perhaps (it seems unlikely, but perhaps) there might even be a stray Republican who finds their soul and conscience, even at this late date. What's needed are leaders, and I'm not sure we can be picky about where they come from. Let's take them all and sort it out as we go.
What I want to think about is what sort of leader we need.
Leaders of Solidarity
Solidarity is first and foremost. If a leader is going to sell one group out because it's popular, they'll sell you out when it becomes popular. So a leader who talks of selling somebody out for realism or strategy can and should be known as a sellout.
But beyond that, it seems to very obviously be bad strategy.
The anti-social vote has already been thoroughly captured. I don’t think the Republican Party can get many more votes there. It’s what marketers call "a vended market." Our leaders must stop chasing them, and use a message of maximum differentiation to capture the untapped market instead, a demographic of of people who value diversity, equity, and inclusion, and all other qualities that normal decent people want more than they fear whatever seeds of division are being sowed this season.
Try this messaging on for size:
"I understand that a lot of people are concerned about trans people. I'm here to tell you that if that is your main concern, and if because over your fears regarding less than 1% of our most at-risk population, you would throw in with the bosses and billionaires that are robbing us all to death, then we're going to have to live without your support. Any leader who will sell out trans people today will sell you out tomorrow. I won't be that sort of leader. That's the way of old America. In the new America we all stick together so we can all rise together.
"I understand that our country's growing unhoused population makes many of you afraid. It should make you afraid—not because poor people who have caught a bad break pose a threat to you, but because they represent the threat bosses and billionaires make to keep you in line every day: They want you to think your life is up for evaluation, and if you can't earn it you'll be abandoned to suffer and die. But we spend more on harassing homeless people with cops than it would cost to hire people to build housing for every single one of them. I'm telling you today that we are done paying a premium for cruelty. I'm telling you that we're done saying that life has to be earned. That's the way of old America. In the new America we all stick together."
Leaders Who Lead
Also, even if sticking with whoever the out group is today may prove unpopular now, solidarity is the only way out of the fascist framing, and leaving the fascist framing is the only way to create a coalition that will actually build the sustainable inclusive society we desperately need. The fascists intend to come for everyone. They offer up different groups, one by one. We must reject the offer.
When something is unpopular, a leader can make it popular. In fact, I'd argue that's what makes a leader: Providing a vision, and then moving people toward that vision.
So let's stop following followers.
Let's stop following people who are more terrified of being called a socialist than they are of sticking up for society, for example. If you oppose white supremacists like Republicans and evangelicals and so forth, they're going to call you socialist regardless, and all the people who were never going to support decency will believe it.
Let's stop following people who are terrified of being associated with social justice, and awareness, and diversity, and equity, and inclusion. Let's find people who are brave enough to actually stand for something true and just and sustainable and right even when they have been made unnaturally unpopular—especially then.
Try these messages on for size:
“I understand my opponents call me a socialist, and I can understand why people who hate society so much that they are robbing it to death would say so. Unlike Republicans I am a big believer in American society; so much so, that I think it should be defended and nurtured, not demolished by bigots and sold by billionaires and bosses.
"My opponent calls me a socialist because he’s an antisocialist. Society exists and it’s worth fighting for. I’ll fight any boss who wants to steal it from you.
“Yes, unlike my opponents I am a big believer in diversity, equity, and inclusion. These are ideals that represent our nation’s best aspirations for itself. This is a nation for all people, not a playground for bigots and billionaires. My opponents should explain why they hate these values.
“My opponent calls me ‘woke’ but he never says what that means. I wonder why he wants our eyes closed, and what he wants them closed to. I wonder what he’s afraid we’ll see if we look around. Well my eyes are wide open and I’m fully awake. I say the time for us to be fooled by rich thieves is over. That's the old America. In the new America we all prosper, and those who have gained the most wealth because of our society will pay their fare share."
There are people who will be turned off by this message, it’s true, but it’s important to note that these are not lost support. The kind of citizen you lose from this rhetoric is the kind of citizen you never had; one that already has a party that gives them all the antisocial hate and destruction that this sort of citizen values most, and they like that party very much.
Leaders Who Reframe
Let's expect leaders who have learned how to turn every last lie back on itself and back toward truth. Let's expect leaders who reject fascist false dichotomies and call out their proclaimed values as faults. Again, Republicans have positioned themselves as the party of bosses and layoffs, two things everyone knows and hates.
It's so simple. Be the anti-boss party. Be the anti-layoff society.
Let's expect leaders who, when inevitably called “socialist” says something like “yes, that's the old anti-social line. They want you scared because they’re running to fire you. I’m running to fire your boss.”
Who say: “Socialist is a word billionaires like to use so you won’t notice their hand in your pocket.”
Who say: “The scariest words in the English language are ‘I’m from the private sector and I’m here to maximize efficiency.’”
And: “If a billionaire says ‘efficiency’ it means he wants to fire you and make your friend do both your job and hers, for less, so he can pocket the difference. That's the old America. We are human beings, not machines. We aren't made for efficiency, efficiency is made for us. We aren't here to create prosperity for a few, we create prosperity for every one of us us. No exceptions.”
And: “Billionaires steal money they don’t need from you because they think their toys are more important than your children, and then they brag about the money they just took—they call it savings.”
And: “Billionaires didn’t become billionaires by finding savings for you; they became billionaires by finding ways to take your savings."
And: “When the billionaires swindle you, I’ll tax them. When your bosses swindle you, I’ll fire them. When your landlord swindles you, I’ll evict them. This land is for all people, not a playground for bosses and bigots.”
Are we singing yet?
Let's even expect leaders who are willing to defang the "accusation" of socialism by owning the term. “I love being a socialist because I love society, and I love society because I love people, and I know that society is composed of people, not bosses and billionaires and bigots. I like things that are built to help people, they like things that are built to make a buck they don't need. I like libraries, they like book burning. I like affordable transportation, they like expensive tickets. I like airports to have safety workers, they prefer to gamble with your safety. I like cancer research. I like the weather service. I like disaster recovery. I like hospitals and colleges and schools that can function.”
The old America is dying—a beached whale. Good riddance, I say, as long as it isn't replaced by the rotted corpse that Republicans and evangelical christians and other white supremacists and fascist scavengers want for it to become.
I'd like to fight for the new one; the one that's better than it's ever been before.
So let's play the right game—demolishing the billionaire scam, replacing it with something sustainable and inclusive and true—and let's play as hard as we can.
And let's clear from the floor anyone who doesn't want to play.
Here in the new America, we play to win, and we play for all people.
No exceptions.
The Reframe is totally free, and is supported voluntarily by readers.
If you liked what you read, and only if you can afford to, please consider becoming a paid sponsor at The Reframe. Pay whatever you want.
Click the buttons for details.
Looking for a tip jar but don't want to subscribe?
Venmo is here and Paypal is here.
A.R. Moxon is the author of The Revisionaries, which is available in most of the usual places, and some of the unusual places, and the essay collection Very Fine People. You can get his books right here for example. He is also co-writer of Sugar Maple, a musical fiction podcast from Osiris Media which goes in your ears. A storm is threatening his very life today; if he don't get some shelter, he's gonna fade away.
Loved this article, especially the reframes at the end that you added in.