An Assignment from Jamelle Bouie
By
Jamelle Bouie is one of my favorite commentators. I watch his short videos and enjoy his talk with Michelle Cottle and David French while I make breakfast on Saturday mornings. His work is thoughtful and deeply rooted in history. Just one of the smartest and wisest people around.
He has issued a challenge (gift link). Professional Democrats are starting to realize that Republicans had a plan – Project 2025 – and that maybe Democrats need something like that to win in 2028 and set things right after the Trumpian destruction. Of course they are referring to it as Project 2029, which I guess is okay as long as it’s in formative stages, because that title contains something of a definition and what the document should do. But I think we need another name at some point.
One such plan issued forth a couple of weeks ago and was symptomatic of how too many professional Democrats are looking at the road ahead. It was a wish list of good ideas and policies, but no overarching structure. They seemed not to notice that Donald Trump, Russell Vought, Elon Musk, and others have been disassembling the government. We will need a reconstruction.
Bouie outlines what is needed.
But none of this reflects or represents a far-reaching or comprehensive idea of what the nation might be. There is no coherent worldview at work, nor does there seem to be any inkling or awareness of the obstacles — structural, political and institutional — that will confront, and likely stymie, all but the most threadbare and ineffectual Democratic agendas for governing.
For a coherent worldview,
Democrats need a theory of constitutional power: a sense of what the Constitution is and how it both authorizes and legitimizes the kind of government they hope to build.
This constitutional vision will shape how we attempt to rebuild American democracy. Also needed is an understanding of the obstacles to achieving that vision.
What difference will specific policy items make if there are profound obstacles to simply governing at all? A Project 2029 that has nothing to say about either the Senate filibuster, or an ideologically captured Supreme Court, or extreme partisan gerrymandering — among other concerns — is not a Project 2029 worth the time or effort.
And then would come specific policy proposals, although I would address them in tiers from most general to more specific. For example, one proposal might be to restore review of scientific proposals by people competent in science and remove review for political objectives. Under that could come specifics to address the problem in the various agencies or disciplines.
It’s the kind of assignment I can’t resist. So I’m working on a statement of principles and vision. Another of my favorite commentators, Heather Cox Richardson, has said that this is a discussion that should be held broadly – that there should be many thoughts and many proposals, and I hope to contribute.
It’s going to be a reconstruction rather than a restoration.
The American people broke something when they gave Trump a second chance in office. And there is no going back to the Union as it was. If Democrats hope to lead the nation to any kind of recovery, much less renewal, they must understand and internalize this fact of the matter.