My takeaway from this is that the messenger is very important but having the correct message and delivering it well is much more important than the costume he's wearing.
Another excellent and insightful piece Ben. I'm really enjoying these Searchlight posts.
I appreciate that you acknowledged your part about Chris Murphy because A LOT of the centrists here ripping Platner were big believers in identity politics and how “Tim Walz wasn’t manly enough”
Tim Walz was exceptionally awkward and uncomfortable; he didn’t tank the Harris-Walz ticket but he didn’t help at all, whereas someone even like Sherrod Brown might have been a bit less embarrassing.
And a TON of centrists on here claimed it was because he came off as too feminine. Many of these same people are pretending that the Graham Platner approach was ridiculous from the start when it was also something they were pushing
Yes and a lot of people arguing that now were absolutely not arguing that before Platner had his scandals. It’s incredibly hypocritical to act like centrists are above identity politics when they were the ones who made a huge deal out of it in 2024
> It’s incredibly hypocritical to act like centrists are above identity politics
Nobody is saying this.
Nonetheless, your argument about Walz is very silly, because you’re conflating arguments about *how to do* identity politics well with *how important* doing identity politics well is.
Picking Walz to appeal to conservative white men was doing identity politics poorly. Picking Platner shows the limits of pure identity politics even when done well.
Tim Walz was the progressive establishment’s version of Platner actually. People got infatuated with the costume.
I’m afraid that this cycle our version is, unfortunately, Talarico. I hope I’m wrong but it feels like the people mainly saying “wow this guy’s a pastor!” are secular liberals who don’t live in Texas rather than cross-pressured Texas moderates. The comparison isn’t perfect, he’s been more moderate on immigration than the national party but that’s just table stakes for Texas.
And who knows, maybe the pastor stuff moves some Latinos, but again that’s just a secular liberals who’s not from Texas speculating.
The trouble with that is giving up party discipline. Activists in the party have spent a long time cultivating the current party positions and they really don't want to give that position up.
They'd rather run the party in control every other election cycle, and be part of a coalition that wins every cycle.
They were right to recruit someone with excellent speaking skills. The ability to communicate effectively across all media simply needs to be a requirement. No more Bidens or Harrises.
That said, people who are swept off their feet by a charismatic politician should not be political strategists. There are lots of charming schmucks and morons in the world.
My takeaway is that people involved in politics just aren't very good. They weren't looking at polling or focus groups, they were just going by vibes and looks.
Alternatively, rather than guess what voters want, and start them at the top, find people who already do well in R districts and move them up the ladder. You know, base selection on actual performance.
Obama certainly took poll tested, er popularist, positions. But if you're completely disregarding charisma you weren't paying attention.
A recent poll that Milan was citing showed a plurality of leftists thought Obama was a leftist, a plurality of libs thought he was a liberal and a plurality of moderates thought he was a mod.
You can't do that all on charisma, but you can't do it without it.
You’re missing something. First, the idea that “real” ordinary working Americans identify with vulgarians and the answer to Trump is to run a vulgarian with the “approved” views and proper messaging is the last insult to ordinary Americans and especially American men. The contempt is obvious, as it was during the Presidential campaign. Second, the persistent use of “the working class”, (a twenty-dollar abstraction) instead of “working Americans” is a tell that the people in charge of this party (who don’t do anything properly describable as work) don’t really think of us as people, but as objects to be manipulated by the clever people. It takes higher education to be that stupid.
My takeaway from this is that the messenger is very important but having the correct message and delivering it well is much more important than the costume he's wearing.
Another excellent and insightful piece Ben. I'm really enjoying these Searchlight posts.
I appreciate that you acknowledged your part about Chris Murphy because A LOT of the centrists here ripping Platner were big believers in identity politics and how “Tim Walz wasn’t manly enough”
Tim Walz was exceptionally awkward and uncomfortable; he didn’t tank the Harris-Walz ticket but he didn’t help at all, whereas someone even like Sherrod Brown might have been a bit less embarrassing.
And a TON of centrists on here claimed it was because he came off as too feminine. Many of these same people are pretending that the Graham Platner approach was ridiculous from the start when it was also something they were pushing
It matters that the supposed appeal of Tim Walz was that he was a white man—not that he was a policy moderate.
If the argument for someone is that they fit a certain identity or aesthetic, it’s perfectly reasonable to criticism them for failing to do that.
It’s a distinct argument that identity and aesthetics aren’t ultimately that important,
Yes and a lot of people arguing that now were absolutely not arguing that before Platner had his scandals. It’s incredibly hypocritical to act like centrists are above identity politics when they were the ones who made a huge deal out of it in 2024
> It’s incredibly hypocritical to act like centrists are above identity politics
Nobody is saying this.
Nonetheless, your argument about Walz is very silly, because you’re conflating arguments about *how to do* identity politics well with *how important* doing identity politics well is.
Picking Walz to appeal to conservative white men was doing identity politics poorly. Picking Platner shows the limits of pure identity politics even when done well.
A LOT of people have been saying that
Tim Walz was the progressive establishment’s version of Platner actually. People got infatuated with the costume.
I’m afraid that this cycle our version is, unfortunately, Talarico. I hope I’m wrong but it feels like the people mainly saying “wow this guy’s a pastor!” are secular liberals who don’t live in Texas rather than cross-pressured Texas moderates. The comparison isn’t perfect, he’s been more moderate on immigration than the national party but that’s just table stakes for Texas.
And who knows, maybe the pastor stuff moves some Latinos, but again that’s just a secular liberals who’s not from Texas speculating.
The trouble with that is giving up party discipline. Activists in the party have spent a long time cultivating the current party positions and they really don't want to give that position up.
They'd rather run the party in control every other election cycle, and be part of a coalition that wins every cycle.
They were right to recruit someone with excellent speaking skills. The ability to communicate effectively across all media simply needs to be a requirement. No more Bidens or Harrises.
That said, people who are swept off their feet by a charismatic politician should not be political strategists. There are lots of charming schmucks and morons in the world.
My takeaway is that people involved in politics just aren't very good. They weren't looking at polling or focus groups, they were just going by vibes and looks.
Alternatively, rather than guess what voters want, and start them at the top, find people who already do well in R districts and move them up the ladder. You know, base selection on actual performance.
Obama certainly took poll tested, er popularist, positions. But if you're completely disregarding charisma you weren't paying attention.
A recent poll that Milan was citing showed a plurality of leftists thought Obama was a leftist, a plurality of libs thought he was a liberal and a plurality of moderates thought he was a mod.
You can't do that all on charisma, but you can't do it without it.
Excellent excellent piece
Great piece.
You’re missing something. First, the idea that “real” ordinary working Americans identify with vulgarians and the answer to Trump is to run a vulgarian with the “approved” views and proper messaging is the last insult to ordinary Americans and especially American men. The contempt is obvious, as it was during the Presidential campaign. Second, the persistent use of “the working class”, (a twenty-dollar abstraction) instead of “working Americans” is a tell that the people in charge of this party (who don’t do anything properly describable as work) don’t really think of us as people, but as objects to be manipulated by the clever people. It takes higher education to be that stupid.
Great insights! I think Noah Smith had some similar ideas about Platners working class identity politics in a recent Noapinion post .
i disagree about Trump, his identity (or maybe "vibes") mattered a great deal to a lot of voters, especially low-info ones