America is lawless. Are Dems ready to get tough on crime?

The US Supreme Court signed off on a lawless plan to suppress mail-in voting. There's another illegal trade war, this one with Canada, our closest ally in terms of language and culture, jeopardizing nearly $1 trillion in trade. Billionaires are openly bribing the president for the right to rob taxpayers. ICE is totally rogue, arresting the father of a sailor aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, detaining this month as many as 50,000 immigrants, including literal babies, and subjecting detainees to conditions described by some as torture. Meanwhile, Donald Trump is stealing disaster relief while gilding everything in Washington in gold.

America is awash in lawlessness and impunity. Are the Democrats ready?

That's the question beneath every story about the congressional elections. The conventional wisdom is that the Democrats are going to take back power, at least in the House, but so far, there is no consensus of opinion on what they will do with that power or whether they will use it at all. Meanwhile, a gang of very powerful men just wants to watch the world burn.

Hakeem Jeffries is not inspiring hope. The Times reported that the man next in line to be House speaker met privately with Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, to discuss "potential areas of common ground." The news sparked a backlash from the Democratic Party's base, forcing Jeffries to go on a media blitz to explain himself. Yesterday, on CNN, he emphasized that "we’re going to hold the crooks accountable" while managing to minimize the fact that he met with one of those crooks to discuss issues that "can be built upon moving forward."

That, however, wasn't the worst part.

During that CNN interview, Jeffries also said he felt he should meet with Kushner, because the Democrats "have a responsibility to solve problems," referring to affordability and the rising cost of living. "Sometimes that means meeting with people on the other side of the aisle." He added that he can't take the Republicans' "my-way-or-the-highway approach" to governing. “I’m not only here to make a point,” he said. “I’m here to make a difference.”

First, I don't think the Democrats bear any responsibility for solving problems created by this president. Trump wanted his war. His war spiked oil prices. Oil prices are driving inflation. Inflation is driving everyone crazy. The Democrats have a bad habit of taking responsibility for Donald Trump's choices. If he and his party want to be in the stew of war, let them cook.

Second, the problem isn't the affordability crisis. The problem is the crimes committed over decades that gave rise to it. "Trickle-down economics is not a theory," Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico said, in a rally in Texas. "It is theft. For 50 years, billionaire mega-donors and their puppet politicians have been stealing from the American people, stealing the wealth that we created, with their bribes, their bailouts, and their billionaire tax breaks."

"We have an affordability crisis, because we have a corruption crisis," Talarico said.

So if Jeffries is "here to make a difference," he must recognize first that affordability is not primarily a matter of good, equitable economic policy negotiated in good faith with reliable bargaining partners. It is a matter of the stone-cold enforcement of the law. If he wants "nothing short of transformational policy change," he must recognize the criminals are not going to voluntarily stop being lawless. They must be forced. It's time to get tough on crime.

That Jeffries felt he had to explain himself gives me some hope, but will the Democrats push for a program of law and order? For an answer, I got in touch with Martin Longman. He's a longtime progressive blogger, former Washington Monthly staffer, and currently publisher of an eponymous newsletter. Marty is neither an optimist nor a pessimist. He sees things clearly. (As I was writing this, he published a piece in which he was confident Talarico really can win in Texas, and if so, that's "the end of modern conservatism.") He told me that the Democrats are on track to win the whole shebang, including the Senate, and that a new breed of Democrats will change things a little, but internal structures still give him pause.

"I don't think Jeffries or any other major Democrat in Washington has a grip on the moment. This can matter, but in some ways things are out of their control, as indicated by how little control they have over who is winning Democratic primaries. I'm not sure their obliviousness matters a whole lot to how the midterms turn out, but it will matter once they have power."

Can the Dems really take the Senate?

I would be surprised if they didn't. Despite what should be a very difficult map for them historically, Nate Silver already has them with 57 percent odds of winning. That's little more than a toss-up statistically-speaking, but it means it's not crazy to call them favorites.

Does Hakeem Jeffries understand this moment?

I'm not sure. I assume the main reason you're asking is because it was revealed he had a meeting with Jared Kushner and that's caused a lot of criticism. My take is a little different than others. My first takeaway wasn't that this was set up by Kushner, where the point was to leak the meeting and undermine Jeffries, but that it indicated a recognition that Jeffries will be the speaker soon and there's a country to govern. I don't think Trump thinks about these things, but Kushner does. On the other hand, no, I don't think Jeffries or any other major Democrat in Washington has a grip on the moment. This can matter, but in some ways things are out of their control, as indicated by how little control they have over who is winning Democratic primaries. I'm not sure their obliviousness matters a whole lot to how the midterms turn out, but it will matter once they have power.

To what extent is "the insurgency from the left" real and to what extent is it hype?

I guess that really depends on what you care about. Using the example of the tea party, the GOP undoubtedly lost a lot of winnable races because they had candidates saying and doing things far out of the mainstream. But they won the overall battle using that energy. But then the old guard that used that energy to win wound up losing their party, and where are they now? Podcasting at The Bulwark or running for Congress as Democrats.

Democrats who want the party to remain ideologically the same have reason to be concerned. The new wave of Democrats will be different. Those expecting this to create quick meaningful change might be disappointed, though, and look back at this so-called insurgency and say it was all hype. I don't think the Dems are really on the cusp of a major ideological overhaul, except probably on US-Israeli relations or how the party deals with Silicon Valley on some issues like AI and data centers. I just don't think the new breed of Democrat is that radical, and certainly not on par with the tea party or maga.

Do you see reforms in the future: packing the court, adding states, ending the filibuster?

That's the million dollar question. The first thing I'll say is that we'll have to see how the actual elections play out. If there is anything approximating another January 6 and the Dems come out on top anyway, even moderates will be out for blood and changes to the Supreme Court or adding states or scrapping the filibuster will be absolutely demanded of the party's presidential candidates. But Congress will still be blocked from those things so long as Trump is in power and perhaps the momentum will lessen over the next two years. As for a divided government in 2027-2028, keeping the lights on will be the biggest challenge, and that's kind of why Jeffries agreeing to meet with Kushner made some sense.

Do Democratic donors get that the press corps is lost and that the party needs its own media? Or are we going to see more millions spent on ads every two to four years?

You've touched a nerve here, as a progressive under-compensated blogger of 20 years. The problem with big Democratic donors is that they have too much in common with big Republican donors. They want control, and they can get that by buying a newspaper and compliant editors. They never will have any desire to finance opinion makers and give them independence the way leftwing writers who actually represent most people in the party demand. Anyone who would actually pay me a living wage would also want me to keep within their guardrails. The only solution I can see for this is for small donors to finance their own leftwing media the way small donors often boost candidates who are not approved by party leaders. The oligarchs of the left aren't going to be part of the solution.

The Editorial Board's chief illustrator produced a new sketch inspired by her cat and dog, Maya and Hades (pronounced "Haydz"). It's her contribution to our household income, as she hopes you will like it enough to subscribe! For just $9 a month, you get so much – the satisfaction of supporting independent journalism as well as a budding visual artist! Subscribe today! (Don't know if you're a subscriber? Check your status below.) –JS