Maxwell Frost is using exactly the same playbook as AOC: Use nice progressive rhetoric while never criticizing Democrats in power. It may make him a successful politician, but he will never win any big victories on the issues he cares about—climate, Gaza, or guns—with this milquetoast approach.
Maxwell Frost is using exactly the same playbook as AOC: Use nice progressive rhetoric while never criticizing Democrats in power. It may make him a successful politician, but he will never win any big victories on the issues he cares about—climate, Gaza, or guns—with this milquetoast approach.
TS: Thank you Mehdi for this important interview with a young man who already understands the frustration and importance of working for actual, big results in a country of 330 million diverse people, from within a large, diverse, democratic coalition. Rather than sitting on the sidelines with his pure thoughts, Maxwell got on the field, won a Congressional seat in a diverse district, and is not seeking to replicate a progressive, do-nothing version of a "My Freedom Caucus." Maxwell has plunged into the actual job of politics of winning step-by-step arguments with those who matter while remaining clear in his own mind and to others of exactly where he stands. Bravo! When this podcast is over, I'll go to Maxwell's site and sign on for months contributions. Thank you Mehdi.
I don’t dislike him and his politics are good, but he seems so careful not to offend anyone in the Democratic Party that I wonder if he’s tough enough to get anything we need done.
Your reply is spectacular in a rhetorical sense. Very stirring. But what, specifically, are you talking about, when you say, "winning step-by-step arguments with those who matter?"
I'll tell you why I ask: Proving to a politician that you're RIGHT, is not the same thing as convincing them to ACT. By the time people figure that out — that their good-faith step-by-step arguments, and glad-handing with those who matter, only ever ends in being sold-out, and handed a bad-faith excuse for their betrayal — they're often so jaded that they give up. They either give up their integrity, or give up their job.
By now, we're all familiar with the derisive anti-integrity language that right wing Democrats have introduced, and the mainstream media has amplified. That makes it easy to dismiss people who stand on principle, but that doesn't make it right.
You're mocking the tactics of people who stand on integrity, but the tactics you're lauding are not more effective. Not at all.
Those people, whom you've chosen to mock, deserve respect. If they were "sitting on the sidelines with pure thoughts," you wouldn't know who they are.
Any time you find yourself using "purity" as a pejorative, please reconsider whether you're criticism is based on any legitimate failing, or whether you're falling back on disdain that was fed to you, through repetition.
Convincing a politician that you're right, isn't what forces them to act; building public pressure against them is what forces them to act.
I don't want to speak for Charles but I think he feels the same way many do. Because we are a democracy nothing happens over night and we certainly need to consider other points of view. The civil rights movement did this exact thing. It took time and a lot of courage, many lives lost. It has changed much but it's not perfect. you can point to many horrible incidents after the civil rights movement. But we have come far and you see many people in Congress and across the political spectrum who had benefitted from the work of that movement.
You may not have wanted to speak for Charles, but you managed. You also managed to speak for "many." You never did point to any fault with anything I said, but who am I to take issue with anything at all, when so "many" have spoken?
It is an objective fact that progressives are NOT "sitting on the sidelines with pure thoughts." But who am I to point that out — let alone say they deserve respect — when you, Charles, and "many" feel otherwise?
---
Note:
The history of the Civil Rights Movement is NOT infinitely-rewritable. It's beyond disrespectful to stuff the Civil Rights Movement into your ever-expanding collection of supporting opinions.
It's downright OBSCENE to portray the Civil Rights Movement as a REBUTTAL to the assertion that "building public pressure against (politicians) is what forces them to act."
Lisa: The only "pejorative" I referred to was an imaginary "My Freedom Caucus" that did nothing but celebrate itself. The Congressman's "purity" is not lost by getting on the field. He is putting his principles in the service of the rest of us. Step-by-step, courteous engagement with all the diverse people, ideas and resources necessary to winning big positive results and changes in our large, very diverse country is what democracy looks like.
Yes, it is long, hard, frustrating work with many summer soldiers falling away. Young Congressman Frost looks and sounds to me like the real deal for the long term.
Frost is such a shameless apologist. Tragic that the Democrats have become like this. After more than 50 years as a loyal Democrat I have left the party as they only now pay lip service for the changes we need. "Vote Blue because we promise it will be better." What, a better genocide, a better ecosystem collapse, a kinder, nicer police state? If someone wants my vote they need to earn it and not on empty promises.
Mostly agree, and I left the Democratic Party a few years ago as well. I can, as an unenrolled voter, vote in my blue state’s primaries, however. But give the Republicans are a fascist movement, I’m supporting our best shot at defeating them now, which is Harris-Walz. We will need to fight a Harris Administration for any progress, but we’ll at least have a shot with that crowd, unlike with a fascist Trumpist mob.
Unfortunately, I believe the Democrats have become "fascist lite." Certainly, there are some differences, but look at their recent track record. Silence when it comes to genocide committed by Israel, support for Cop Cities, little progress if any on climate change, social issues or the economy. For me as a person, who hopefully has some humanity left in me, I cannot vote for someone who is supporting a genocide, even if that means Trump gets elected. I can't live with the thought that I willing accepted a genocide because I was worried about myself.
I don’t blame you or anyone who can’t vote for Democrats because of all the things you noted. For me, voting for the lesser evil is strategic and not a reflection of my personal morality. I still think Trump is that much worse and very dangerous even though you are 100% correct about all of the horrible things the Democrats support or at least don’t oppose.
I fully understand and didn't mean to reflect upon you. My apologies if that was implied. This is my personal opinion and I believe everyone should vote how they feel is best. A lot of people are voting for Harris on the hope that it will be better. I just don't hold that opinion. Peace and love.
Something that might be helpful for people who aren’t familiar with firearms is the following. It’s not what a gun looks like that makes it lethal it’s the size, weight, speed , quantity of bullets a weapon can deliver to target. It’s likely a weapon that needs a single cartridge loaded by hand is more lethal than a weapon that spits out bullets quickly .
A firearm spitting out bullets very quickly isn’t as accurate as a firearm with a scope taking aim. Certainly a high speed firearm firing into a crowd is gojng to hit more targets. A high precision rifle will have a better chance of hitting a target. The reason there’s a large variety of firearms is because theres a large variety of targets.
The most popular weapon is always changing because designs change and weapons that are more versatile become more popular.
Maxwell Frost is using exactly the same playbook as AOC: Use nice progressive rhetoric while never criticizing Democrats in power. It may make him a successful politician, but he will never win any big victories on the issues he cares about—climate, Gaza, or guns—with this milquetoast approach.
TS: Thank you Mehdi for this important interview with a young man who already understands the frustration and importance of working for actual, big results in a country of 330 million diverse people, from within a large, diverse, democratic coalition. Rather than sitting on the sidelines with his pure thoughts, Maxwell got on the field, won a Congressional seat in a diverse district, and is not seeking to replicate a progressive, do-nothing version of a "My Freedom Caucus." Maxwell has plunged into the actual job of politics of winning step-by-step arguments with those who matter while remaining clear in his own mind and to others of exactly where he stands. Bravo! When this podcast is over, I'll go to Maxwell's site and sign on for months contributions. Thank you Mehdi.
I don’t dislike him and his politics are good, but he seems so careful not to offend anyone in the Democratic Party that I wonder if he’s tough enough to get anything we need done.
He’s young, give him time to get his balance.
Thank you for your comment. Well said.
This is the reason you cannot just look at one issue for the greater good. So well put.
Your reply is spectacular in a rhetorical sense. Very stirring. But what, specifically, are you talking about, when you say, "winning step-by-step arguments with those who matter?"
I'll tell you why I ask: Proving to a politician that you're RIGHT, is not the same thing as convincing them to ACT. By the time people figure that out — that their good-faith step-by-step arguments, and glad-handing with those who matter, only ever ends in being sold-out, and handed a bad-faith excuse for their betrayal — they're often so jaded that they give up. They either give up their integrity, or give up their job.
By now, we're all familiar with the derisive anti-integrity language that right wing Democrats have introduced, and the mainstream media has amplified. That makes it easy to dismiss people who stand on principle, but that doesn't make it right.
You're mocking the tactics of people who stand on integrity, but the tactics you're lauding are not more effective. Not at all.
Those people, whom you've chosen to mock, deserve respect. If they were "sitting on the sidelines with pure thoughts," you wouldn't know who they are.
Any time you find yourself using "purity" as a pejorative, please reconsider whether you're criticism is based on any legitimate failing, or whether you're falling back on disdain that was fed to you, through repetition.
Convincing a politician that you're right, isn't what forces them to act; building public pressure against them is what forces them to act.
I don't want to speak for Charles but I think he feels the same way many do. Because we are a democracy nothing happens over night and we certainly need to consider other points of view. The civil rights movement did this exact thing. It took time and a lot of courage, many lives lost. It has changed much but it's not perfect. you can point to many horrible incidents after the civil rights movement. But we have come far and you see many people in Congress and across the political spectrum who had benefitted from the work of that movement.
You may not have wanted to speak for Charles, but you managed. You also managed to speak for "many." You never did point to any fault with anything I said, but who am I to take issue with anything at all, when so "many" have spoken?
It is an objective fact that progressives are NOT "sitting on the sidelines with pure thoughts." But who am I to point that out — let alone say they deserve respect — when you, Charles, and "many" feel otherwise?
---
Note:
The history of the Civil Rights Movement is NOT infinitely-rewritable. It's beyond disrespectful to stuff the Civil Rights Movement into your ever-expanding collection of supporting opinions.
It's downright OBSCENE to portray the Civil Rights Movement as a REBUTTAL to the assertion that "building public pressure against (politicians) is what forces them to act."
I'm speaking for Charles and many others, but not for you. You can clearly do that for yourself.
Lisa: The only "pejorative" I referred to was an imaginary "My Freedom Caucus" that did nothing but celebrate itself. The Congressman's "purity" is not lost by getting on the field. He is putting his principles in the service of the rest of us. Step-by-step, courteous engagement with all the diverse people, ideas and resources necessary to winning big positive results and changes in our large, very diverse country is what democracy looks like.
Yes, it is long, hard, frustrating work with many summer soldiers falling away. Young Congressman Frost looks and sounds to me like the real deal for the long term.
Frost is such a shameless apologist. Tragic that the Democrats have become like this. After more than 50 years as a loyal Democrat I have left the party as they only now pay lip service for the changes we need. "Vote Blue because we promise it will be better." What, a better genocide, a better ecosystem collapse, a kinder, nicer police state? If someone wants my vote they need to earn it and not on empty promises.
Mostly agree, and I left the Democratic Party a few years ago as well. I can, as an unenrolled voter, vote in my blue state’s primaries, however. But give the Republicans are a fascist movement, I’m supporting our best shot at defeating them now, which is Harris-Walz. We will need to fight a Harris Administration for any progress, but we’ll at least have a shot with that crowd, unlike with a fascist Trumpist mob.
Unfortunately, I believe the Democrats have become "fascist lite." Certainly, there are some differences, but look at their recent track record. Silence when it comes to genocide committed by Israel, support for Cop Cities, little progress if any on climate change, social issues or the economy. For me as a person, who hopefully has some humanity left in me, I cannot vote for someone who is supporting a genocide, even if that means Trump gets elected. I can't live with the thought that I willing accepted a genocide because I was worried about myself.
I don’t blame you or anyone who can’t vote for Democrats because of all the things you noted. For me, voting for the lesser evil is strategic and not a reflection of my personal morality. I still think Trump is that much worse and very dangerous even though you are 100% correct about all of the horrible things the Democrats support or at least don’t oppose.
I fully understand and didn't mean to reflect upon you. My apologies if that was implied. This is my personal opinion and I believe everyone should vote how they feel is best. A lot of people are voting for Harris on the hope that it will be better. I just don't hold that opinion. Peace and love.
100%. He is, unfortunately, in the pockets of zionists interests and in the opposite side of progressive jews.
I don’t think that’s quite accurate. I think he’s scared of AIPAC funding an opponent rather than being directly bought off by the lobbying group.
Something that might be helpful for people who aren’t familiar with firearms is the following. It’s not what a gun looks like that makes it lethal it’s the size, weight, speed , quantity of bullets a weapon can deliver to target. It’s likely a weapon that needs a single cartridge loaded by hand is more lethal than a weapon that spits out bullets quickly .
A firearm spitting out bullets very quickly isn’t as accurate as a firearm with a scope taking aim. Certainly a high speed firearm firing into a crowd is gojng to hit more targets. A high precision rifle will have a better chance of hitting a target. The reason there’s a large variety of firearms is because theres a large variety of targets.
The most popular weapon is always changing because designs change and weapons that are more versatile become more popular.