Dean Phillips: Democrats ‘pathetically' fighting DOGE ‘steamroller'
In an interview with CNN's Laura Coates on Wednesday, Phillips said Democrats are wrong to be attacking Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), arguing the American people are broadly supportive of the billionaire's goals to cut waste, fraud and abuse in government — even if some of his tactics have raised legal concerns.
'Democrats are only focused on one thing right now, Mr. Musk. The fact of the matter, he's quite popular. He has the largest platform in human history, which is, of course, Twitter/X. And I think we're missing the boat as Democrats,' Phillips said in the interview.
'And all I'm saying is that sometimes it's better to join them and actually play a role in how the strategy works, rather than — so pathetically, frankly — try to combat something that clearly is a steamroller,' Phillips continued. 'And Democrats are being steamrolled, and I'm deeply concerned about that.'
Several Democrats joined the DOGE Caucus in Congress when it was first unveiled late last year but have since said they have been shut out of discussions about spending and that Musk has been operating without congressional input.
Phillips acknowledged the legal concerns with some of Musk's actions.
'Yes, Musk is not elected,' Phillips said. 'He has no accountability other than Donald Trump, and that's a frightening combination, and I don't want to cross my fingers. I think Democrats should join the club and then have more credibility to actually raise the alarm about constitutional issues. Right now, it's 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf.''
Asked what Democrats should do to course-correct, Phillips nodded back to his 2024 campaign, when he first raised questions about former President Biden's age and fitness for the job and was dismissed by others in the part.
'The course-correction, frankly, Laura, I wish had occurred a year-and-a-half ago when I tried to raise the alarm about Joe Biden,' Phillips said. 'These are the same Democrats — and many of them I love, and I consider my friends — but they're the same people who tried to tell Americans that Joe Biden was just fine, and he was going to win, and we knew better.'
'So now to try to establish credibility on issues that Americans actually voted for, which is to make government work more efficiently, is a big mistake,' he said.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
14 minutes ago
- Vox
How conservatives help their young thinkers — and why liberals don't
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he covers ideology and challenges to democracy, both at home and abroad. His book on democracy,, was published 0n July 16. You can purchase it here. Attendees look on during Turning Point USA's Culture War event at the Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, on October 29, 2019. Megan Jelinger/AFP via Getty Images Last week, two young liberals asked for help finding a job in the ideas industry. And I didn't have a great answer. It made sense that they were asking: We were at a conference for liberals, dedicated to building a version of the doctrine that works in the 21st century. They were interested in studying ideas professionally, and I was there to moderate a panel about political philosophy. Yet I found myself struggling to give good advice. Sure, they could try for an internship at a liberal publication or think tank, but those are fiercely competitive and don't pay much. They could apply for a PhD program, but teaching jobs were scarce even before President Donald Trump took a hammer to American academia. What's really missing are programs of a specific kind — ones that help college students and recent grads engage with Big Ideas and connect with Important People. If my young acquaintances were right-wing, I might have told them to apply for National Review's Buckley and Rhodes journalism fellowships — multiyear paid opportunities to write for a national audience straight out of college. For a lesser commitment, they could have tried for the Claremont Institute's Publius Fellowship — a three-week program where you receive $1,500, a $700 travel stipend, free housing, paid meals, and an opportunity to study with some of the most influential (and radical) figures of the Trump era. On the Right The ideas and trends driving the conservative movement, from senior correspondent Zack Beauchamp. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Those are two examples of numerous well-funded programs explicitly designed to usher as many bright young people into the institutional conservative world as possible. If you're an ambitious young college grad, and anywhere on the spectrum from libertarian to hardcore Trumpist, you've got tons of options to get into the ideas game. My young acquaintances really wanted a liberal version of such a thing. But as far as I can tell, it doesn't seem to exist. Where there should be a talent pipeline from universities to liberal public intellectualism, there is a giant sucking sound instead. And, increasingly, it's giving the right a leg up in winning the future. The right's winning formula for training youth It is true, as conservatives have long alleged, that America's intellectual institutions are pretty left-leaning places. They often overstate the case — professors are more likely to be Elizabeth Warren Dems than 'globalize the intifada' socialist revolutionaries — but data confirms that liberals outnumber conservatives in academia and the media by pretty significant margins. This is, of course, not at all new. One of the founding texts of the postwar conservative movement, William F. Buckley's God and Man at Yale, is all about how academia is full of socialists who are chipping away at the eternal truths of capitalism and Christianity. Buckley founded National Review as an antidote to what he saw as the liberal tilt of the mainstream American press. The legacy of Buckley-style thinking is the rise of a conservative ideas industry. A young person nowadays could attend college at right-wing Hillsdale, build their law school life around membership in the Federalist Society, and then get a job writing right-wing papers for the Heritage Foundation — all while getting their news from Fox News and Mark Levin's radio show. As part of these pipeline programs, older right-wingers get to know young up-and-comers as people, and thus develop a personal stake in their success. At the same time, the right also invested in the kinds of 'pipeline' programs our young liberals are desperate for. These aren't designed to replace traditional education or media institutions, but rather to identify young people interested in ideas and expose them to the right-wing alternatives. These work, in large part, by being intellectually exciting. It's not just that you get to go on all-expenses-paid trips with nice meals; it's that you are put in an environment where you're reading and debating classic works of political thought and literature with other people who share those interests. If you're the kind of nerd who wants to debate the finer points of Locke and Hamilton during undergrad summers, you're the kind of nerd who might one day be someone who matters in US politics — and the right's fellowships are there to help make sure you're mattering on their side. The people these young people are meeting are important and famous (well, DC famous). In a 2021 episode of the Know Your Enemy podcast, Nate Hochman — a radical young conservative writer who later staffed both Gov. Ron DeSantis and Sen. Eric Schmitt — talks at length about 'the masterful things the conservative movement institutionally has done in terms of mentorship.' Hochman, who was raised in a liberal household and moved to the right in college, describes how the movement's fellowship programs brought him in direct and meaningful contact with conservatism's leading lights. 'All of a sudden, you're at dinner with people you've looked up to for years, staying up until 1 am drinking wine with them and asking them questions and getting to talk to them. And they're taking you seriously,' Hochman says. As part of these pipeline programs, older right-wingers get to know young up-and-comers as people, and thus develop a personal stake in their success. When you stay up late drinking with someone, talking about shared ideas, you come to care about them in a way you don't if they sent you a cold email. When they come looking for help getting a job writing about conservative ideas, you'll work that much harder to place them in one. And the right has built its institutions to ensure that such positions are available. Right-wing publications and think tanks are much more open to debating big-picture questions — say, what kind of a nation is America? — than their left-wing peers (more on that in a second). Claremont, for example, was founded by students of conservative political philosopher Harry Jaffa, and it shows in the kind of work they put out (even when it strikes me as substantively ridiculous). Liberals are suffering from success There is no parallel culture in American liberalism — a function, in part, of liberalism's longtime intellectual dominance. There wasn't much of a need for liberal donors to create programs to cultivate liberal thought, as people interested could simply go get a PhD or an entry-level reporting job. However, these institutions were not avowedly liberal in character. They styled themselves as politically neutral, focused more on quality research and reporting, than as contributing to a particular ideological cause. This means that while liberals in such fields were in left-leaning environments, many were trained to see themselves primarily as professionals working a craft. So while there are plenty of internships available to young liberals, they're mostly focused on professional training (or coffee-fetching) rather than staying up late swapping ideas with big names. More broadly, the liberal professional approach also produced a kind of intellectual siloing. If you were a young liberal interested in political philosophy, odds are that you end up going to a PhD program and pursuing a career in academia. If you're interested in policy, odds are that you ended up studying a set of applied skills (like law or economics) that prepared you for very specific policy discussions in your area of expertise. But the conservative intellectual model bridges the philosophy-policy gap. It trains young people in the big-picture ideas, like conservative visions of political morality and religion, and teaches them to connect those things to everyday policy discussions. You aren't learning about abstract ideas or concrete policy, but rather learning a comprehensive worldview that treats policy issues as downstream of specific values. You are, in short, learning an ideology. Liberalism has plenty of brilliant theorists who work at a largely abstract level, and policy wonks who work on the most applied issues. But in the middle area of ideology, one bridging the gap between principle and policy, they've basically ceded the field to conservatism. The pipeline problem for young people is a symptom of the movement's blind spot: liberals, as a collective, don't care to cultivate a youth ideological cadre. This might not have been a problem in the past — and maybe even a benefit. Ideological thinking tends to produce rigidity, an unwillingness to adjust one's policy thinking based on new evidence. The right's longtime insistence that tax cuts can reduce deficits, or addiction to proposing military solutions to foreign policy problems, are two examples of curdled ideology. But we're at a moment where liberalism is in a particular kind of crisis: under threat from new ideologies that challenge not specific liberal policy ideas, but the basic premises of a liberal political system. Liberals need a new and compelling vision: one that explains why our ideas are not merely a defense of an unpopular status quo, but a broader politics that can be used to address cardinal problems of the 21st century. At this moment, liberals lack the personnel to articulate such a vision — while the right's radical thinkers, at places like Claremont, seize the field.
The Hill
15 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senate Democrats launch radio ad attacking GOP over cuts to rural radio funding
The Senate Democrats' campaign arm is launching a new radio ad Wednesday attacking Republicans for slashing funding for rural radio stations as a part of more than $1 billion Republicans made in cuts to public broadcasting in their recissions package. 'Thank you for listening to your local radio station. But stations like these might not be around for long,' a narrator says in the 30-second ad, which was first shared with The Hill. 'Last month in D.C., Republican Senators cut radio funding, voting to end weather alerts, community news and our way to stay connected,' the narrator continued. 'Rural America relies on radio. But Republican politicians left us behind.' They added, 'We can't trust them to fight for us.' The ads are being aired in recognition of National Radio Day, and they're expected to run in rural stations in Alaska, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas, all of which Senate Democrats are eyeing as potential pick-up opportunities next year. 'Rural communities rely on local radio to stay connected on everything from local news to lifesaving alerts about severe weather — but Republican Senators left them behind,' Maeve Coyle, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), said in a statement. 'Republican senators will be forced to explain to their constituents why they're robbing the programs that support their communities in order to pay for a giveaway to billionaires,' she added. President Trump signed a recissions package last month, which rescinds around $9 billion Congress had previously approved for funding for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting (CPB), which helps fund NPR and PBS and its affiliates, and global aid programs. CPB is contending with more than $1 billion in cuts alone. Federal funding makes up a smaller percentage of the money NPR and PBS rely on, but rural stations have already warned it will impact them more severely since it makes up a higher proportion of their overall funding. Republicans have attacked NPR and PBS, arguing they're liberally biased and their programs push 'radical left positions,' which its leaders have pushed back on. Contending with the cuts, the CPB announced it would begin to shut down, with its president Patricia Harrison saying in a statement 'we now face the difficult reality of closing our operations.'
San Francisco Chronicle
15 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Newsom is the face of California's redistricting push. That could help him — and hurt the plan
SACRAMENTO — By launching a campaign to redraw California's congressional districts, Gov. Gavin Newsom has once again placed himself at the center of the national political conversation. That's helpful to Newsom as he positions himself to run for president in 2028 — something he has not explicitly admitted but has long been evident in his efforts to build a national donor base and boost his visibility in other states, including a recent visit to South Carolina. But it could prove detrimental to the redistricting campaign itself if Republicans can convince voters to view the measure as a power grab by Newsom, rather than the Democrats' framing as a fight against President Donald Trump. For loyal Democratic voters, the key constituency Newsom would need to win in a presidential primary, that framing seems to be working. Newsom has surged in popularity on social media with his persistent attacks on Trump and is earning praise from liberals hungry for their leaders to take on the president more aggressively. 'He's staking out a position as the kind of person who fights,' said Hans Noel, a government professor at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. 'A lot of Democrats want to see that.' To successfully campaign for president, Newsom needs to shore up support from Democratic leaders and boost his popularity outside of California, Noel said. With the redistricting measure, Newsom risks criticism from people who disagree with his tactics and don't want to see Democrats abandon independent redistricting. But the campaign is undeniably helping him introduce himself to voters outside the Golden State who may not be familiar with him. Being at the forefront of the campaign might help him with a future presidential run, but it could hamper the campaign's chances within California, said Rob Stutzman, a Republican strategist who previously worked for Arnold Schwarzenegger. Democrats describe the measure as a fight against Trump and a direct response to efforts in Texas to redraw maps in favor of Republicans. Newsom has said he'd abandon the effort if Texas dropped its plans. But it's also something that would hand California Democrats more power, as Republican opponents are already pointing out. 'Every issue that matters to Californians has been put to the side so that (Newsom) and other politicians can seize back power,' Assembly Member Carl DeMaio, R-San Diego, said during a news conference opposing the redistricting measure on Monday. 'The reason why we're here today is Gov. Gavin Newsom's failing presidential campaign needs a little boost.' Democratic lawmakers plan to vote on Thursday to place the measure on the ballot in a Nov. 4 special election. They'll have a remarkably short span of time to convince voters to support the proposition, which would redraw California's congressional maps to give an advantage to Democrats. That would temporarily roll back a reform passed by voters in 2010, when they removed power to draw congressional districts from the Legislature and gave it to an independent commission with equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats. That reform was good in theory, Democrats say, but in practice dilutes Californians' power in Congress because other states continue to draw their districts in a partisan way. The proposed redistricting measure would replace the independent commission's maps with maps favoring Democrats for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections. After the 2030 census, the independent commission would draw new maps free of partisan interference. It's not clear yet whether Newsom will continue to be the face of the campaign. The fight was his idea, and he has led the charge so far — hosting regular press conferences and doing a blitz of interviews to promote the plan. He narrates the campaign's first ad, which features a speech he gave in Sacramento criticizing Texas Republicans' redistricting moves. Voters tend to be skeptical of efforts by politicians to increase their own power. The more Newsom is seen as the face of the measure, the more likely voters are to see it as a self-serving ploy and reject it, Stutzman said. 'Whether this passes is a more difficult question, but the opportunity it provides for Newsom I think is very valuable,' Stutzman said. 'He certainly seems intent on making the most of it.' Julia Azari, a politics professor at Marquette University in Wisconsin, said Newsom's antagonism of Trump somewhat mirrors what Kamala Harris did in 2017. While serving as California's junior senator, Harris staked out a reputation for taking Trump administration officials to task during oversight hearings, an image that helped propel her candidacy for president in 2020. In the end, Harris wasn't able to out-compete the frontrunners in that race — Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders — who both had many more years in the national spotlight. Getting out in front of voters so early has a potential downside, Azari noted, which is that it will give voters more time to learn unflattering things about Newsom's record as governor of California. But Biden faced the same challenge in 2020, which he overcame to win the presidency. The redistricting fight is particularly well-suited for these purposes. It centers Newsom in a major national political story. And it allows him to position himself at the front of the pack of Democrats vying for a nomination in 2028 while uniting, not attacking them, Noel said. Ludovic Blain, who runs the progressive donor group the California Donor Table, said he's not always aligned politically with the governor, but on this issue, they're on the same page. He said progressives are looking for politicians who will stand up to Trump, and Newsom is rising to the occasion. He said he doesn't necessarily see a major downside for Newsom if the ballot measure fails. 'Voters want to see fighters,' he said. 'The question of whether they're successful — that's secondary because you can't be successful if you don't fight.'
