Democrats need to 'stop trying to be cool,' warns columnist
In a Los Angeles Times opinion piece headlined, "Democrats, please stop trying to be cool," Lewis wrote about the party's efforts to refresh its image in the wake of its defeat to President Donald Trump in November. He warned, "manufactured cool is cringe — and gimmicks won't save a party that's forgotten how to be real."
Lewis called out two Democratic leaders who seem to be pulling the ailing party's brand in opposite directions.
"Rebranding advice is plentiful, if conflicting. James Carville thinks Democrats should just get out of the way and let Trump self-destruct (a strategy that might work for the midterms, but eventually a party has to stand for something)," the Daily Beast writer noted. "Meanwhile, David Hogg, the new vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, wants to spend millions purging the party's incumbent geriatrics — a bold move that could sabotage a promising election night."
While Lewis credited Hogg's efforts to replace the party's older members for at least tapping into the zeitgeist, he argued it was a superficial change during a time of desperation, like when "divorced dads buy convertibles." The Daily Beast reporter argued that so-called "dark woke," a "fancy term for progressive politics dressed up in an edgy, confrontational style," is a similarly doomed effort.
"Because yes, the Democratic brand is cooked. Worse: It's lame," Lewis added.
But things were not always this way, he said, recalling the Democratic brand's glory days with former President Barack Obama, movie star George Clooney, and the party's overall "monopoly on cultural capital" in past years.
"Democrats, amazingly, have become the hall monitors of American politics. And what do they have to show for taking on this responsibility?" Lewis asked, marveling at how times have changed. "Meanwhile, the GOP — formerly the domain of Dockers dads, pious prudes and Young Republicans — pulled off the unthinkable. They became the chaos agents. The punk rockers. The party of middle fingers. The reversal has been astonishing."
Some Democrats, he argued, are making the changes the party needs, and it goes beyond skin-deep.
"Talk like you mean it. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) does that. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) does too. Not because they're trying to be cool — but because they aren't. They show up, say what they believe, and don't fake it," Lewis said. "Do stuff that matters. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) just provided an example of that. Not exactly the hippest guy in the room — but he recently flew to El Salvador to meet with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the man wrongfully deported under Trump and detained in a Salvadoran prison."
He added, "Van Hollen didn't just show up for the cameras. He showed up because it mattered (for Garcia and for anyone who cares about due process and the rule of law). And honestly? That's kind of cool."
Having "authenticity, passion and substance," Lewis argued, are the keys to making the Democratic Party's brand cool again.
"And if not? At least you're not the guy rapping about climate change through a TikTok filter while democracy collapses behind you," he concluded.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
21 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump's Relationship With Modi Sours Over Putin
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The praise U.S. President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi lavished on each other only months ago seems a distant memory amid a deepening trade row involving Vladimir Putin's oil revenues. A standoff between Trump and India has emerged after the president imposed 25 percent tariffs on the country and followed this up on Wednesday with another 25 percent levy due to its purchase of Russian oil that funds Putin's aggression in Ukraine. But things between the pair had already started going south in May when Trump waded into a sensitive dispute between India and Pakistan. "That started the downward slide," Dhruva Jaishankar, executive director of the Observer Research Foundation America (ORF America)—which analyses foreign policy challenges for India, the U.S. and partners—told Newsweek. Newsweek has contacted the U.S. State Department and India's Ministry of External Affairs for comment. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Associated Press/Canva Modi's White House Visit Modi visited the White House in February as one of the first world leaders to visit Trump after his return to the presidency. They touted a friendship cemented throughout the Republican president's first term. But friendships can go through bumpy periods, and India was left peeved when Trump took credit for India and Pakistan agreeing to a ceasefire after four days of clashes in the Kashmir region both neighbors claim in full but administer it only in part. It followed weeks of clashes and missile and drone strikes across borders, triggered by a gun massacre of tourists that India blamed on Pakistan. Pakistan denied involvement. "India has had a policy of not inviting third-party mediation between India and Pakistan and Trump has gone against that," said Jaishankar. "For India, that's a pretty strong red line." Trump's Tariffs Trump's claims of intervention in a decades-long geopolitical spat were then followed by stalling trade negotiations. Trump imposed a 25 percent tariff on all Indian exports to the U.S. from August 1, while at the same time giving China another extension. India—the world's fourth largest economy—called the tariffs unjustified. Trump added another 25 percent to this levy on Wednesday because like most of Ukraine's allies, he linked the proceeds from Russian energy to the continued funding of Putin's aggression. Exemptions remain for goods already covered under other sector-specific tariffs, such as steel and aluminum. Trump also insulted India's economy as "dead" and accused the country of buying "massive amounts" of oil from Russia and then selling it on the open market for big profits. These comments reflect international concern over the fact that Russian oil now accounts for nearly 40 percent of India's oil imports—a more than tenfold increase since before the war. Both New Delhi and Beijing have capitalized on the steep discounts offered by Moscow amid Western sanctions. India and China's vastly increased purchases of Russian oil have been viewed by Kyiv's allies as undermining the G7-led sanctions on Russia's energy exports, which aimed to choke the Kremlin's key revenue generator. This image from September 22, 2019 shows Indian Prime Minster Narendra Modi with Donald Trump during a rally on September 22, 2019 in Houston, Texas. This image from September 22, 2019 shows Indian Prime Minster Narendra Modi with Donald Trump during a rally on September 22, 2019 in Houston, Texas. Trump's anger with India reflects his frustration with the pace of trade talks, according to The Associated Press, citing a White House official. The AP said this has stung Modi's administration, which had been negotiating a trade deal that balanced India's protectionist system with opening up to American goods. It means that ties built up over the last 25 years are being put at risk by Trump's tariffs and social media statements, Ashok Malik, a former policy adviser in India's Foreign Ministry, told the news agency. "Trump risks tanking 25 years of U.S.-India relations," Evan Feigenbaum, vice president for studies at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace wrote in analysis for the think tank released Monday. Feigenbaum also referred to Trump's criticism of U.S. companies that manufacture in India, as well as the U.S. leader's White House meeting with Pakistan's army chief as well as giving Islamabad a tariff rate of just 19 percent and a pledge to jointly explore Pakistan's oil reserves. After more than two decades of ties, "Trump is now in the process of dismantling this painstakingly built relationship," Feigenbaum added. Vladimir Putin greets Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, on October 22, 2024. Vladimir Putin greets Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, on October 22, Role Modi's first foreign trip upon his return to office for a third term was to Moscow to meet with Putin in June 2024. For Putin, India is part of his vision away from a U.S.-led world and a pivot toward the Global South. However, Modi's view is less anti-Western and more attuned to acting as a bridge between the West and the Global South, and he is not interested in Putin's hope for a de-dollarization of the world economy, Jaishankar said. The India-Russia relationship was based on strategic technologies but has faced problems in recent years, with defense imports from Russia more than halving between 2014 and today. This is partly due to the war in Ukraine, challenges with Russian supply chains and payment mechanisms. However India has shown no signs of turning away from Russia, despite Trump's threats. It doubled down on its cooperation with Moscow committing on Tuesday to increasing defense ties. Over the course of the war Putin started, differences between India and the U.S. over New Delhi's ties with Russia were communicated more privately under the Biden administration, Jaishankar said. "Differences over Russia were kept within a certain channel. The challenge with Trump is that a lot of the haranguing has been quite public," he said. As the world waits to see whether or not Modi will agree to Trump's demands, business-to-business ties between India and the U.S. so far remain intact, Jaishankar said. But if the spat deepens, "one wonders how other aspects of the relationship that have so far been somewhat firewalled might be affected."
Boston Globe
21 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
New US tariffs cloud outlook for exporters in Asia and beyond
There's still no agreement on what tariffs might apply to products shipped from China. India has no deal yet and faces a potential 50% tariff as Trump pressures it to stop buying oil from Russia. Recent data shows uncertainty is clouding the outlook for exporters around the world as a rush to beat the tariffs during a pause for negotiation tapers off. Companies are reporting billions of dollars in higher costs or losses due to the higher import duties. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Global financial markets took Thursday's tariff adjustments in stride, with Asian shares and U.S. futures mostly higher. Advertisement Here's where things stand in what has proven to be a fast-changing policy landscape. The tariffs taking effect this week The tariffs announced on Aug. 1 apply to 66 countries, Taiwan and the Falkland Islands. They are a revised version of what Trump called 'reciprocal tariffs,' announced on April 2: import taxes of up to 50% on goods from countries that have a trade surplus with the United States, along with 10% 'baseline'' taxes on almost everyone else. That move triggered sell-offs in financial markets and Trump backtracked to allow time for trade talks. Advertisement The president has bypassed Congress, which has authority over taxes, by invoking a 1977 lawto declare the trade deficit a national emergency. That's being challenged in court, but the revised tariffs still took effect. To keep their access to the huge American market, major trading partners have struck deals with Trump. The United Kingdom agreed to 10% tariffs and the European Union, South Korea and Japan accepted U.S. tariffs of 15%. Those are much higher than the low single-digit rates they paid last year, but down from the 30% Trump had ordered for the EU and the 25% he ordered for Japan. Countries in Africa and Asia are mostly facing lower rates than the ones Trump decreed in April. Thailand, Pakistan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines cut deals with Trump, settling for rates of around 20%. Indonesia views its 19% tariff deal as a leg up against exporters in other countries that will have to pay slightly more, said Fithra Faisal Hastiadi, a spokesperson in the Indonesian president's office. 'We were competing against Vietnam, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and China ... and they are all subject to higher reciprocal tariffs,' Hastiadi said. 'We believe we will stay competitive.' The latest situation for China and India Trump has yet to announce whether he will extend an Aug. 12 deadline for reaching a trade agreement with China that would forestall earlier threats of tariffs of up to 245%. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the president is deciding about another 90-day delay to allow time to work out details of an agreement setting tariffs on most products at 50%, including extra import duties related to illicit trade in fentanyl. Higher import taxes on small parcels from China have hurt smaller factories and layoffs have accelerated, leaving some 200 million workers reliant on 'flexible work' — the gig economy — for their livelihoods, the government estimates. Advertisement India also has no broad trade agreement with Trump. On Wednesday, Trump he signed an executive order placing an extra 25% tariff for its purchases of Russian oil, bringing combined U.S. tariffs to 50%. India has stood firm, saying it began importing oil from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the Ukraine conflict. A top body of Indian exporters said Thursday the tariffs will impact nearly 55% of the country's outbound shipments to America and force exporters to lose their long-standing clients. 'Absorbing this sudden cost escalation is simply not viable. Margins are already thin,' S.C. Ralhan, president of the Federation of Indian Export Organisations, said in a statement. Others among the hardest-hit countries Struggling, impoverished Laos and war-torn Myanmar and Syria face 40-41% rates. Trump whacked Brazil with a 50% import tax largely because he's unhappy with its treatment of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. South Africa said the steep 30% rate Trump has ordered on the exporter of precious gems and metals has put 30,000 jobs at risk and left the country scrambling to find new markets outside the United States. Even wealthy Switzerland is under the gun. Swiss officials were visiting Washington this week to try to stave off a whopping 39% tariff on U.S. imports of its chocolate, watches and other products. Canada and Mexico have their own arrangements Goods that comply with the 2020 United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement that Trump negotiated during his first term are excluded from the tariffs. So, even though U.S. neighbor and ally Canada was hit by a 35% tariff after it defied Trump, a staunch supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, by saying it would recognize a Palestinian state, nearly all of its exports to the U.S. remain duty free. Advertisement Canada's central bank says 100% of energy exports and 95% of other exports are compliant with the agreement since regional rules mean Canadian and Mexico companies can claim preferential treatment. The slice of Mexican exports not covered by the USMCA is subject to a 25% tariff, down from an earlier rate of 30%, during a 90-day negotiating period that began last week. The outlook for businesses Surveys of factory managers offer monthly insights into export orders, hiring and other indicators of how businesses are faring. The latest figures in the United States and globally mostly showed conditions deteriorating. In Japan, factory output contracted in July, purchasing activity fell and hiring slowed, according to the S&P Global Manufacturing PMI. But the data were collected before Trump announced a trade deal that cut tariffs on Japanese exports to 15% from 25%. Similar surveys show a deterioration in manufacturing conditions worldwide, as a boost from 'front loading' export orders to beat higher tariffs faded, S&P Global said. Similar measures for service industries have remained stronger, reflecting more domestic business activity. In Asia, that includes a rebound in tourism across the region. Corporate bottom lines are also taking a hit. Honda Motor said Wednesday that it estimates the cost from higher tariffs at about $3 billion. Toyota said its quarterly profit plunged 37% and the hit from tariffs was $3 billion. On top that, the U.S. economy — Trump's trump card as the world's biggest market — is starting to show pain from months of tariff threats. Advertisement Associated Press writer Niniek Karmini in Jakarta and Aniruddha Ghosal in Hanoi contributed.
Boston Globe
21 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Harvard scientists say research could be set back years after funding freeze
'It's like we have been creating a state-of-the-art telescope to explore the universe, and now we don't have money to launch it,' said Ascherio. 'We built everything and now we are ready to use it to make a new discovery that could impact millions of people in the world and then, 'Poof. You're being cut off.'' Researchers laid off and science shelved Advertisement The loss of an estimated $2.6 billion in federal funding at Harvard has meant that some of the world's most prominent researchers are laying off young researchers. They are shelving years or even decades of research, into everything from opioid addiction to cancer. And despite Harvard's lawsuits against the administration, and settlement talks between the warring parties, researchers are confronting the fact that some of their work may never resume. The funding cuts are part of a monthslong battle that the Trump administration has waged against some the country's top universities including Columbia, Brown and Northwestern. The administration has taken a particularly aggressive stance against Harvard, freezing funding after the country's oldest university rejected a series of government demands issued by a federal antisemitism task force. Advertisement The government had demanded sweeping changes at Harvard related to campus protests, academics and admissions — meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Research jeopardized, even if court case prevails Harvard responded by filing a federal lawsuit, accusing the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university. In the lawsuit, it laid out reforms it had taken to address antisemitism but also vowed not to 'surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.' 'Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus,' the university said in its legal complaint. 'But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the demands were sent in April. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel federal contracts for policy reasons. The funding cuts have left Harvard's research community in a state of shock, feeling as if they are being unfairly targeted in a fight has nothing to do with them. Some have been forced to shutter labs or scramble to find non-government funding to replace lost money. In May, Harvard announced that it would put up at least $250 million of its own money to continue research efforts, but university President Alan Garber warned of 'difficult decisions and sacrifices' ahead. Advertisement Ascherio said the university was able to pull together funding to pay his researchers' salaries until next June. But he's still been left without resources needed to fund critical research tasks, like lab work. Even a year's delay can put his research back five years, he said. Knowledge lost in funding freeze 'It's really devastating,' agreed Rita Hamad, the director of the Social Policies for Health Equity Research Center at Harvard, who had three multiyear grants totaling $10 million canceled by the Trump administration. The grants funded research into the impact of school segregation on heart health, how pandemic-era policies in over 250 counties affected mental health, and the role of neighborhood factors in dementia. At the School of Public Health, where Hamad is based, 190 grants have been terminated, affecting roughly 130 scientists. 'Just thinking about all the knowledge that's not going to be gained or that is going to be actively lost,' Hamad said. She expects significant layoffs on her team if the funding freeze continues for a few more months. 'It's all just a mixture of frustration and anger and sadness all the time, every day.' John Quackenbush, a professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at the School of Public Health, has spent the past few months enduring cuts on multiple fronts. In April, a multimillion dollar grant was not renewed, jeopardizing a study into the role sex plays in disease. In May, he lost about $1.2 million in federal funding for in the coming year due to the Harvard freeze. Four departmental grants worth $24 million that funded training of doctoral students also were cancelled as part of the fight with the Trump administration, Quackenbush said. 'I'm in a position where I have to really think about, 'Can I revive this research?'' he said. 'Can I restart these programs even if Harvard and the Trump administration reached some kind of settlement? If they do reach a settlement, how quickly can the funding be turned back on? Can it be turned back on?' Advertisement The researchers all agreed that the funding cuts have little or nothing to do with the university's fight against antisemitism. Some, however, argue changes at Harvard were long overdue and pressure from the Trump administration was necessary. Bertha Madras, a Harvard psychobiologist who lost funding to create a free, parent-focused training to prevent teen opioid overdose and drug use, said she's happy to see the culling of what she called 'politically motivated social science studies.' White House pressure a good thing? Madras said pressure from the White House has catalyzed much-needed reform at the university, where several programs of study have 'really gone off the wall in terms of being shaped by orthodoxy that is not representative of the country as a whole.' But Madras, who served on the President's Commission on Opioids during Trump's first term, said holding scientists' research funding hostage as a bargaining chip doesn't make sense. 'I don't know if reform would have happened without the president of the United States pointing the bony finger at Harvard,' she said. 'But sacrificing science is problematic, and it's very worrisome because it is one of the major pillars of strength of the country.' Quackenbush and other Harvard researchers argue the cuts are part of a larger attack on science by the Trump administration that puts the country's reputation as the global research leader at risk. Support for students and post-doctoral fellows has been slashed, visas for foreign scholars threatened, and new guidelines and funding cuts at the NIH will make it much more difficult to get federal funding in the future, they said. It also will be difficult to replace federal funding with money from the private sector. Advertisement 'We're all sort of moving toward this future in which this 80-year partnership between the government and the universities is going to be jeopardized,' Quackenbush said. 'We're going to face real challenges in continuing to lead the world in scientific excellence.'
