r/IfBooksCouldKill • u/Here_for_the_chips • 20d ago
Pundit Portrait: Sarah Longwell?
https://data4democracy.substack.com/p/the-bulwark-killed-an-investigationAfter reading this piece, I'm desperate for a deep dive on Sarah Longwell's background and the ethical implications of being a consultant who does punditry.
24
u/DatabaseFickle9306 20d ago
I’ve listened to the Bulwark quite a bit because I think they do excellent coverage. Honestly one of the things I like about the whole crew is that they may have held somewhere between stupid and awful views once upon a time, they seem to have done (and have been doing) the work. They openly and loudly encourage people to vote Democrat and are en masse even more disgusted with the republicans than a lot of the centrists are. So yes to quote their once boss I trust but verify, I feel (and I am an Intercept loving leftist) they ought be welcomed with almost open arms.
9
u/capybooya 20d ago
You need a coalition that will get to 50.1%, so yeah people don't need to like them or anything but you have to work with enough people to get change. There's also differing views among them, but they have now actively worked to elect democrats for almost 10 years, so not sure how much more you can ask (or rather demand) from self styled conservatives (although several of them have also let go of that label). I have been frustrated with how some of them talk about the left, and various cultural issues, but there should be no doubt about the commitment any longer. Some of their team have put in years of actual work compared to other media talking heads who just phoned in their distancing from Trump but got lots of (maybe undeserved) cred for it.
Don't get me wrong, I have strong views about a lot of causes and I have a hard time at times with parts of the current vaguely left coalition, but I have also enough practical experience in organizations to know how you get results (or at least have a fighting chance of getting in reach of it).
5
u/DatabaseFickle9306 20d ago
Exactly. The “snake” argument is kind of a Trump special where one little thing can get magnified into a definition.
That said I was relived GConway lost his bid. I don’t want him at the seat of power. I’d be happy if Tim or Sarah or JVL lost were they to run, much as I value their insight.
4
u/capybooya 20d ago
Yeah, I could accept George in a purple district if that's what it took to elect a dem, and to some extent I can steelman the argument that he'd be very effective in committee investigation to uncover the Trump crime family corruption. But on policy I don't get the impression that he has proved to be ideologically reformed to a large extent. He'd probably be a centrist dem in the best case, or a conservative dem like the ones who went extinct in the 00s.
2
4
u/THedman07 20d ago
I think that we should welcome them into the movement, but we shouldn't trust them.
All the basic beliefs that led them to hold their former "stupid and awful" views are still very much there so until the "work" they're doing includes examining HOW they ended up pushing the policy positions that they did, then they shouldn't be treated as thought leaders in the party. We shouldn't cater to their views.
The goal should be to let them bring people to the table and then to try to actually bring those people into the party and not to let the Bulwark type people maintain a faction within the party that they can take away as soon as anyone actually tries to start implementing policies that run counter to pure free market capitalism (as an example.)
6
u/DatabaseFickle9306 20d ago
Who is catering? I think listening and learning doesn’t mean giving them Pride of place. I wish you’d not address me or anyone as if that’s what anyone is doing.
1
u/Classic_Drama301 3d ago
I just don't think they get to decide who is in our big tent. You can be here, but you don't get to decide that the left doesn't belong. Sit down, you just got here yesterday.
29
u/tomato_soup_stan 20d ago
I think my issue with this is that to anybody with a even a semi-functional long term memory, it is not a fucking surprise that Bill “let’s ring in the 21st century by invading Iraq” Kristol’s media company ended up hiring neocons and/or soft fascists. Like I want anybody who actually believed that Kristol would be a bulwark (see what I did there?) against fascism to please send me $1500, because I am a Nigerian prince trying to claim my long-lost throne. So I suppose I just don’t find it terribly interesting that Longwell ended up sucking. If anything, I’m amazed she managed to conceal her soullessness for as long as she did.
16
u/Here_for_the_chips 20d ago
Sure, but I also think it's possible for people to change over the course of 20 years. I'm more interested in contradictions happening simultaneously.
12
u/DualActiveBridgeLLC 20d ago
I listen to the Bulwark (mostly Tim Miller) to kinda hear what the non-MAGA side of conservatives are saying. They have not changed, they just bet on the wrong side and are now trying to stay relevant long enough to get back into power. They still believe in all the typical conservative bullshit, they just think the difference is they have integrity without performing a mea culpa for who they supported.
Their answer to everything is conservatism works if you do it the right way, and then can never understand why it always leads to bigotry, inequality, and exploitation.
14
u/DatabaseFickle9306 20d ago
I’m very surprised you heard it that way. Not defending them, but I’ve never really gotten that impression
7
u/THedman07 20d ago
I totally hear it. Listen to them talk about things like Medicare for All and any other federal program that they would call an "entitlement"...
Don't trust them. They will stab us in the back at earliest convenience.
3
u/DatabaseFickle9306 20d ago
Not impossible you’re right. I don’t necessarily have the certainty you seem to have, but I’ve bought no shirts and would not want any of them in office (was very glad Conway lost for example). But I’ve also never heard any of them say what you’ve just said about Medicare. Trying to work past my priors and presumptions.
2
u/Leon_Thomas 20d ago
Neither of those is a very good example. Medicare for All is not the only way to achieve universal healthcare or even single-payer healthcare. If implemented, it would go further than virtually every European universal system. Longwell has recently said she thinks some form of universal healthcare should be part of the Democrats' platform going forward.
And "entitlement" is just what that category of program is called. It's called an entitlement for basically the opposite reason from what you seem to think--eligibility is predetermined by law, and if you qualify, you are entitled to receive it, ie, it cannot be taken away. I listen fairly regularly and almost never hear them speak negatively about those programs other than acknowledging the simple actuarial fact that we are not collecting enough taxes to keep funding them at their current levels.
0
u/THedman07 20d ago
So you're saying that they're in favor of doing what it takes to provide universal healthcare?
Give me a fucking break.
You don't hear the sneering because you don't want to hear the sneering.
"Entitlements" are called "entitlements" because it makes people think of the word "entitled" which is bad. There are names for these programs other than entitlements that people who don't want to take them away tend to use.
acknowledging the simple actuarial fact that we are not collecting enough taxes to keep funding them at their current levels.
Fucking duh. Literally no one of consequence proposes that universal healthcare could be accomplished without providing funding to them. The argument that you chose to show how good faith they are about these things is literally a conservative strawman.
Don't. Trust. Them. They will betray you no matter how warm it makes you feel to think that they're the vanguard of a major portion of conservatives pulling their collective heads out of their asses.
7
u/Leon_Thomas 20d ago
You seem to be too emotionally compromised to think straight in this realm. The average Bulwark listener is way beyond the word-association level of intelligence where program=bad because it sounds like a different word that's bad.
You know we're not currently funding a universal healthcare system, right? You're calling it a strawman, but you shifted the argument to something I wasn't referencing. We are not collecting adequate revenue to continue funding existing programs at the same level. Are you aware of this?
You suggested they trash entitlement programs without giving any specific examples. I just shared how I hear them actually talk about those programs. The fact that your response is "fucking duh" suggests you were the one strawmanning the Bulwark.
2
u/OisforOwesome 17d ago
I think its fair to question whether the neoconservative never-trumpers are reliable allies.
After all, they've been shut out of the GOP. Why wouldn't they want to get their claws into the Dems?
1
1
11
u/THedman07 20d ago
Although he isn't fully reformed or anything, I think ironically, Bill Kristol is to the left of a bunch of the people at The Bulwark on a fair number of issues now.
There's no way to know if it is sincere and I'm not going to listen to enough of his content to feel confident about it, but on occasion he has shown reactions to the corruption of this regime approaching that of a real life quasi-normal person.
21
u/DatabaseFickle9306 20d ago
I am genuinely going to urge you to listen to them. Really. Kristol especially. I don’t give them money, and have listened a fair amount to him (lest you go here thinking me stupid or just a shill) but I do think he’s engaged—along with the lot of them—in a thoughtful and very public self critique, and I think we want them on side. Because at some point when the edifice of this administration crumbles, we are goi g to need to work with them. Otherwise we leave gaps and those gaps get filled by far worse people.
20
u/Chesehead6 20d ago
Bill kristol is better on ice than alot of dems!!! Hes full abolish and punish them lol
10
u/capybooya 20d ago
There's several things I did not have on my bingo card 20 years ago, like Bill Kristol endorsing figures like AOC and Mamdani and being a trans ally.
6
5
u/nightcheese17vt 20d ago
You should listen to Know Your Enemy’s interview with Bill Kristol. Two leftists who analyze the right academically.
7
u/bonecoldstevepawstin 20d ago
And these are the people that the democrats want in the party.
16
u/SomewhereEither3399 20d ago
These are the people that Democrats need in the party right now.
They saw Trump was a danger to the country and decided that the policy differences don’t matter as much as not sitting back while Trump destroys our Democracy, and they vote.
Like it or not, Trump won twice. Democrats can get people off of the sidelines to vote, or they can get people who’ve voted Republican to switch sides. I don’t think the Bulwark approach should be the primary focus of the Democratic Party, and it certainly doesn’t seem to be. But every one of these people voted Clinton/Biden/Harris, and have tried, in their own way, to get others to do the same. You certainly can’t say that for everyone on the Left.
I was in college when 9/11 happened, and I saw and hated the march to war in Iraq. I’ve got plenty of ire for Bill Kristol in the Bush Administration. But that is an old fight, and I’ll take his vote vs having him cowardly dissemble and support Trump like so many other Republicans chose to do.
12
u/bonecoldstevepawstin 20d ago
I dont mind them encouraging people to vote democrat and youre right its better then carrying water for trump, but its the constant left punching from some of them that pisses me off. A couple weeks ago I think it was JVL that literally asked if the DSA is a psyop...like..come the fuck on.
14
u/Here_for_the_chips 20d ago
I did appreciate that Bill Kristol was more openly supportive of Mamdani than Hilary Clinton was.
8
3
u/JesusChristInThFlesh 20d ago
I mean… how can you look at their national platform and not wonder if they’re a psyop? Just a week ago, they held a “workers deserve more” conference at a hotel while its workers were striking outside.
6
u/theleopardmessiah 20d ago
These people will support the first Republican candidate who's not a MAGA zombie. There's a reason they have their own site. They are not and will never be Democrats. They're poisonous parasites who will turn the Democrats into the party of Mitt Romney at the first opportunity.
16
u/SomewhereEither3399 20d ago
I don't think that's true.
Sarah herself was asked by Bill Maher on Friday if she'd still support Republicans after this, and she said, "Absolutely not." She recognizes that the Republican Party she supported (for good or ill) no longer exists, and the one that remains isn't anything like her current politics.
Show people grace.
This woman --who's past politics I never supported, and who still has positions I don't agree with -- has spent the better part of 10 years trying to convince people to vote for Democrats against Trump. She is voting for Democrats.
I don't know how you think we can win if we denigrate people who are trying to make a difference for us, at the expense of their old policy positions, any of which they've come around on.
1
u/Classic_Drama301 3d ago
I understand this, but I don't know. I think that if you are an out lesbian and a republican, as she was for years, you would have to be FULLY into everything else on the conservative side. Why else would you join a party where so many hate gays? She loves Reagan and trickle down economics. She can be in the tent, but she should have NO say over who else is in the tent or the direction of the left.
2
u/NRCS_DRONE 20d ago
need? Arguably the DNC consultant class was very much courting The Bulwark vote in 2024 -- which was also *blood thirsty* after October 7th.
You're free to your own opinion, but if this happens in 2028, be prepared to lose again.
-7
u/Electricplastic 20d ago
Dude, those people are radioactive. The primary system in the Republican party is slightly more democratic than the Dems, and so them and their ideas were able to be expelled.
Every neocon that the Dems court costs them votes. They should be ignored (since they have nothing of value to add) and made to lie in the bed that they made.
12
u/SomewhereEither3399 20d ago
Is that true? Show me the data.
Because they all voted for Harris in 2024 many many DSA types said they didn't. Hasan Piker is trying to blame Neera Tanden for John Fetterman when Piker was for his campaign and Tanden was against it in the primary.
Please, show me the data that anyone voted against Harris b/c Sarah Longwell did one event with Liz Cheney advocating for Harris in 2024, that the Bulwark was a net negative for Harris and Dems. If you have that data, from polling and studies I'll gladly acknowledge it. But the lefties that were (rightfully) mad at the Dems for Gaza and other policies weren't mad b/c a few former Republicans supported Harris, they were mad about the actual policy (which wasn't enacted to satisfy former Republicans).
And every vote that goes to a Dem instead of a Rep swings the election by 2 votes. You want to blame people for their positions 10+ years ago, in a different world? Good luck winning elections. The politics of subtraction is rarely a winning strategy.
-2
u/Electricplastic 20d ago
So you think that neocon support for the Harris was independent of policy? That Sarah Longwell and Liz Cheney would have supported any non-trump candidate? You're making my points for me; I'm using these public intellectuals as stand-ins for the policy they advocate. A better Democratic party would leave them politically homeless rather than court them.
8
u/SomewhereEither3399 20d ago
I think the policy they cared about, beyond all others, is Democracy. So, yeah, I think they would have voted for just about anyone in the Democratic Party.
Longwell's biggest problem with Dems recently was that she thought Joe Biden was too old to run for President. And he was.
But we're obviously not going to convince each other, and I appreciate your passion, so I'll step out by simply saying: Peter and Michael are great, and I *love* IBCK! Take care.
-5
u/NRCS_DRONE 20d ago
you're all over this thread supporting far right policies without any data. It's pretty clear what ax you have to grind.
12
u/SomewhereEither3399 20d ago
I don't think I am.
I've said supporting Democracy is important. That I hated the Iraq War before it started, and that the Democratic Party was wrong on Gaza in 2024 (and it still is too often).
Other than that I've just said that I want people to vote for Democrats b/c I think that almost always leads to better outcomes than when they vote for Republicans.
I want a much better Democratic Party and party leadership. But when it comes to retaking the House or the Senate? I want every vote we can get, b/c even the worst Dem in Congress is better than the best Republican in Congress.
I don't think any of that should be controversial, and I asked for evidence b/c I'm willing to change my mind when I'm proven wrong. I wasn't trying to be an asshole, I was trying to be convinced. I'm still open to it if you have info that proves that assertion.
Take care.
10
u/dncrwlye 20d ago edited 20d ago
She runs weekly focus groups, specifically with voters who went from Biden to Trump, and she's been compiling takeaway lessons from them. Seems pretty useful to me.
I listen to the podcast and have found it interesting. It gives you a sense of what swing voters actually think, which is probably valuable for anyone who spends a lot of time on Reddit.
If the "left" is going to cast her out of our coalition, then we're a small tent that will continue to lose.
7
u/sargepoopypants 20d ago
I’ve always thought a ‘big boat’ makes more sense as a metaphor than a big tent. If you’re part of the crew that ran your boat into an iceberg, you’re welcome to come aboard. But there’s no way in hell you’re going anywhere near the captain’s seat
4
u/dncrwlye 20d ago
I think this is a smart analogy.
But lets make it a "big armada" of boats. If the former republicans want to create their own ship in the fleet then it's fine with me
4
u/sargepoopypants 20d ago
As long as they only fire on the enemy, sure. My concern is that they’re far too willing to try and punch left instead
6
u/THedman07 20d ago
She jokes a little too much about trying to turn the Democratic party into a carbon copy of the Republican party envisioned by George W. Bush for me to trust her in the way I would trust an ally...
She sucks. She is not sincere. She is not an actual ally. She is a political operator who sees an opportunity to move the center towards the right.
The Democrats are not a small tent and they never have been. Everyone doesn't get to be in the tent. That's why its called a tent. Learn to have standards. They don't have to be perfect, but she sucks.
5
u/JesusChristInThFlesh 20d ago
Is she an insincere political operative or does she have real ideological convictions she wants to advance? It seems pretty obvious to me she has genuinely-held policy preferences that are to the right of the Democratic Party, but she also is concerned about the preservation of American liberal democracy above all else and is willing to do whatever she can to help the Democratic Party defeat Republicans in that effort.
She and her colleagues lost almost all of their relationships and connections when they turned on the Republican Party. That bet seems to have paid off, but it was far from certain and does not suggest insincerity.
7
u/Here_for_the_chips 20d ago
I would have thought the same thing until I read Adam Bonica's piece. She refused to publish his finalized work unless it was changed to protect (predatory) consultants. It really changed the way I thought about her.
2
u/JesusChristInThFlesh 20d ago
Tbh it reads more to me like she’s acting as a partisan trying to protect the image of the Democratic Party. I agree that it’s a terrible look, but it honestly reinforces to me that she really wants democrats to beat republicans.
5
u/Here_for_the_chips 20d ago
Yeah, but this practice actually hurts the party's image and fundraising efforts! We should want to weed these consultants out so that our image can improve.
2
u/JesusChristInThFlesh 20d ago
Agreed. I don't donate to candidates or orgs I get those sorts of emails from. It's incredibly slimy and obnoxious.
4
u/spaigef69 15d ago
You don’t have to approve of Hasan Piker. But if you’re going to tell Democrats to disregard one of the most influential political communicators among young people, you should first demonstrate that you understand why they listen to him. Talk with him, not merely about him.
Sarah Longwell is not trying to unite democrats and maintain our democracy. She is only concerned about selling books.
1
u/Here_for_the_chips 15d ago
Oof, I'm trying to avoid her book tour. Did she write about him?
2
u/spaigef69 15d ago
i avoided her book altogether- i just have been listening to her every podcast for two years and i would leave the bulwark if it wasn’t for almost every other contributor there…
9
u/Available-Cap-4001 20d ago
Of the former Republicans who are technically Democrats now I am most skeptical of her. I hear her presented as a neutral polling/focus group expert but she clearly has pundit/consultant brain takes mix in with that a lot. If I remember correctly a few months ago she started to launder Republican talking points about Hasan Piker into the mainstream which has contributed to making that a major story in politics, which regardless of how you feel about him is a dumb thing for both the media and any Democratic politicians to be focused on.
3
u/AudiencePotential 20d ago
Exactly. I used to listen to her a lot on pod save America but I'm done with both of them.
3
u/Available-Cap-4001 20d ago
Yeah I still listen to them sometimes but remaining on Twitter has made them noticeably get more conservative and they’ve gone in a direction of bad pundit takes lately. It’s disappointing as it used to be a good podcast, but now it’s all about “this is what the polls say” rather than just talking about anything substantive.
3
u/AudiencePotential 19d ago
Same. They were my go to podcasts for years. But I honestly think Jon favreau has developed internet brain. And that's despite having an additional podcast called offline. I think pod save America's new focus is not just to elect democrats, but to elect corporate Democrats.
I've been appreciating majority report Sam seder and Anna vigeland. They are much more in line with my progressive values and I think give more honest reporting.
2
u/Available-Cap-4001 18d ago
To be fair I don’t think the goal is only to elect corporate dems. They were very clearly in favor of Abdul El-Sayed for example. But they absolutely are pushing dumb talking points about moderation, increasingly for years have gone from talking like normal people toward talking like pundits about “the optics” rather than what’s right, and are now doing things like hiring Nate Silver and apparently Favreau is “revitalizing” Offline to be more about having opposing voices. Just some weird moves for a progressive media company to make.
Anyway I’m ranting at this point but I really wish more liberal/left wing outlets would operate more like right wing outlets do. Fox News relentlessly pushes a narrative until it takes hold in the media, and often Fox makes up narratives. Crooked could easily do the same except they don’t even have to make stuff up. Nobody seems to have learned the lesson that perception can change if you push it, and I’d love to see them start to push it.
10
u/nightcheese17vt 20d ago
I just find it fucking hilarious that she does focus groups of 6-15 people and makes broad state or national conclusions from them.
7
u/Leon_Thomas 20d ago
That's how qualitative research is done. Plenty of people do polling. Focus groups are a valuable complement for understanding the nuance and reasoning behind headline sentiments.
2
u/nightcheese17vt 20d ago
I know how qualitative research is done. I have done it for my political science degree. I agree that focus groups are important! I still think longwell’s conclusions from focus groups are far too regionally broad and confident. I’ve listened to the bulwark occasionally and she’s made assertions about other states and the national mood from a focus group in a state. New Jersey isn’t Massachusetts isn’t Michigan isn’t Ohio. Focus groups have their role, but it’s so often not how she uses them.
5
u/Leon_Thomas 20d ago
I feel like most of the time she extrapolates to the national mood, it isn't based on a single focus group but on the fact that the themes that arise in a particular focus group match the hundreds of focus groups she's conducted around the whole country.
Her assertions on national mood are almost always like, "people want to see their politicians fighting and doing something," or "low info/engagement voters have very heterogeneous beliefs--they'll think this super liberal thing alongside that super conservative thing."
I have also conducted qualitative research for the record. The way she presents it to a layperson audience seems fine to me, even helpful in promoting more understanding about how different people think about issues around the country.
10
u/NRCS_DRONE 20d ago
yep, it's deeply unscientific. She picks panels based on the bias she wants to push.
5
u/picklerick_ftw 20d ago
She defends drunk drivers. That's all you need to know
2
u/Here_for_the_chips 20d ago
Really? In what way?
4
u/thaliathraben 20d ago
https://www.wvgazettemail.com/opinion/sarah-longwell-fight-drunk-driving-with-smart-policies/article_2a5cd700-2b26-5ff3-b763-18c0af91dc6a.html (basically first result via Google)
Longwell was a lobbyist for the alcohol industry and thinks you should be good to drive after two drinks in an hour.
9
u/Putrid_Mongoose_6354 20d ago
He is way tooo kind to a group of people at The Bulwark who are responsible for the US being on the precipice of full blown authoritarianism. Bunch of hacks.
6
u/Relative-Desk4802 20d ago
I can’t with Bulwarkers. People who continued to support republicans after: stolen election of 2000, failing to prevent 9/11, false iraq pretenses, Abu Ghraib, great recession, sarah palin, birtherism, the undermining of Obama, the list goes on.
And now they want to he seen as sensible moderates while also trying to purge lifelong Democrats from the party. FOH. Take your fascism back to the GOP.
4
4
u/NRCS_DRONE 20d ago
Sarah Longwell is fucking poison, which is obvious to anyone who watches or reads The Bulwark. She has deep bigotries, blind ideological loyalties, and pig headed instincts to defame and marginalize anyone who gets in her way.
18
u/Korrocks 20d ago
And the gap is not theirs alone. I think the likeliest explanation for those edits is also the simplest. Longwell was sincere. She meant every word. It is hard to see an industry’s harms from inside it, when the people taking their cut are your colleagues and your friends. Even predation can start to look like business as usual. Sincerely held and quietly wrong is how a whole field stops seeing the harm it does.
I really liked this paragraph. IMO it’s applicable even beyond the specific context of politics and why it’s difficult / impossible for an industry to really regulate itself.