What do you think?
Rate this book
Comeback: Routing Trumpism, Reclaiming the Nation, and Restoring Democracy’s Edge
The fate of American democracy now hinges on the Democrats' ability to defeat the Republicans for the foreseeable future. But for the Democrats to win consistently, they must reestablish their credentials as fearless leaders, tough fighters, and fierce patriots.
Comeback delivers a bold new take on democracy’s crisis. Many liberals think that escalating economic anxieties and cultural backlash drove voters to Trump. But a crush of data shows this thinking to be deeply flawed. It also strikes working-class voters as condescending and repellent. And while the Democrats stick to “kitchen table” issues and showing how much they care, voters care more about strength and commitment to principle than prescription drug prices.
Politics is a dominance game and a contest to capture the flag. Politicians who seem to be the strongest leaders and most passionate patriots hold the advantage. The Republicans get it. The Democrats don't.
Republicans have a high-dominance political style. They take risks, savor conflict, and use provocative language. Democrats have a low-dominance style. They’re risk-averse, afraid to engage on cultural issues—and more than a little boring. Republicans hammer away at their patriotism, even as they betray the nation and shred American values. Democrats are loyal to American values but have grown squeamish about patriotism and have no national story.
Ordinary people often don’t recognize themselves in the stories liberal politicians tell about them, while the authoritarians speak a language of dominance and national greatness that connects. The Democrats need a new approach to messaging. Comeback spells it out—and provides a roadmap for trouncing Trumpism.
Comeback delivers a bold new take on democracy’s crisis. Many liberals think that escalating economic anxieties and cultural backlash drove voters to Trump. But a crush of data shows this thinking to be deeply flawed. It also strikes working-class voters as condescending and repellent. And while the Democrats stick to “kitchen table” issues and showing how much they care, voters care more about strength and commitment to principle than prescription drug prices.
Politics is a dominance game and a contest to capture the flag. Politicians who seem to be the strongest leaders and most passionate patriots hold the advantage. The Republicans get it. The Democrats don't.
Republicans have a high-dominance political style. They take risks, savor conflict, and use provocative language. Democrats have a low-dominance style. They’re risk-averse, afraid to engage on cultural issues—and more than a little boring. Republicans hammer away at their patriotism, even as they betray the nation and shred American values. Democrats are loyal to American values but have grown squeamish about patriotism and have no national story.
Ordinary people often don’t recognize themselves in the stories liberal politicians tell about them, while the authoritarians speak a language of dominance and national greatness that connects. The Democrats need a new approach to messaging. Comeback spells it out—and provides a roadmap for trouncing Trumpism.
- GenresPoliticsNonfiction
386 pages, Kindle Edition
Published May 14, 2024
15 people are currently reading
66 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
September 21, 2024
Overall, there is much of great value here. I agree with him that when voters are able to articulate their positions on specific policy positions -- whether these be on issues like abortion or on the importance of protecting and even enhancing programs like Social Security and Medicare -- that they are overwhelmingly supportive of the positions advanced by the Democrats, as poll after poll has long indicated.
And I also agree with him that although this is true, the Republicans have consistently done a far better job of framing the issues and skillfully using culture wars and scary/angry memes to draw support to them while also serving to mask the programs they actually favor, which are very detrimental to the middle and working classes.
As I read this book, however, I found myself vigorously interacting with the author's argument, admittedly a rather one-sided "argument" though, obviously.
Why so?
A couple of major reasons.
First, while I essentially agreed with most of what he wrote -- and I do applaud his vigorous and to-the-point writing style (for its a very easy book to read), I was constantly mentally objecting by saying repeatedly things like "Well, yes, BUT...." Or, "all that's well and good, but it doesn't address the problem of the MAGA true believers." The best framed and well-argued presentations and speeches seem to be impervious to those who have embraced an ideology that is truly one of "alternative 'facts.'"
The second reason is that I take issue with one of his central arguments -- that Democrats, among all the other things they need to be doing better (with which I do agree) should be adopting more of the language and posturing of "dominance."
While I think he's correct that our many millennia of existence on this planet has caused our brains to evolve in such a way that we respond positively to signs that certain people are both capable and able leaders, I think it a tad too simplistic -- and, frankly, undesirable -- to frame this as primarily "dominance."
Does a capable leader have to "dominate" opponents in order to be successful in the eyes of most citizens?
Consider this statement, for instance: "In a nutshell, high-dominance leadership is reality-shaping and conflict-embracing, and it favors the language of the aggressor, the righteous, and the triumphant. Low-dominance leadership is reality-taking and conflict-averse, and it inclines to the language of the aggressed-upon and the endangered." (P. 89)
While much of the advice he offers on p. 149 on how to express and demonstrate "dominance" is sound, there are parts of it with which I disagree strongly since they reflect the kind of twisted thinking that Gingrich introduced in the '90s when he told the Republicans that the Democrats must be treated and always portrayed as "the enemy," and not as formerly "the opponent."
For example, he urges such things as "Embrace us-versus-them framing. Name the enemy and attack the enemy directly." "When dealing with belligerent, toxic, or extreme opponents, kick it up a notch to belittle and humiliate them." And so forth. (P. 149)
This is dangerously close to embracing aspects of the "fascists' handbook"! I don't think in a democracy it helps us -- in the short or long range -- to portray those with whom we disagree as "the enemy" for, as should be evident in today's world, this only serves to increase division and boost the fear and rage emotions that actually work to block thinking.
For what it is worth, and acknowledging that my time in the public sphere as an elected an appointed official at the state level was a "while back," here is what I learned from 30 years as a public servant.
The most important things that will attract reasonable people include:
o honesty: admitting that you don't know when you don't
o integrity: NEVER lying or distorting issues or other peoples' positions on them
o courage of conviction: demonstrate always how your own values influence and guide your decisions
o respect for others: for your constituents as well as for those who disagree with you, including opponents in elections
o quickly calling out lies or distortions: do not let falsehoods survive without challenge, period
o never "be" a victim, but accept legitimate criticism: if unfairly attacked, hit back PROPORTIONATELY and illustrate why the attack was unfair; when legitimate criticism is expressed, show humility and strength of character by accepting it and letting it inform views and behavior going forward
In my humble experience, such is preferred by most people -- since this is how they like to think of themselves as being and behaving -- and VERY IMPORTANTLY keeps the "door" open for one's own evolution in thinking and understanding AND that of the people who are constituents as well as opponents.
In closing, I acknowledge that I do not have an easy answer for how to turn from MAGA distortions and our current insane tenor of politics in order to move towards a more collaborative and inclusive one. My experience as an historian suggests that either the MAGA movement -- or the country as a whole -- may well have to experience a "crash" of some kind before the "real world according to most of us" will have a chance of reappearing.
Such a "crash" need not involve violence, although some level of violence is already present -- and apparently rising -- in our culture. But it will mean something that causes true believers to acknowledge that their "old ways of thinking" no longer "work" or achieve what they thought they would.
Oh, and one more thing: Political reforms, while necessary, must also be accomplished by significant economic reforms! We cannot experience a more just and equal and peaceful polity unless all of our citizens have a chance to realize the pursuit of happiness our Declaration of Independence promised. In today's society of vastly unequal wealth and the control by a few over most of our vital resources political democracy does not have the "oxygen" to survive.
And I also agree with him that although this is true, the Republicans have consistently done a far better job of framing the issues and skillfully using culture wars and scary/angry memes to draw support to them while also serving to mask the programs they actually favor, which are very detrimental to the middle and working classes.
As I read this book, however, I found myself vigorously interacting with the author's argument, admittedly a rather one-sided "argument" though, obviously.
Why so?
A couple of major reasons.
First, while I essentially agreed with most of what he wrote -- and I do applaud his vigorous and to-the-point writing style (for its a very easy book to read), I was constantly mentally objecting by saying repeatedly things like "Well, yes, BUT...." Or, "all that's well and good, but it doesn't address the problem of the MAGA true believers." The best framed and well-argued presentations and speeches seem to be impervious to those who have embraced an ideology that is truly one of "alternative 'facts.'"
The second reason is that I take issue with one of his central arguments -- that Democrats, among all the other things they need to be doing better (with which I do agree) should be adopting more of the language and posturing of "dominance."
While I think he's correct that our many millennia of existence on this planet has caused our brains to evolve in such a way that we respond positively to signs that certain people are both capable and able leaders, I think it a tad too simplistic -- and, frankly, undesirable -- to frame this as primarily "dominance."
Does a capable leader have to "dominate" opponents in order to be successful in the eyes of most citizens?
Consider this statement, for instance: "In a nutshell, high-dominance leadership is reality-shaping and conflict-embracing, and it favors the language of the aggressor, the righteous, and the triumphant. Low-dominance leadership is reality-taking and conflict-averse, and it inclines to the language of the aggressed-upon and the endangered." (P. 89)
While much of the advice he offers on p. 149 on how to express and demonstrate "dominance" is sound, there are parts of it with which I disagree strongly since they reflect the kind of twisted thinking that Gingrich introduced in the '90s when he told the Republicans that the Democrats must be treated and always portrayed as "the enemy," and not as formerly "the opponent."
For example, he urges such things as "Embrace us-versus-them framing. Name the enemy and attack the enemy directly." "When dealing with belligerent, toxic, or extreme opponents, kick it up a notch to belittle and humiliate them." And so forth. (P. 149)
This is dangerously close to embracing aspects of the "fascists' handbook"! I don't think in a democracy it helps us -- in the short or long range -- to portray those with whom we disagree as "the enemy" for, as should be evident in today's world, this only serves to increase division and boost the fear and rage emotions that actually work to block thinking.
For what it is worth, and acknowledging that my time in the public sphere as an elected an appointed official at the state level was a "while back," here is what I learned from 30 years as a public servant.
The most important things that will attract reasonable people include:
o honesty: admitting that you don't know when you don't
o integrity: NEVER lying or distorting issues or other peoples' positions on them
o courage of conviction: demonstrate always how your own values influence and guide your decisions
o respect for others: for your constituents as well as for those who disagree with you, including opponents in elections
o quickly calling out lies or distortions: do not let falsehoods survive without challenge, period
o never "be" a victim, but accept legitimate criticism: if unfairly attacked, hit back PROPORTIONATELY and illustrate why the attack was unfair; when legitimate criticism is expressed, show humility and strength of character by accepting it and letting it inform views and behavior going forward
In my humble experience, such is preferred by most people -- since this is how they like to think of themselves as being and behaving -- and VERY IMPORTANTLY keeps the "door" open for one's own evolution in thinking and understanding AND that of the people who are constituents as well as opponents.
In closing, I acknowledge that I do not have an easy answer for how to turn from MAGA distortions and our current insane tenor of politics in order to move towards a more collaborative and inclusive one. My experience as an historian suggests that either the MAGA movement -- or the country as a whole -- may well have to experience a "crash" of some kind before the "real world according to most of us" will have a chance of reappearing.
Such a "crash" need not involve violence, although some level of violence is already present -- and apparently rising -- in our culture. But it will mean something that causes true believers to acknowledge that their "old ways of thinking" no longer "work" or achieve what they thought they would.
Oh, and one more thing: Political reforms, while necessary, must also be accomplished by significant economic reforms! We cannot experience a more just and equal and peaceful polity unless all of our citizens have a chance to realize the pursuit of happiness our Declaration of Independence promised. In today's society of vastly unequal wealth and the control by a few over most of our vital resources political democracy does not have the "oxygen" to survive.
May 24, 2024
This is an extraordinary work. He presents innovative, promising, and practical solutions for defeating MAGA and Trumpism. This book is a must-read for anyone who cares about preserving our democracy.
January 8, 2025
Very well written, especially the rebuke of many false/self-serving theories of why the Democrats continue to lose to Trumpism.
January 30, 2025
Masterful explanation of how and why Democrats keep losing to Trumpism, written in an engaging, exciting, and passionate manner.
April 17, 2025
Excellent book—well written, informative and entertaining—that will reconnect readers with many of the big ideas and influences in US history that have motivated Americans for the better, and help them be uplifted/survive the current political era. It would be great if the author ran for office! The US urgently needs more voices, energy and narratives like his, and more professors to enter this arena.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews