The Morning Joe crew might have imagined they were kicking around ideas for the Democrats' path forward. But what they actually displayed was the kind of liberal ideological rigidity that will make that path back to power difficult if not impossible.
Because while references were made to "woke," and the need for new "ideas," and "substance," the one thing glaringly lacking was any mention—not a single one—of a specific issue on which the Democrats need to back off their hard-left platform.
Men being allowed to compete against women in sports and use their locker rooms? Legalized abortion up to the moment of birth? Open borders? More concern for illegal immigrant gang members than for their American victims? Blatant discrimination against non-favored demographic groups in hiring and college admissions?
Couldn't someone—from Mika Brzezinski to John Heilemann to Eugene Robinson—have thrown out a specific suggestion, proposing a shift from liberal orthodoxy? Nope.
John Heilemann made a solid point. Commenting on a New York Times article describing Democrat initiatives to improve the way they speak to various demographic groups, Heilemann said:
"It's not about language. It's about where are you going to deviate from what has become Democratic ideological conformity. That's the work the Democrats have to do right now, is not thinking about their language. The language will follow the positions. The language will follow the substance."
That would have been a perfect opportunity for Heilemann himself to give a specific example of where the Democrats could deviate from ideological conformity. But he punted, instead saying that he's sure that Rahm Emanuel and Elissa Slotkin have examples of such issues. Step up to the plate, John!
Along similar lines, Mika ended the segment by praising Rahm as someone who could be a contender because "he's blunt. He cuts to the chase."
Mika, why not give bluntness a shot and cut to the chase yourself, perhaps by suggesting Democrats should endorse reasonable limits on abortion?
Instead, Mika and the gang are apparently hoping that someone like Rahm will have the guts they lack. But if the liberal media remains as timid in challenging liberal shibboleths as in today's showing, it's going to be a long and painful path back to power for the Democrats.
Here's the transcript.
Morning Joe
5/27/25
7:04 am EDTMIKA BRZEZINSKI: Former U.S. ambassador to Japan, Rahm Emanuel, is weighing in on the Democratic party, calling its brand toxic, weak and woke. Emanuel told the Wall Street Journal Democrats need to pivot back to the center if they want to win elections once again, and that the party has put too much focus on so-called culture war issues that are favored by progressives.
Emanuel served in both the Biden and Obama administrations and was the mayor of Chicago. Now he appears to be considering a presidential bid or a possible or Illinois governor.
Meanwhile, the Democratic party is still searching for a path forward more than six months after President Trump swept the battleground states and won the 2024 election.
A new piece from the New York Times analyzes the gradual split between the party and its traditional base. But as the paper points out, MSNBC
Meven the attempts from the party to address these issues seems out of touch. Quote, Democratic donors and strategists have been gathering at luxury hotels to discuss how to win back working class voters, commissioning new projects that can read like anthropological studies of people from far away places. The prospectus for one new $20 million effort obtained by the Times, aims to reverse the erosion of Democratic support among young men, especially online. It is codenamed SAM, short for Speaking With American Men, a strategic plan, and promises investments to study the syntax, language, and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces. It recommends buying advertisements in video games, among other things.. . .
JOHN HEILEMANN: The way that you start to reach groups that you have lost favor with, or that used to support the party but now don't, and you're losing traction with them, is partly a language thing, but really it's more of a substance thing. It's a thing of, like, what does the party believe in?
And so when I hear Rahm, enormous respect for Rahm Emanuel. He's accomplished a lot. I said this literally the show last week. Elissa Slotkin is another person who's been saying the same sort of thing. Weak and woke. That phrase is a phrase that various people who want to moderate the party have been throwing around. What I think is important here is that is not the question of what the party's image is, but is what does the party stand for?
If the party takes positions on issues that are weak and woke, it will seem weak and woke. If it takes positions that are strong and not woke, that is the way to go forward.
It's not about language. It's about where are you going to deviate from what has become Democratic ideological conformity.
And again, I'm sure Rahm has examples. Elissa Slotkin probably has examples. But that's the conversation. That's the debate. That's the work the Democrats have to do right now, is not thinking about their language. The language will follow the positions. The language will follow the substance. And what I not hearing so far in this first six months after November 6th, after the big loss last year, is that kind of work, the kind of reform work that goes to what does this party want to believe in that will lure working class voters of all races back to it.
. . .
EUGENE ROBINSON: You don't start, I think, in my opinion, the way forward on thelanguage piece of this is not to accept the framing of the Republican party and MAGA, right? So if your framing is woke versus anti-woke, I think you're already losing if you accept that framing. You have to come up with a different framing.
And I think, look, how do parties come back? They come back with a new focus. They come back with new candidates. And that's very important. So they need the ideas. And yes, they need to communicate better. But they need candidates that people not just relate to, but that people want to believe in.
. . .
HEILEMANN: Again, I go back to the question of what is it that's going to, what is the substance? Bill Clinton put the party in a different direction when he embraced free trade, welfare reform, a variety of different things that Democrats in the previous two generations had rejected. Who is going to become the thought leader in this group? That's the question.MIKA: Right, right. Yeah, I think Rahm Emanuel is a fascinating potential contender. And it's interesting how he distills the message that he thinks Democrats should embrace. He doesn't suffer fools. And as you said, he's blunt. He cuts to the chase. It'll be interesting to see how that works.
