Fighting Fire With Conflagration

As we’ve continued to witness the inexorable dive of the pmurT madminstration and the GOP to uncharted depths of depravity, I’ve come to the realization that there is no room in the present political arena for conciliation, negotiation, or compromise. We are in an existential fight for our democracy’s very survival. It’s also become clear that in order to survive that fight, we must win decisively, and to do so, Democrats must go on the offensive. I've long favored a more conciliatory approach, but we can get back to playing nice when the cheaters are vanquished and Americans remember that we are stronger together and need to take care, not advantage, of each other.

While I'm thrilled that Gavin Newsom has made "Fighting Fire with Fire" a clarion call, I see that as still a defensive posture. In the case of the Texas (and other red state) extreme gerrymandering effort, and Newsom's dedication to the proposition that redistricting should be done by an independent body, I think it's apropos. But as a strategy going forward, I think we need to adopt a "Beating them at their own game" approach. The difference is subtle but significant - the former is basically tit for tat, while the latter is cerebral and strategic.¹ We should not stoop to their level or sacrifice our principles, but we have to stop bringing crayons to gunfights. Beating them at their own game means using every (legitimate) means at our disposal to stop their demolition of our democracy.

We also need to stop speaking in generalities and platitudes. We need to bring things down to the personal level. Talking about [numbered for cross-reference below] 1) Epstein; 2) pmurT’s double/triple talk; 3) inflation; 4) tariffs; 5) Social Security; 6) Medicare; 7) Medicaid; 8) national debt; 9) the climate crisis; 10) vaccine impacts; 11) due process; 12) rule of law; 13) graft; 14) immigration; (15) court stacking; 16) Congress neutering; 17) voter suppression; etc. is all well and good, but unless we can put them in terms that people can feel, we might as well save our breath. The GOP, and pmurT in particular, brought many things down to that level prior to the 2024 election, disingenuously even, by talking about the price of eggs and gasoline, "they're eating the cats; they're eating the dogs; they're eating the pets of the people who live there," etc. I'm not advocating the disingenuity that pmurT and the GOP have turned into an art form, but I strongly believe we need to boil our messages down to, "This is what it means to you…"

So, as a more effective and stronger approach to addressing the above, rather than assuming people can relate to the broader issues, I would suggest personalizing the messaging and focusing on:

1) The needs of the Epstein victims for justice and closure, and how we need to make sure we protect our kids from human trafficking;

2) Calling out individual contradictions, and repeatedly asking, "WTF?,” and asking how X fixes our economy, our borders, or our crime problems; forget about any notion of using the 25th Amendment to remove a deranged and demented pmurT because those who could invoke it are at best too incompetent to form their own opinions or at worst, in league with him;

3) Talking about inflationary specifics, but not cherry-picking; using common staples or purchases (fruits and vegetables, automobiles, clothing, etc.), which are all negatively impacted by the chaos surrounding the tariff rollouts, rollbacks, and rollovers, as well as companies’ inability to build capacity quickly, and reluctance to do so on shifting sands;

4) Estimating the added costs to specific products that will be passed on to consumers as companies struggle to maintain their profit margins against the illegally imposed tariffs, as well as the effects of scarcity of materials and products as foreign suppliers find other more favorable markets for their goods;

5) Explaining the impact of Social Security privatization on the personal stability of retirement income and the direct impact of reducing benefits;

6) Estimating the cost increases to Medicare basic and supplemental coverage, as well as the likely coverage denials;

7) Talking about the high cost of alternative care, not only to the individuals, but to society at large, that will be required to care for current Medicaid recipients;

8) Avoiding talking about the “$37 Trillion” national debt (nobody can count to a trillion); bring it down to a personal level (i.e., the national debt now exceeds $100,000 for every man, woman, and child in America);

9) Citing examples of regular people who lost their homes to floods, fires, and other calamities caused by humankind’s neglect of earth’s delicate climatological balance;

10) Evaluating vaccines’ effectiveness in historical eradication of diseases, the risk of backtracking, lost opportunities for new therapies, and the need to remain current as diseases evolve;

11) Reporting on the specific elements of due process that people are being denied;

12) Calling out every violation of the rule of law perpetrated by the madministration, in specific terms, citing Constitutional or legal references, and comparing them against an individual’s consequences for similar violations;

13) Uncovering and highlighting graft (including bribery, extortion, and self-dealing), exposing their corrupt nature and the effective individual or collective cost we incur as a result of them (e.g. the “free” $400 Million plane that will cost $1 Billion to outfit, in time to retire it for pmurT’s private use);

14) Talking about the impact of careless and malevolent treatment of immigrants (both legal and illegal) on workforces, tax revenues, and communities; also, revealing the exorbitant cost per detainee or deportee;

(15) Highlighting the political affiliation of judges, when their rulings have political implications, and aggressively calling for recusals when warranted;

16) Supporting Congressmembers and candidates who stand up for their constituents as well as the Constitution, and not tolerating submissiveness or ethical lapses;

17) Resisting voter suppression at all levels, and calling out and taking action to counter all possible efforts to suppress the vote.

It’s imperative that all Americans understand who is threatening their unalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and who is fighting to preserve them. By using legitimate means to stymy pmurT’s and GOP’s efforts to subvert the Constitution and turn our government over to a unitary executive, and by focusing our messaging on individual impacts, we can begin to turn things around in local elections in 2025 and federal elections in 2026.

It’s time to take the gloves off. There will either be a time in the future when we can put them back on, or we won’t need them anymore. Maybe a few well-thrown bare-knuckle jabs will let the bullies know they’ve awakened a sleeping giant.

---

¹ Source: MS Copilot AI search for “Fighting fire with fire vs. Beating them at their own game”

"Fighting fire with fire" means using the same tactics or methods as your opponent to counteract their actions. This phrase implies a direct and often aggressive approach, where you match your adversary's intensity or strategy to neutralize their efforts. For example, if someone is using aggressive marketing tactics against your business, you might respond with equally aggressive marketing to compete.

"Beating them at their own game" means outsmarting your opponent by using their own strategies or strengths against them, but in a more clever or skillful way. This phrase suggests a more strategic and cunning approach, where you understand your opponent's methods and use that knowledge to gain an advantage. For example, if a competitor is known for their excellent customer service, you might focus on providing even better customer service to attract their customers.

In summary, "fighting fire with fire" is about matching intensity and tactics, while "beating them at their own game" is about outsmarting and strategically using your opponent's strengths against them. Both approaches can be effective, depending on the situation and your goals.