Democrats Re-Learn the Lessons of 2018

 

We are seeing comparisons to the 2018 elections here (the last midterm when Donald Trump was President).  Most people who say that mean that Trump was unpopular, Democrats were ahead in the generic ballot, and Democrats did, indeed, make sizeable gains.  I agree with all that, but it seems to me that another highly salient fact of the 2018 election is coming to light.  Namely, the Democrats are again showing that, in a midterm election, you can beat message discipline with message indiscipline.   

Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that the approach would work in a Presidential year.  In a Presidential year, all eyes are fixed on the top slot, and everyone else has no real choice but to fall in line.  An off-year election is a different matter.  In 2018, the Republican were all singing on the same tune on cue, while the Democrats were belting out a glorious cacophony.  While Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was leading the Squad into Washington and heading off in a leftwing direct, other district were running former military and intelligence officers with strong national security backgrounds.  All were campaigning on different, often locally-focused platforms.  And the Republicans, all singing on key, couldn't counter all those different messages at once.

And here we are again. The DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) are denouncing Israel and calling for Medicare for All.  Jon Ossoff is firing up crowds vowing to fight corruption.  James Talarico is hewing center and talking about his faith.  Mary Peltola is running a pro-oil, pro-fisheries campaign in Alaska.  Run For Something is building the bench.  And, of course, it makes a difference that the US has a lot of elected offices.  Democrats have hard-fought, sometimes bitter, primaries, but all line up behind the winner in the end.  

Against this, the Republicans are almost absurdly on-message.  They all cry Communism, but no one believes them.  When an assassin attempts to kill Trump, they all fall in line saying this proves the need for his ballroom.  When Ossoff mentions Natalie Harp, they all freak out at once.  It is impossible not to believe that they are taking directions from the top down.  

And I have noticed that in 2026, Republicans seem to be repeating a mistake the Democrats made in 2024.  In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and held that abortion was not a constitutional right.  This decision proved highly unpopular, and Democrats rode it to a semi-victory in 2022 -- used the threat to abortion rights to thwart the predicted Red Wave.  They tried it again in 2024 and found that abortion is enough to win one election, but too narrow for a lasting majority.  Republicans are repeating the mistake.  In the 2024 Presidential debate, Donald Trump said that Harris, “wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison.”  Politifact rated it as "mostly true."  It also proved to be a winning message that checked people's boxes about all the worst traits associated with Democrats.  Transgender athletes also proved to be a winning message. Given the recent burst of inflation and crime, and the state of the border, it seems unlikely that this was the primary reason that Trump won, but it did prove to be one of his most successful campaign ads.

Well, Republicans are learning that the same thing applies to transgender issues as to abortion.  It is simply too narrow an issue to build a lasting majority.  Social issues are legitimately important.  They tell us about people's underlying values and what sort of society they favor.  But any one social issue is apt to look more like niche issue and not enough for a broad-based coalition.  To build a broad-based coalition, you must convince voters that the other party just doesn't share your values.  And that means they don't share your values across a wide range of issues.  Republicans have done it for a long time and with great success against Democrats.  And now Democrats just might have the constellation of issues -- corruption, undue influence for tech billionaires, data centers, pervasive surveillance, etc. -- to show the Republicans don't share most people's values either.

But above all, convincing voters that the other side doesn't share your values means acknowledging that not all Americans have exactly the same values, and that you are willing to build a big tent to let in a wide range of outlook.  And it means portraying the other side as narrow-minded dogmatic, and judgmental.  In short, it means allowing for a certain degree of message indiscipline -- and exposing the dangers of too much message discipline by the other side.

A Trip to Fantasy Land

Hakeem Jeffires 

Let's start with some basics.  Assume Democrats win by a landslide in November and Team Trump fails to prevent them from coming to power.  There is no way they will be able to impeach and remove Trump, even if he shoots someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue.  I suppose if he bungles things so badly that his approval rating falls below, say 20% (not gonna happen), and Republican absolutely see him as an anvil weighing them down, they might be able to muster a 2/3 majority to convict.  But then JD Vance will be President.  And there is absolutely no possibility of the Senate convicting both, because that would make Hakeem Jeffries President under the Presidential Succession Act that makes the Speaker of the House next in line.  There is no way 2/3 of the Senate would agree to that.

But let us suppose that the Democrats win both houses in 2026 by a sweeping landslide and Trump is unable to throw out the results.  On January 3, 2027, Hakeem Jeffries is sworn in as Speaker of the House.  The next day a bolt of lightning appears out of a clear blue sky and strikes Trump and Vance dead, so Jeffries becomes the next President.  What would I recommend?

Well, if a Democrat wins in 2028 and Trump is somehow unable to overturn the result, my advice would be to act boldly in exposing what Trump has been doing and instituting reforms to keep it from ever happening again.  I would advise a President Jeffries to be more circumspect.  Not being actually elected to the office he would not have a mandate from the people, so he would be somewhat lacking in legitimacy.  That would have to be taken into account.  I would recommend that he halt any illegal actions by Team Trump and work to clean up the mess that he made but leave major policy initiative to Congress.  Of course, if a duly elected Congress passes a measure, it would have the mandate from the people, so I would recommend that Jeffries sign it and be forceful in implementing it.  

Within these limits, what do I recommend?  I have often said that I cannot tell if JD Vance is an opportunist with no principles or a dogmatic ideologue, but I hope that he is an unprincipled opportunist, because an unprincipled opportunist can be rational if it is in his interest.  A dogmatic ideologue never bends.  Tom Homan is an unprincipled opportunist.  He tacks with the wind.  Greg Bovino is a dogmatic ideologue.  

So, my advice to a hypothetical President Jeffries is to get rid of the ideologues in Trump's Cabinet right away but keep the opportunists until they give you a reason to fire them.  We will see how long it takes.  The absolute first thing he must do is fire Pete Hegseth.  Hegseth is the only one who might actually be able to stage a coup.  But it will take at least some time to make a plan (we are assuming lightning strike, after all), and everyone in the Pentagon hates Hegseth's guts and might refuse the unlawful order.  So, fire Hegseth right away and have him escorted off the premises.  There will be great cheers in the Pentagon.  Replace him with some apolitical and uncontroversial technocrat who can revamp the military to catch up with all the changes in modern warfare, probably the CEO of some drone contractor.  

Once Hegseth is out of the way, fire RFK, Jr. and replace him with some uncontroversial and apolitical technocrat who can clean up the mess he made.  Fire Russ Vought and replace him with someone personally loyal but also loyal to the law.  (There is no way the Director of the Office of Management and Budget can escape political controversy).  Fire Steve Miller.  There is no need to replace him.  And generally fire the White House staff who do not need Senate confirmation.  They are picked for personal loyalty to the President and do not have to administer agencies.  Give the rest the benefit of the doubt and let them prove they are unprincipled opportunists who can tack with the wind.*  Tell them that firing all of them would be too messy, but that when you give a directive, you expect them to obey or resign.  Once Hegseth is out of the way very quietly let your Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security know that any coup attempt will be met with military force.

With that out of the way, what about policy?  

(1)  Artificial Intelligence (AI) really is getting scary and threatening to run out of our control.  But it does no good for us to halt development if China proceeds.  It is not a subject I know anything about, but deferring to people who do: Ban the export of Nvidia chips or other important AI components to China or anyone who might let them get to China.  Then gather together the leaders of the industry and leading experts and make an agreement to halt its expansion until we have reasonable rules in to keep us in charge.  Have them start on a regulatory framework.

(2) Speaking of tech, authorize Starlink to give Ukraine targeting information inside Russia.  In exchange, bring ask Ukraine to send us military advisors to revamp our military to learn the immense changes that have happened in warfare since 2022.

These have the advantage of being something that can be done quickly and unilaterally.  They are both very important in heading off future disaster, but they will yield no immediate or visible benefits, which are very much in demand, so we need to deliver as well.

(3) Return ICE to the barracks and Border Patrol to the border.  Withdraw other Federal law enforcement from immigration and get the back to enforcing the law.  Restore Temporary Protected Status where Trump has revoked it.  Order ICE lawyers to allow bond for any arrestees who do not have a criminal record and have enough ties to their communities not to be flight risks, including people who are in the vast prison network now.

This will benefit immigrant communities and their neighbors, but the advantage to the rest of us will probably not be immediately apparently.  Work closely with the agriculture, construction, healthcare, and other industries that rely heavily on immigrant labor to make sure they get what they need to get going.  This may offer some modest economic relief.  Publicize it.

(4) In order to deliver actual benefits, get out of the Iran war as quickly as possible on whatever terms we can get.  This may require some escalation first. Be smart and cautious about it.  Also level with the American people.  Let them know that ending the war may offer some immediate relief at the pump, but the effect will be modest.  Explain that it will take time to repair the drilling and refining capacity destroyed during the war, to refine oil once it starts flowing, to refill reserves, etc.  Give some realistic time frame for gas prices to fall.  Give yourself some margin for error here.  Also, reduce tariffs on imports.  Work on restoring trade relations.  Again, let the people know what sort of short term versus long term relief to expect.

(5) Push alternatives to fossil fuels -- solar, wind, nuclear, and geothermal.  Since acronyms in in the vogue, call it SWING.  Someone I read said to promote SWING as a national security, rather than environmental, matter.  But I think most Americans care only marginally more about national security than about the environment.  I would say, promote SWING as a consumerist matter.  SWING will protect you from swings in oil prices.  Don't let your pump prices be hostage to turmoil in the Middle East.  Sounds like a winning message to me.  Of course, this, too, will take time.  Push for permitting reform.

(6) Clean up the mess Trump left across the government.  Be as forthright as possible about the mess you are finding and what you are doing to clean it up.  Level with the American people that it will take time.  Celebrate successes.  Blame the previous administration.  A lot.  The American people will give you at least some leeway.  But maybe not all that much.

(7) Don't run in 2028.  Prices won't return to what they were in the good old days.  People won't adjust overnight.  Anger will remain in 2028.  Step aside and let someone not associated with you take the reins.  Blame the previous administration.
 

______________________________________________________-
*What about Kash Patel?  He is no mere opportunist, given his background.  But he appears to be such a lightweight that he can't help but tack with the wind.

Reflections on Jon Ossoff

Jon Osssoff

Not that long ago, Republican politicians who were falling behind in the primary or losing popularity seemed to have an infallible method of recovery.  Just take a bribe or commit some other crime, and then cry persecution when anyone tries to hold you accountable.  Ken Paxton, impeached by the Texas House, was the classic example.  Conventional wisdom said that only Washington insiders cared about corruption; ordinary citizens applauded vices of all kinds as proof of "authenticity."  And some advisors were urging Democrats to do the same thing.  Stick to bread-and-butter issues.  Avoid moralizing, including talk about democracy.  Some left wing insurgents went further and urged Democrats to seek out someone who had done something obnoxious and offensive at best (say, having a Nazi tattoo, or being a total jerk to women), so as not to be a "smooth groin" or "grown in vats."

Well, things have changed.  Texans are recoiling at Paxton's corruption, possibly even enough for him to lose, certainly enough to make it harder than someone like John Cornyn.  And in Georgia Jon Ossoff is firing up crowds by vowing to expose Trump's corrupt activities and hold people accountable.  He is bridging the gap between the moderate and progressive wings of the Democratic Party.  Both of them want a "fighter," and Ossoff is giving that to them in spades. 

The phenomenon is really not that hard to understand.  It all goes back to the old adage that people fight more over a shrinking pie than an expanding one.  When times are prosperous, people smile indulgently on a little corruption in their leader.  After all, people say, he brought all this prosperity to us, it seems mean-spirited to grudge him a share of it.  But when people are feeling pinched, nothing sparks their resentment more than seeing someone party it up on their dime.  And Trump is doing that in spade.

Ossoff and Warnock

No one has paid much attention to Ossoff up till now.  When he ran for Senate in 2020, he was largely overshadowed by Raphael Warnock.  Warnock also got more of the spotlight because he had to run again in 2022 -- against Hershel Walker, no less.* But now people are even talking about Ossoff as a candidate for President.  Although I absolutely favor appointing him to the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, as Chair if Democrats win control of the Senate and Ranking Member if they do not.  But I have some misgivings about Ossoff as a candidate for President.  Why?

The answer is a bit hard to put my finger on.  His oratory has been compared to Obama's, but that is clearly not true.  While Obama campaigned (however implausibly) as someone who would bring us all together, Ossoff makes no such pretense.  He channels people's anger, not their hopes.  Under more normal circumstances, I might call him a demagogue.  In this case, the anger he stirs up is entirely justified and appropriate.  It still makes me uneasy.  Alternately, one could say the problem with Ossoff is that he limits himself to being against Trump and does not really stand for anything.  Except that I really do think that restoring the rule of law and implementing safeguards to prevent another such lawless President really is the most important issue we face.  And, again, I really do believe that the person at the top should be a generalist and appoint the best specialists as advisors, but it really does bother me that I just can't see what Cabinet or other executive office I would appoint Ossoff to.

And, again, just to be clear, I am not suggesting that Cabinet posts should be held be prominent politicians.  To the contrary, there are often many fine candidates who no one has ever heard of.  But imagine a hotly contested Democratic primary in 2028 and the front runner seeks to buy the others' support by offering them Cabinet posts.  What positions seem right for various Democratic hopefuls.

Mark Kelly: Secretary of Defense.  He has a strong military background and knows how actual militaries work, as opposed to how to show off for the cameras.  Task him with revamping our military to meet all the changes that have happened to warfare.

Bernie Sanders: Secretary of Health and Human Services.  Yes, I know, he is too old to run by now.  But whereas our best Secretary of Defense is probably some drone contractor CEO no one has ever heard of, I really do think Sanders should be Secretary of HHS.  He has served on the Committee of Health Education, Labor and Pensions for long enough to know the field.  As the foremost and most uncompromising champion of Medicare For All, he should be put in a position to put up or shut up.

Gavin Newsom: Secretary of Homeland Security.  Newsom was the first Governor to stand up to Trump during an ICE blitz, not knowing what the consequences would be.  I would very much like to see him head the department he so forcefully defied and cut it down to size.

Elizabeth Warren: Head of the Securities Exchange Commission or some other major financial regulatory agency.  Yes, I know, she is also too old to run and never seriously made the attempt. Also, financial regulation stops short of being Cabinet level.  But it is Warren's real specialty and besides, a less exalted office is suitable to a less serious candidate.

Adam Schiff: Director of National Intelligence.  He is also a fine candidate for Attorney General, but he is a bit old, and there are others (as we shall see).  Meanwhile, foreign intelligence is his specialty, so it seems to fit best.

Kamala Harris: Attorney General.  She was Attorney General of California, after all.

Jamie Raskin:  Attorney General.  Yes!!!!!

James Talarico:  Secretary of Education.  Appears to be his background.

Andy Beshear:  Has been recommended for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).  Zohran Mamdani, though not eligible to be President, might prove to be a good candidate, too. 

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez:  Not sure.  Probably a good reason not to choose her, either.

But what Cabinet post would Joh Ossoff qualify for?  Attorney General might seem tempting, but he is not a lawyer, which disqualified him.  Ossoff's background is as a documentary film maker.  In countries with a Minister of Information, he could be Minister of Information.  But the US does not have such a post and considers the mere suggestion un-American.  I suppose that leaves White House Communications Director, but it seems beneath a Senator or candidate's dignity.  The most plausible spot I can find for Ossoff would be to head some sort of blue-ribbon commission to investigate the Trump Administration's crimes and recommend reforms, which seems like an honorable post.**  And maybe if Ossoff prove effective in exposing corruption and suggesting reforms, that might give him a strong enough policy hold to make him a good candidate for President.

But I don't think he is there just yet.

________________________________________

*Probably another example of why it is not such a good idea to pick the worst candidate around on the theory that they will be the most "authentic."

**Come to think of it, Ocasio Cortez's work has mostly in oversight, which makes her a good candidate for the role as well.

Why Democrats Should be Willing to Crawl Over Broken Glass to Vote for Abdul El-Sayed

 

Abdul El-Sayed

I will begin by setting forth my position, which I hope to repeat many times throughout the election season.  I believe, as I think many others do, that Donald Trump is an existential threat to our democracy and everything we hold dear, who must be stopped at all costs.  I think that many others agree.

And if you truly believe this, it logically follows that "all costs" should include voting for a candidate who is not your first choice, or who you did not vote for in the primary, or who does not check all your ideological boxes.  It even means voting for a candidate who may be troubling in some ways.

And, in fact, Democrats seem to have taken this lesson to heart.  After long, hard-fought primaries, they have promptly closed ranks behind the winner.  When Graham Platner was forced out in Maine, Democrats quickly coalesced around at candidate who shared is policy outlook and had a real working class background but lacked his unsavory baggage.  When the leftwing insurgent in Wisconsin lost the gubernatorial primary to an establishment candidate, she lined up behind the winner.  And so, too, in Michigan, when Abdul El-Sayed, the leftwing insurgent, beat the establishment candidate, Michigan Democrats promptly closed ranks behind him.

El-Sayed, so far as I can tell, stands well to the left of your median voter or even your median Democrat, but is not insane and seems mostly free of alarming baggage.  The most alarming things about him are (1) his hostility to Israel sometimes seems to bleed over into alarming territory and (2) he is closely associated with leftwing shock jock Hasan Piker.  On the strong side, he has a strong background in public health -- probably better than any current sitting Democrat in either house of Congress, and certainly better than any current Democratic Senator.  He has also, to all appearances, shown first rate administrative competence in managing the Detroit and Wayne County public health departments.

Assuming El-Sayed wins, the best strategy for Senate party leaders is obvious.  Put El-Sayed in charge of public health policy and, secondarily, have him work on administrative oversight.  These are his strong points and areas where Democrats would certainly have use for his talents.  Keep him out of foreign policy and national security, where he is most controversial and has no particular credentials.  In terms of committee assignments, put him on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and perhaps the Veterans Affairs Committee.  Healthcare is the Democrats' strongest policy area and El-Sayed no doubt has unique contributions to offer in that field (including veterans' benefits).  If that is not enough to keep him busy, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee apparently has the sort of general administrative supervision role as the House Oversight Committee and handles general administrative competence -- another of El-Sayed's strong points.  But the leadership would probably want to keep him off the Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed Services Committee, or the Intelligence Committee.  These are the places where El-Sayed's views are most controversial, and where he has no particular expertise.*

And consider the implications of putting El-Sayed on the health committee.  If Democrats want to enact Medicare For All, El-Sayed is particularly well qualified to work out the practical details of making that a reality.  For anyone who is skeptical of the plan's feasibility, El-Sayed is particularly well-positioned to figure out if it is practical, and to extend Medicare to all if it is practical, or to convince Bernie Sanders et al if it is not.

But even that is not El-Sayed's biggest attraction.  His biggest attraction is that if he serves on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, he will have oversight over RFK, Jr.  And that means that El-Sayed will be able to ask RFK, Jr. questions and make him squirm like we have never seen him squirm before.  Now, that's worth crawling over barbed wire and broken glass to see!

___________________________________________

*Interestingly, his opponent, Mike Rogers, does have a strong background in these areas and probably would get these committee assignments, but not any healthcare assignment, if elected.  But, after all, there is nothing wrong with two rival candidates for Congress having different areas of expertise.

All Elections Matter

One of the things that distinguishes the US from any other country is our extraordinary number of elective offices -- almost 500,000!  No other country anywhere in the world has anything approaching that number of elective offices.* In a midterm election year it often seems that there is some sort of election taking place in the country every week -- an exaggeration, but not all that much of an exaggeration if one counts special elections.

And here is the thing to keep in mind -- all those offices matter.  Much of the day-to-day business of governing takes place at the local level.  Local officials control law enforcement, school, road maintenance, land use regulations, etc.**  Many have argued that Democrats' great mistake when Obama was elected was to put all their eggs in the Presidential basket -- to assume that once we elected a President, everything else would fall into line.  That is not just a serious misunderstanding of the nature of government in the US, it is an ultimately authoritarian outlook.  It assumes that power flows from the top down and that the person at the top can dictate terms for everyone else.  

Putting all our eggs in the Presidential basket proved a disaster.  Republicans won sweeping victories at all other levels.  Democrats have learned some things from the experience and focused more on Congress and Governors.  Democrats are only beginning to start seriously competing in state legislatures and state Supreme Courts.  But that, too, still focuses on the tip of the governmental iceberg. It ignores the vast array of local governments that account for the great majority of elective offices (see below).

Not only do we have an immense number of elective offices, but all of those offices are important.  Governors certify election results.  They also decide whether to put their State Police at the disposal of ICE (I'm look at you, Texas and Florida).  Secretaries of State (usually elective) certify election results and set regulations governing elections.  Attorney Generals (usually elective) can sue to block Trump's latest outrage -- or not.  State legislatures set laws governing elections.  They also pass laws mandating or forbidding sanctuary policies.  They can pass Medicaid expansion -- or not.  They can move at least to some degree to fill the gaps Federal funding and regulatory cuts have left -- or not.  

Counties in the US

And that is just at the state level.  County Clerks (usually elective) actually run elections and count the votes.  There have been isolated cases of resistance to certifying results.  Expect more.  Where state sanctuary laws are silent or ambiguous, decisions can be made by county sheriffs (usually elective), city councils, and city police chiefs (usually hired by the elective government).  Don't forget, counties in the US are generally geographic, rather than demographic, units.  This means that most counties are rural and (presumably) elect Republican officials.  

My focus has been here has been on elections and sanctuary laws, but a local government can affect a wide variety of other issues, from data centers to school curriculum to school transgender policies (not my cup of tea, but important to others on our side).  

In short, it can seem frivolous to focus on local offices and policy when our democracy is at stake.  But local offices and policy are democracy.  Much of it is dull and mundane, but such is life.  Furthermore, these local offices are the "bench" that the party draws from to recruit candidates for higher office.  Democracy is safe only if Democrats learn to stop ceding vast parts of the country to Republicans and become competitive everywhere.  The scale is daunting. But the time to start is now.  Because if we wait, it will be too late.

________________________________________________

*And, yes, I understand that a country as large as the US will necessarily have more elective offices than a smaller country.  But US citizens choose from a longer ballot than voters anywhere else.
**At we approached the 2024 elections and a Donald Trump victory seemed inevitable this was my one source of hope.  Political power in the US is extremely diffuse.  Local government offers an immense number of points of resistance.  The Federal Government's super power is the money it dispenses.  The best way I could think to prepare for Trump was to audit budgets and plan for how to get by if federal funds were cut off.

Since I Can't Seem to Let Go of That Bone

 

OK, since I just can't seem to let go of this one, let explain in different terms why transgenderism is engendering such resentment.

Suppose we concede two of transgender activists' main points:

1. Gender identity should always override biological sex in determining a person's gender (i.e., their status as male, female or other).
2. People are making much too big a deal of this, since only 0.6% of the population is transgender.

And yes, I get that both propositions are controversial,* but if we concede them for the sake of argument, it actually goes a long way toward explaining so many people's resentment of transgenderism.

Quite simply, the 99.4% of the population that is "cisgender" resents having to rework the language, and often more than the language, to accommodate the sensibilities of 0.6% of the population.  If gender identity and biological sex match 99.4% of the time, treating then as synonymous is a reasonably good working generalization and rare exceptions can be treated as, well, rare exceptions.

Consider current activist demands.  Activists object to the term "pregnant woman" because 0.6% of all pregnant persons may self-identify as male.**  They object to treating abortion as a women's issue because 0.6% of all persons seeking abortions may self-identify as male.**  They object to saying "mother" or "mom" and insist on "birthing person" or "birthing parent" because 0.6% of all people who give birth may self-identify as male.** Some activists object to listing a baby's biological sex on their birth certificate because it might clash with their gender identity 0.6% of the time.  And some urge people not to make any assumptions about a potential sexual partner's genitals because they might get it wrong 0.6% of the time.  Some go further and insist that we not take genitals into account at all in choosing a sex partner.  A few urge parents not to tell their children whether they are a boy or girl because that might be wrong 0.6% of the time and children should be free to "choose" a gender.

Simply put, we are asked to treat biological/natal sex and gender identity as completely separate and unrelated matters even though there is a 99.4% correlation between them.  Then, any time ignoring the distinction raises practical difficulties, we are supposed to dismiss those difficulties as insignificant because, after all, the difficulties only apply 0.6% of the time.  

That is a lot of mental gymnastics for 0.6% of the population to demand of the other 99.4%.

______________________________________

*Obviously, the whole question of gender identity vs. biological sex is controversial, but the rate of transgenderism is also controversial.  In particular, many people suspect that activists are pushing way too many people to identify as transgender.  But I will ignore that for the sake of this argument.

**Probably less, since taking cross-sex hormones can have the effect of reducing fertility.

Is There a Conservative Case for Transgenderism?

 

Go ahead and call it a ridiculous question, but if transgender activists ever want broad social acceptance, they had better figure out the conservative case for it.

The case of gay marriage is instructive.  Gay marriage was once considered a radical, extremist notion.  It has since gained broad acceptance.  And I think the reason is that the conservative case for gay marriage has always been there.  When gays first came out of the closet, they were not widely accepted and tended to live in gay ghettos, engaged in unrestrained promiscuity and extravagant lifestyles.*  What ultimately led to widespread acceptance of gay marriage was its underlying conservatism.  It meant that a same sex couple could integrate into the general population and live a convention life -- except for being a two-husband or two-wife couple.  

The next big battle was over who could be compelled to participate in a gay marriage and led to massive controversy over cake bakers, photographers, website designers and the like.**  The Supreme Court actually reach a very satisfactory resolution and persuaded champions of gay marriage by appealing to a basic liberal principle -- that no one should be compelled to engage in speech they disagreed with.  Anyone merely selling prefabricated wedding materials must sell to all comers, but if there was an "expressive" element, such as a written message, no one could be required to take part.  The controversy ceased.

And consider the biggest change to come out of Black Lives Matter -- police wearing body cameras.  I assume that this has become widely accepted because the police ultimately concluded it was not anti-police, or at least not inherently so.  No doubt body cameras deter a certain amount of police misconduct and make it easier to prosecute when it does happen.  Police cameras also clear the police of false accusations of misconduct.  They reinforce evidence of crime.  And the footage can be useful simply for refreshing memories and making sure stories are accurate before going into court.  

So, my advice to anyone wanting society to make a clear rule that gender is a matter of subjective self-identification had better figure out the conservative case for it if they want to make it stick

____________________________________
*Then AIDS came along and wiped the whole lifestyle out, but that is a different story.
**The one group everyone agreed could not be compelled to participate was the clergy.