They just don't (want to?) think of themselves as playing a role in the formation of public opinion

this is one of the contrasts from the founding era I find most interesting. Madison's National Gazette essays on public opinion and parties seem to acknowledge the way leaders and institutions both shape and are shaped by public policy reciprocally, though it's been a few years since I read em.

At first I was pretty annoyed by this. Especially sitting next to him. I don’t think he has to be friendly or collegiate. But I suppose he needs some kind of working relationship as Senate leader if Trump wins.

Democrats of a certain age (adulthood during Reagan years) have a learned helplessness that just boggles my mind

I think a lot is they don't want to follow through the logic of their own statements to its conclusion, apart from anything else because it would require taking elite actions (individually and collectively) that are politically difficult

the degree to which the party has not merely refused to demonstrate public leadership but, over decades, retreated into a culture of the politician as passive conduit of agentless public consensus, for whom "leadership" is an irrelevant, even unintelligible concept... well sometimes it really shows

I think the impulse here is somewhat more understandable, in the vein of "I'm not going to let him stop me from doing this traditional norms event," especially in his home state. But that's the entirely wrong calculation. Nobody is looking at this and seeing gee, what a norms-respecter Chuck is.