Realigning The Democratic Agenda
So there's a public gathering in Washington this week that aims to fix what's wrong with the Democratic Party. It is called "WelcomeFest" and is yet another effort to make the party "more moderate" (they talk of being "partisan centrists"), while admittedly trying to emulate the amount of energy from the progressive side of the party. One of the founders of the "Welcome Party" summed this up: "We respect the very robust and multifaceted effort on the progressive faction of the party over the last few years. They had a lot of clear coherency behind it, and there was a lot of action. We are essentially just trying to emulate that faction of the party." However, one has to wonder what they really mean when they talk of being centrists and moderates, since the lion's share of the funding behind the effort comes from Democratic deep-pocket donors, instead of being supported by any sort of authentic grassroots effort.
The problem with even having this conversation, though, is that "progressive" or "left" mean different things to different people. There's seldom any nuance. Which is actually necessary, because both progressive and so-called centrist ideology should be measured on more than one scale. The two most important (at least at this point) of these would measure politicians on whether they are economically progressive or moderate, and whether they are socially progressive or not. And the most effective way forward for the Democratic Party would seem to be combining being economically progressive (or even "populist") with having a "big tent" attitude towards social issues (especially the most hot-button of them). And I have my doubts that a group funded by millionaires and billionaires will come to the same conclusion.
Economic populism
This has been an ongoing struggle within the Democratic Party since the 1990s. Bill Clinton ushered in an era of steering the party closer to Big Business and Wall Street, which began the erosion of support for the party among working-class voters (or continued it, if you trace it back to "Reagan Democrats"). Everyone talks about this shift as if it happened recently (with the advent of Trump, say), but it's actually much older than that. Ask Bernie Sanders, he'll tell you.
There are all kinds of economically progressive/populist ideas which aren't just popular, but wildly so. Just off the top of my head: raising the minimum wage to a living wage, tax relief for parents, funding childcare and elder care to free people up to work, tackling the pharmaceutical industry to bring down the price of prescription drugs, not just preserving but expanding programs like Social Security and Medicare, and taxing the wealthy so they pay their fair share (think: "millionaires' tax"). That's just off the top of my head, mind you -- there are plenty of other ideas worth inclusion on that list as well. These aren't new ideas, they've been around for a while. Again: just ask Bernie, he's been promoting these ideas for decades.
Part of Donald Trump's success has been convincing working-class voters that somehow he is on their side. He can actually talk a pretty good populist game, when he's campaigning. Then once he gets into office, most of it falls by the wayside. He didn't get much of anything populist accomplished in his first term, although he seems to be paying a little more attention to it in his second. But he did just manage to accomplish one thing (if his budget bill passes) that Democrats should study -- he championed a few programs that are simple and easy-to-understand and that make an actual difference in working people's lives. Ending the income tax on tips and overtime pay are the two big examples of this. Democrats can talk until they're blue in the face about incrementally "increasing this tax credit or that one," but it just doesn't have the same sort of impact as "tips and overtime will be tax-free" has. Again, this is an old concept: Keep it simple, stupid!
To me, the other end of the spectrum from "economic progressive/populist," at least within the Democratic Party, is what I have always called "corporatist" Democrats. Think of people like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema -- politicians who vote against populist programs because their corporate donors tell them to, in other words. From the Clintons' "Democratic Leadership Council" forward, this is the faction of the party which has adopted the Republicans' trickle-down theory: give rich people a big tax cut and somehow it'll trickle down to the working class... somehow.
As far as I'm concerned, this is where the Democratic Party should have its litmus tests. Not on things like support for Israel or transgender athletes, but on economic issues that are universal to all voting demographics (except the top of the income scale, perhaps).
The groups that are pushing "centrism" in the Democratic Party are usually pushing some form of economic centrism -- perhaps incrementally change working-class Americans' lives a tiny little bit for the better, while still reserving most of the goodies for corporations and the wealthy. They are nowhere near as blatantly open about this as the Republicans are, but the message is essentially the same. It usually revolves around the argument: "Yeah, that'd be nice, but we just can't afford it." Actually, we could afford it, if the rich paid more taxes.
In all the recent breast-beating about: "How will Democrats win back working-class voters?" the answer is painfully obvious: "Do something for them -- something big!" Something like: "Let's add dental and vision and hearing aid coverage to Medicare," perhaps. That's just one idea -- there are plenty of them out there to choose from. How about: "Allow the government to force drug companies to lower their prices not just on ten or twenty drugs but on all prescription drugs -- the way pretty much every other country does it." That'd be a good one, too. But somehow these centrist groups seeking a magical "third way" never come to the same conclusion. They always come up with reasons why any changes for average folks can't be big ones and why millionaires are already taxed enough.
Cultural big tent
While I would encourage absolutism and litmus tests on the corporate-versus-populist economic scale, I would also advise the Democratic Party to walk away from the litmus tests and "cancelling" politicians on the current hot-button social issues. Allow all voices to be welcome inside the Democratic Party. I can remember back when there were anti-abortion Democrats, for instance -- politicians who would reliably vote for the Democratic agenda except on that one issue. If we could allow that sort of tolerance back into the party ranks, it would go a long way towards defusing the hottest of the political hot buttons.
Some Democrats are trying to do so, but without a whole lot of noticeable success. Gavin Newsom is trying to walk a tightrope on the question of transgender athletes in California schools, but all he seems to be doing is getting all sides of the question annoyed at him. Seth Moulton ran into a whole lot of negative feedback when he came out against trans girls in school sports as well.
That isn't the only such issue, there are a lot of them. "Defund the police" has been pretty debunked (not a whole lot of Democrats ever fully supported it), but it resonated at the time (for the Republicans, as a political cudgel). Some of these issues are new, some have been around for a while: Reparations for slavery. Using the proper "politically correct" term for everything. Immigration. Protectionism versus free trade. Israel. Again, this is not a definitive list, just a few off the top of my head. Democrats need to allow for a wide range of voices on these sorts of things, so that Democrats can actually get elected in swing districts and even red states and districts. "I don't agree with that issue, but let's talk about economics for working families -- that is what the Democratic Party is really focused on," should be an acceptable answer for a Democratic politician, to put this another way.
Democrats used to be a lot more nimble about not throwing the entire party's support behind such hot-button issues. Think of gay marriage, just for one. Democrats were incredibly reluctant to support it at first, especially since the Republicans were very successfully using it as a political club against them (remember all the "defense of marriage" ballot initiatives at the state level?). Barack Obama would only go as far as supporting "civil unions" until Joe Biden forced his hand. But Obama was certainly welcomed within the Democratic Party up to that point. He wasn't attacked by all Democrats for his stance, at the time. Civil unions were the "let's form some sort of compromise" position, at the time. Granted, it was nothing short of allowing a sort of second-class-citizen version of marriage, but it was a lot better than being completely against gay people securing a future for themselves as a couple.
The Democratic Party should be trying to get back to that level of acceptance within its own ranks. After all (to use a lefty buzzword) it shows tolerance, right? The tolerance for differing opinions, when you agree on 90-percent-plus of all other political issues (especially the economic ones). A politician should be able to exist -- and be welcomed -- within the Democratic Party, even if they don't fully support every interest group on the left. The interest groups should look at it as an opportunity, in fact. If you welcome someone in to your tent then you open up a channel for dialog. Barack Obama famously evolved on the question of gay marriage. Others can do the same on other issues -- that should be the goal, not drumming anyone who disagrees with you out of the party and calling them names.
It's a start
I realize I am arguing for both throwing the tent open to diverse opinions at the same time I am arguing for closing it to the worst of the corporatists. But adopting a "big tent" stance on social issues will allow Democrats to show that they truly are most concerned with the issue of economics and making things better for working families. There is a vein of anger at the obviously-rigged American economy out there just waiting to be tapped. Trump successfully tapped it, after all. Democrats can steal the issue right back from the Republicans, since few of them other than Trump even bother to talk about populism at all.
This anger should be directed (by Democrats) to where it actually belongs -- taxing the wealthy, reining in Big Business, passing laws to benefit working Americans in a very direct and tangible way -- rather than the boogiemen Trump directs their anger towards (immigrants, intellectuals, scientists, Bruce Springsteen, etc.).
This is, as I've said, probably not what a group of "centrist" Democrats who are funded by millionaires and billionaires is going to come up with as the answer to fix the problems with the Democratic Party. I realize this. But their way of defining "centrism" is nothing more than a scam, or a hoax (to use a few Trumpian terms). They just want to redefine the message Democratic politicians use, without actually taking any truly bold steps. They champion incrementalism, which always just disappoints people who voted for these centrists. "Let's do a little bit around the edges -- hey, look, you got $50 back on your taxes because of us!" isn't all that inspiring a message, is it? Whereas "Let's raise the minimum wage to $18 an hour!" is.
[Editorial note: I should close by nothing that this is really an article written in two parts, because I have some other suggestions for Democrats which I am saving until tomorrow. Today was about ideology... tomorrow is going to be more about political tactics.]
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
an even more inspiring message would be, "look, you have more money in your pocket. we did that. you're welcome.
Thanks for the end-note that you'll continue on the tactical questions tomorrow.
I admit I am continually baffled at the Democratic Party's inability to ride the economic inequality issue to continual electoral victories. Ever since Reagan the bottom 80% or so of the electorate has been getting shafted economically, primarily through the tax cuts for the wealthy that prevented any enlargement of government programs to help people out who needed help.
(It was a revelation to me to read Piketty's 'Capital in the Twenty-first Century' which shows how closely taxation policy tracks society-wide economic inequality, not just today but for many centuries in the past.)
Elizabeth Warren - my fave in the 2016 contest, alas - has built her career on, among other things, trying to help people understand that the tax money we need and can get if we vote for it is not on incomes, but on wealth itself. Wealthy people don't even think about 'income', that is, on "how much they make each year." They're not salaried, they're not paid wages, unlike the rest of us. They pay themselves whatever they need, out of the interest income on their vast amounts of wealth: savings, investments, property, shares, etc.
Can that money be taxed? It's far, far more money than would ever be realized by even a 100% income tax at some high bracket number. As she has noted, it's hard, but it can be done if the government really wanted to do it. It's the same as a 'property tax' which every homeowner is familiar with on the local level, and it's legal and constitutional. The problem is that wealthy people 1) don't want to pay taxes on their wealth, and have ways of letting politicians know that; and 2) know how to shelter their wealth so it's not obviously theirs and taxable even if the politicians refuse to cave.
Her main point, I think, is one of education. Most everyday people don't have a lot of wealth, and they think in terms of income when it comes to federal taxation. The Democrats' constituents aren't clamoring for a reasonable wealth tax because they don't very much understand how different it is from a higher income tax rate. And they don't understand that 99% of the money of rich people, the so-called 1%, which is in the multi-billions of dollars, is not in the form of income and can't be taxed by just "raising taxes".
In your piece today, you're pretty clear that it's the 1% - the liberal 1% to be sure, but still - that are funding the Democrats' effort this week to refine the Party's message. And of course, by the above analysis and your conclusion as well, the Party can't commit to real economic redistribution to combat inequality because "we can't afford it" on the government's current tax schedule. But we could afford it, if the 'liberal' 1% at least would concede that a wealth tax both makes sense and is doable if the electorate and its representatives would commit to such a program - and all the resulting programs that it would pay for.
The Republicans were up front about what they wanted to do going back to Reagan. Enough of the Democratic donor class likes those tax cuts so they torpedo the FDR wing of the party.
Biden insisted that Kamala run a “zero daylight between his positions and hers” which explains why Kamala didn’t propose legal weed and a $17 minimum wage. So like Hillary in 2016 Kamala represented more of the same Establishment Democrats doing anything except rolling back Reaganism.
Reaganism it’s the root of our problems.
So Biden’s ego fucked Kamala in multiple ways. And destroyed his own legacy in the process.
Establishment Democrats fight the Progressives tooth and nail and when they lose they always try to blame their defeat on the Progressivism they didn’t actually try out. Rinse and repeat.
Part of Donald Trump's success has been convincing working-class voters that somehow he is on their side.
It's that cheap Chinese hat; he puts them on by putting it on... among other things, of course.
Another large part of Donald Trump's success is Democrats running a woman against him in a country full of uneducated misogynists... twice. No, I am not lumping the majority of men in that category, but I'd be outright lying if I said this country isn't full of undereducated aggrieved males who genuinely believe they're superior because of their gender (among other things).
Still waiting for someone to write the article regarding the way Trump used Xitter in the 2024 election the same way he used the National Enquirer in 2016.
to catch and kill stories he didn't like?
For now, the Dem agenda should be to fan the flames of the feud between parasitic illegal alien Elon Musk and orange ignoramus Fat Donny. It's getting ugly. I have to admit that I didn't believe it ever would.
I don't know you that you need to fan the flames, that bromance breakup is getting ugly fast.
Tesla stock down, popcorn stocks up...
[2] John M from Ct.
Great post! Warren was my favorite, too, back in 2016. She is still one of my favorite Democrats because she is willing to take the time to educate people on how our tax money works and what we need to do to make it work better for ALL of us.
I think one thing we need to focus back on is gutting the Citizens United ruling that allows the rich to dump as much money as they want into our elections. Most people dismiss the potential damage that can occur because they believe the money will go toward more political marketing for the candidates and will have little effect on the vote. We all encounter the never-ending campaign ads and do not think they change too many minds concerning how we will vote. But that money is not limited to mailers and TV ads… and it is the other places that this money can go that we should be most concerned with.
Imagine the damage that could be done in a purple state — where either party could end up winning the election — by an infusion of money that pays for a pilot program to offer those in assisted-living housing up to $1000 for participating in their program. Those that participate will make $250 for signing up to receive a mail-in ballot from the state. Then they will be assisted by the program in filling out the ballot. They will be given a print out of how they want their ballot to be filled out for review, and if everything is correct, they sign the ballot and those running the program mail it in for them. The residents are given $750 for participating as long as they sign a nondisclosure agreement that they won't tell anyone about the program or they will be forced to re-pay the money they were given.
A housing project that had always voted for Democrats suddenly flipped and voted Republican. This changed the district from Democrat to Republican, which changed the state from being Blue and made it Red. Don’t think something like this could take place with how our elections are run? Sorry, it already has taken place. Back in 2012. It should be noted that it was not caught by the state or local authorities. It was a reporter who noticed that a housing project went from having one or two absentee ballots in past elections suddenly had 40 in that election. His investigation caught Republicans buying and changing the mail-in ballots to give them the election. $40,000 could be the cost for giving Republicans the election. Musk had no issue with offering $1 million to buy votes. Thanks to the pandemic, having 40 mail-in ballots requested from a housing project does not raise suspicions. What happened in 2012 could happen and no one would suspect a thing.
Where do you think all of the money Musk gave to Trump’s campaign was spent??? Why did Trump keep saying that he did not need people to vote for him in order for him to win this past election?
nypoet22
8
to catch and kill stories he didn't like?
To smear his opponents with false stories and de facto put Trump on the "front cover" of everyone's feed via the use of algorithms.