While mulling some recent material from The Bulwark, I thought I’d explain something to the converted “Never Trumpers” the outlet represents, and did so at New York:
For a while now I’ve had a guilty-pleasure reading habit: The Bulwark, that semi-official outlet of Never Trumpers who view themselves as having definitively broken with the GOP thanks to their former party’s thralldom to Donald J. Trump. I share its contributors’ belief that they (the tribe usefully described by Miller as Red Dog Democrats) represent not just a self-promoting claque of elite scribblers but a real if marginal faction of the Democratic Party, having burned a lot of bridges on their way out of the GOP. Their views appear to parallel those of a significant number of suburban Republicans and independents who voted Democratic in 2018 and 2020. And given the very close balance between voters of the two parties, as reflected most recently in 2020, Democrats really can’t afford to contemptuously reject any potential adherents, however alien or even repugnant they might find their backgrounds.
So it’s understandable when Bulwark co-founder Charlie Sykes expresses frustration that Democrats refuse to consider their pleas for policy concessions on grounds of holding old grudges:
“The spending. The wokeness. The repeal of the Hyde Amendment. I could go on …
“These are difficult times for folks on the center-right, who’ve tried to join Democrats in a loose alliance to protect the Republic from Trumpism …
“Litmus tests are applied: it’s not enough to be pro-democracy, NTers are also expected to embrace the elements of the progressive agenda — from free community college, to abortion, rent moratoriums, police funding, transgenderism, CRT, social spending, and the candidacy of Greta Thunberg for sainthood.”
Sykes fears it’s all very personal, and warns, “If you cancel moderates/conservatives for their past sins, you don’t have a coalition.”
Here’s the thing, though: It’s not really about the Red Dogs. Yes, I’m sure it’s been tough for them to watch Democrats largely come together around a legislative program that’s significantly more progressive than the one advanced by the Obama administration. But Democrats have been coalescing around the basics of the Build Back Better agenda for some time now. That the famously moderate Joe Biden now embraces it is a sign of how the party has slowly evolved, not some sort of betrayal or surrender to the left. And anyone who paid close attention to the 2020 presidential primaries should have understood that there is less distance between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders than between Joe Biden and the Joe Biden of the 1990s.
Part of what has happened is simply a resolution of internal conflicts among Democrats that left them defensive and at times incoherent. A classic example is one that Sykes mentioned: abortion policy. For years, Democrats claimed to value reproductive rights even as they accepted significant limitations on them: e.g., the Hyde Amendment, which made abortion services, unlike any other medical services, ineligible for any sort of federal support. That amendment, along with acceptance of some largely symbolic restrictions on rare late-term abortions, and the whole “safe, legal, and rare” messaging introduced by Bill Clinton, represented concessions to a significant bloc of Democratic voters and Democratic pols who did not recognize reproductive rights at all.
That has changed over time. Anti-abortion Democratic politicians are a rare and shrinking breed, and there are now significantly fewer anti-abortion Democratic voters than there are pro-choice Republicans. Most Democrats, including Joe Biden, have made the leap into a more coherent and unified position. They aren’t going to turn back the clock to satisfy ex-Republicans, but they aren’t insisting on a “litmus test” just to annoy or exclude them, either. The same could be said for other policy tenets once beloved by a significant number of Democrats — from fiscal hawkishness to armed interventionism to an openness to “entitlement reform” — that remain attractive to the newest proto-Democrats. As for the idea that Democrats are some sort of rigid ideological cult: Come on, seriously? Look at what’s going on with the attempted enactment of the Build Back Better reconciliation bill. If this is an intolerant and exclusive political party, I’d hate to see a loosey-goosey one try to function. It may just be that the issues Red Dogs fret about may lie outside the still relatively loose bounds of party unity.
This doesn’t mean Red Dogs should despair, but it may mean another painful reevaluation of priorities, recognizing that most have already had to sacrifice a lot of old allegiances and even the habitual language used to make sense of the political world. In many respects, the Never Trumpers resemble their spiritual (and in some cases biological) predecessors, the neo-conservatives. These were people who broke with the Democratic Party out of a conviction that Democratic views on national security made continued party loyalty impossible. But most of them retained many views that horrified their new Republican allies until they accepted the inevitable role of a factional minority and grew to accommodate or even share the policy positions and ideological language of the GOP, which was increasingly dominated by conservatives with their own ideological-consistency demands.
Most Red Dogs have no illusions about the party they’ve left and understand their constituencies are too small to form a third force or demand concessions from a position of strength. Most, I suppose, will get used to the strange and sometimes lurid landscape of the Donkey Party. Others will embrace the posture of the gadfly, the people of no party or coalition. But it’s really not personal. It’s just politics.
I agree that talking about gas prices and linking Bush to the Saudis is a very good idea. This affects people’s day-to-day lives, whereas they just try to ignore Iraq as much as possible. It also makes Bush look out of touch.
Another thing–if they’re correct, the figures are good, even if Kerry does only as well as Gore, because of the huge growth in the Hispanic population (and hopefully citizenship and voting rates).
Question–how accurate are these “partisan” polls? As a yellow-dog Democrat, I’m usually cheered by polls done by our party or groups that lean our way, but I brush off GOP polls as “biased.” Is that what we’re doing here? (I mean those who are celebrating this news, including Mr. Teixeira)
I agree with precinct1233. The undecideds will go overwhelmingly for Kerry, so he’s in even better shape than these numbers indicate. Bush’s share of the vote among Hispanics will probably not get much higher than it is now, while Kerry’s will increase by a decent amount.
Talking about gas prices a good idea, given that their ridiculously high right now. I’m not so sure people care that much about petroleum reserves, but I remember the Bush bounced back from Gore grabbing his lead by talking about Gore’s stance on our oil reserves, or something like that.
Can anyone tell me why Kerry is demagoguing on gas prices and strategic petroleum reserves right now? stupid and proof that mcaulliffe should have been fired long ago.
Richardson should be the VP choice. He could possibly bring three red states and over 40 electoral votes into the Dem column, plus make New Mexico and California secure.
I know he said he’s not interested, but we need him on the ticket. Kerry and the Party leaders should make that clear to him.
And, the real significance of these numbers is that they all carry an “undecided” number of about 11%. Given a 75/25 split DtoR (a reasonably typical range when an incumbent runs), that’s another couple of points in margin to Kerry, which should boost his numbers to more than Gore’s.
Add in the substantial voter growth (both in absolute numbers and relative to Anglo growth in these states), and Kerry’s in great shape.
Hispanics have been the main demographic group targeted by Bush and Rove. It’s significant that they do not appear tp have made substantial progress. Because of the increase in the Hispanic total vote, Bush would need to get 38% nationally in 2004 in order to lose Hispanics by the same total vote margin as in 2000. In the Southwest, where Hispanic growth is even faster, he would need a higher percentage than that. Increased Hispanic support would not be sufficient to bring Arizona or Nevada into the Kerry column, but it could certainly provide the margin of victory if Bush’s support among white non-Hispanics remains at its current low level, or sinks further.
If the percentages of the Hispanic vote stay the same as 2000, if we registered and turned out a larger Hispanic vote wouldn’t that be a Democratic advantage?
Due to the amnesty and the Bush family’s popularity with Hispanics and due to things like gays and abortion, I don’t know if Kerry will ever do well enough in this group. All Bush needs is 40% of their vote in order to win, and he seems well on his way to that.
While I’ll be the first to agree that these aren’t in any way BAD figures, I wouldn’t leap to classify them as “good” — because Gore did, after all, lose Nevada and Arizona. Surely “good” for Kerry would be larger leads, boosting his chances of winning; matching Gore’s numbers is just holding in place.
The comparisons made are between Kerry’s standing with Hispanics now and Gore’s at the time of the election. Is there any available info on how Kerry’s figures compare to some of Gore’s from earlier in that campaign?
I guess this is good, because Bush may have gotten a boost w/ Hispanics after his green card stunt, but it doesn’t look like Kerry is doing any better than Gore with Hispanics, and I’m not surprised that things are shaping up like the way they did in 2000 with these four states:
Florida-virtual tie
Arizona-Bush advantage
New Mexico-virtual tie
Nevada-Bush advantage