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.
muckdog,
Afraid to dive deep into what?
I don’t think anyone is arguing that the country is not still fairly evenly divided. But Kerry is now ahead in almost every single national poll. That can’t be good news for Bush, especially when conventional wisdom says that the undecideds will break for the challenger as election day looms near.
I’m not sure how you can say his message isn’t ‘selling well’ when he’s ahead in the polls, and when we’re still in the middle of summer with a lot of people still not paying much attention. I think a lot of people haven’t taken the opportunity to hear John Kerry’s message yet.
These “message readjustments” in the Bush campaign, to me, are reassuring signs that they know they’re in big trouble. They are trying to bend their tin ear to what the bulk of the electorate are telling them, but: “many call you the elite – I call you my base”.
The “base” – big business owners – was distressed during the boom because high employment led to what Greenspan called “wage pressure”. Wage presssure!?!?! I nearly fell over laughing! Those darn employees gettin’ uppity agin! Askin’ fer more money, th’ greedy bastards! W can only satisfy them by keeping unemployment high. This strategy, if he was able to do anything about it at all, seems to have worked too well! Since the economy failed to rebound “because” of tax cuts for the wealthy (I’m in the top 7% income bracket and they didn’t cut MY taxes that much), what then is the republican message? I don’t think more of the same is gonna cut it…
That WSJ journal article is in conflict with a piece in Barrons this weekend, citing Bureau of Labor Statistics regarding who is participating in the recovery. Most of the jobs are higher-wage jobs, according to the BLS.
Because Bush’s economic medicine did turn around the economy. The economy is surging ahead at the fastest rate in over 20 years.
What’s different now is global competition and the emergence of biotechnology and health care as the booming domestic industry, and the increasing supply of lower-wage technology workers overseas.
Bush should be talking about the expanding economy, AND the need to continue to improve.
I don’t think the Kerry misery message is selling well. Despite all the bad news for Bush, movies and op-ed spinning, the polls are even. And Kerry didn’t get much of a bounce from picking Edwards. Which is very strange indeed. Usually the challenger has a pretty big bump. Not Kerry.
Afraid to dive deep into that one?
Great article but… WHY ISN’T KERRY DOING ANYTHING?!
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040802&s=phillips
Kevin Phillips has written a very good article about how Kerry can beat Bush. It is refreshing, and backed up by historical precedent. Well worth the read.
That’s fast. AP today:
“”You’re probably here thinking I’m going to spend most of the time attacking my opponent,” Bush told the crowd. “I’ve got too much good to talk about.”
The president hardly mentioned Democratic rival John Kerry while contending that a second Bush term in the White House would extend the programs of tax relief and education reform enacted in the past four years. ”
This is off topic but I wanted to get your comments since you guys are so insightful. I live in one of the battleground states, SouthWest FL. Lately we are being bombarded by negative ads from the Bush campaign blasting Kerry. These ads are numerous not only on TV but on local radio as well. I’ve noticed that the new ads don’t feature a male narrator with a sarcastic tone but a female narrator who sounds sincere yet concerned. It is weird to hear a Bush ad on our local “oldies” radio station placed between Buffalo Springfield’s “There’s Something Happening Here” and The Beatles’ “Revolution”. These ads WILL have an effect on some people and the Kerry campaign needs to do something. I have a suggestion. Let me know if you think its a good one. If its not; let me know this too. After all, this is how we learn.
Kerry/Edwards should combat these ads by running their own ad (particularly on Radio) decrying the general negative nature of the Bush ads and the distortions and lies contained in them. I know it would be impossible to run an ad addressing all of these distortions but they should run a general ad urging the public to be wary of what they hear in these negative Bush ads. They should also direct the public to an easy source where they can read the truth about Bush’s allegations and see the explanations for certain allegations: such as why Kerry voted against the so-called Laci Peterson bill.
Perhaps the public could be directed to johnkerry.com where a PROMINENT link could be placed on the homepage addressing the lies and distortions of the Bush ads. Or better yet…Perhaps they could be directed to a new website: adlies.com or something. I hope you understand what I am suggesting. Kerry needs a way to fight this negative advertising beyond just a 10 second sound bite on MSNBC. Most people probably wouldn’t even visit the website BUT, Producing just one major ad that attacks the Bush campaign for going way overboard with the negative attack ads will accomplish at least 3 objectives:
1) It will instill in the public consciousness a doubt when they hear the myriad negative Bush ads.
2) It will demonstrate that Kerry is not just going to sit down and take it but he is FIGHTING BACK! He can even stay on the “high road” and keep running positive ads. His only negative ad will be an ANTI-negative ads ad!
3)It will offer the people a source to find the truth if they desire.
I can hear the end of the ad in my head right now:
(A sincere but concerned female voice)” Please visit JohnKerry.com now and click on the link, “AdLies” to see just how untrue and distorted the Bush Campaign’s negative ads have become. You will be glad you did.”
It would also be nice if we could make it clear that Bush has not lowered taxes at all. He has lowered tax rates. We are taking less taxes right now, but only because we are running unprecedneted deficits (not really, but nominally, and with the demographic sistuations they really are unprecedented).
However, in order to reduce taxes we need to reduce the amount of money that the government requires to run. On that count, Bush has masively raised taxes, and offers only empty rhetoric to do anything other than that.
We really should be pointing out that Bush has not lowered the tax burden, simply shifted it.
Sounds like someone with no real solutions telling his client — “hey, this message is doing great numbers for them, let’s co-opt it and use it ourselves”. Imitation = sincerest form of flattery, and all that. Or, more accurately, “watch what they do, then steal what works and make it your own!”
Yes, there are always going to be those drawn to the Republicans’ message about taxes. There are many people who are Republicans based almost solely on the tax issue, so I don’t see why they would ever stop harping about cutting taxes.
That said, the last polls I’ve seen on this issue stated a majority of people would rather do things such as have universal health insurance, pay down the debt, and fix social security even if it meant not getting tax cuts.
So while this strategy gives the Republicans a definite advantage among a certain segment of the population, I agree with Ruy in that I don’t think it’s something that would miraculously bring a bunch of undecideds into the fold.
I would be hesitant to imply that the Republican strategy of offering more tax cuts as a panacea for our economic concerns will not work, especially because it is “more of the same.”
Anecdotally, I know many moderates/independents who are swayed by the “tax cut” message every election year — that is, until you explain what goes with tax cuts, namely cuts in social spending and ballooning deficits.
Only if Kerry-Edwards can respond quickly to any discussion of further tax cuts by pointing out Bush’s promise to halve the deficit in five years, and pointing out the dissonance between the two proposals, can they effectively counter this very popular message.
That said, there is polling evidence that when you ask Americans about upper-Income taxes specifically, they tend to think that the rates are probably too low versus too high by 63% to 9%.
http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm
(Scroll down on the April 2004 Gallup poll)
Today’s Wall Street Journal has this article you may want to check out. Headlined:
“Affluent Advantage: So Far, Economic Recovery Tilts To Highest-Income Americans — They Gain More, Spend More; With Job Market Rising, Will Others Feel Rebound?”