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 really wish Kerry had made a strong statement warning the republicans against election fraud. Perhaps he will do so before the election. Let’s hopeand pray for America’s sake that the election is clean.
The other possibility, of course, is that maybe Dowd knows that the wheels are in motion for electronic theft of the election results, a possibility that scares the bejeezus out of me and one that I’m not convinced is being sufficiently managed by the DNC and the Kerry Camp.
makes sense given the administration’s adversion tofacts and insistence on “faith-based” approaches to the creation of their own realities (see kevin Drum).
The polls are encouraging one day, discouraging the next. Thanks, Tex, for at least trying to make some sense of it all.
It may come down to the ground game, after all. Especially to those of you in swing states…….call your local Dem HQ and volunteer some time. Most still need more people to work in a GOTV (Get out the vote) effort on Nov. 2.
Given the wide discrepancies in LV and RV results we’ve seen, and how much the LV polls differed from the actual result in 2000, is anyone prepared yet to state as a general principle either that: (a) Bush’s supporters consistently overstate their enthusiasm for their candidate to pollsters; or (b) that Democrats tend to understate their enthusiasm?
We can overthink this, or we can take it at face value. Either way
1. It’s a dodge
2. It’s true, because he’s complimenting Gallup on its work.
3. It’s true, because he believes it.
If it’s #3 then I’m thrilled, because the BC’04 campaign will feel great about an oversampled GOP poll, not a real reflection of actual voter thought (remembering of course the last Gallup poll before Election Day 2000….)
Must be “faith-based” polling . . .
This is not the first time that Republicans have cited Gallup as the authority. Dailykos has a broadcast e-mail from the Republicans that also relies on Gallup. Remember that Gallup is still building its models based upon the assumption of low turnout: 50-55%. This means that they take for granted a wildly successful suppression of the vote.
Let them go by Gallup! They did in 2000 and that’s why Bush and Rove were walking around like two peacocks as if they had already won. They slowed down campaigning at the end as well. I am afraid they are smarter this time but I truly wish they would believe the Gallup numbers for then there is absolutely no need for an October surprise since they have already won — right?
Wouldn’t surprise me: it fits the Administration’s delusional and sanguine view of the world and this election that runs contrary to reality. If you will New Jersey in play, it can be so!
Zogby has Bush with an approval rating of 44-46 %. Historically, this is bad news for the incumbent at this time. My hopeful hunch is that this election will mimic that of 1980. Carter and Reagan were in a close race, Carter had low approval ratings, and the undecideds did not turn until the last weekend. Watching the daily Zogby tracking polls – they don’t move much – I see the same thing happening. The polls will move Kerry’s way, but not until the last weekend. Karl Rove believes that Bush must be up by 4 points going into the last weekend in order to win. Historical trends are probably the best predictors at this point.
Amazing…
Well, I suppose that’s good news for us.
Would anyone take that comment seriously? I have a hunch he is just saying that because Bush is up in the Gallup.