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.
Oh! people, Kerry did not lose CO by 5% points. The vote was stolen! It is alled Voter Fraud and American needs to undestand that it happened in Colorado too!
I would not be surprised to see Ken Salazar of Colorado in the VP slot in 2008. A former Attorney General of CO and newly elected senator, Salazar is just what the party needs. He would, of course, help excite the Latino community-particularly the Mexican and Central and South American communities-but his appeal goes far beyond that: A farmer who appeals to the populist leanings of the west, Salazar is far removed from the “liberal” and “elitist” northeastern political environment. He has a gentle ruggedness that appeals to people and he exudes sincerity. He is considered, for the most part, a moderate BUT HAS taken some pretty strong stands on the environment and farmers’ rights. He is pro-choice but strongly opposes PBAs and strongly favors parental notification of minors who wish to terminate a pregnancy. He has stated that though he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, he will vehemently oppose any effort to amend the constitution in this matter. The voters of CO knew all this when they selected him on Nov 2nd.
Whereas Kerry lost CO by 5 points, Salazar beat Coors and won his senate seat by 6 points! Both Kerry and Salazar did very well in the large cities like Boulder and Denver but Salazar did far better than Kerry in the smaller towns. He bested Kerry by an average of 10 points in many of these towns. He still didn’t beat Coors in these small towns but he did better than any Democrat there in recent history. Ken’s brother won his house seat as well. In fact, in a bright spot for Democrats in this election, CO Dems took control of both state legislatures for the first time in 44 years!
Something is happening in Colorado and I think the Coloradan Democrats can teach the Democratic party a thing or two on how to win elections. I think the national party should take a close look at how the Democrats in CO have turned things around and see what can be applied nationally.
I really like the quote in the article:
Colorado Democrats say their success carries a lesson for the national party. “We campaigned on pragmatism,” state Democratic Chairman Christopher Gates said. “We set ourselves up as the problem solvers, while the Republicans were hung up on a bunch of fringe social issues like gay marriage and the Pledge of Allegiance.
“The notion that moral issues won the 2004 election was disproven in Colorado,” Gates continued. “We offered solutions, not ideology, and won almost everything.”
Liberals used to be known as the pragmatists of American politics, the problem solvers. Being known as a liberal bacame a liability in national politics (as both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry clearly believed in the debates) when liberalism became an ideology rather than a way of thinking about problems.