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.
Maybe the trouble is that people like me just aren’t really democrats anymore.
I always felt the war was wrong and took a lot of grief from my neighbors in a very conservative neighborhood for opposing it. (Those same neighbors now agree with me). I cringed as I saw democratic congressional members abdicate their responsibilities and rubber stamp the President’s insanity.
I believe in plurality. The IRS doesn’t care if I believe in God. They don’t care if I’m straight or gay. They don’t care if I’m black, white, hispanic or other. They want my money so that our government can provide the services we have said we collectively want and need.
I don’t think my tax dollars should be spent on a lot of things – but I don’t try to hold other people hostage with my views. Texas shows us clearly that abstinence only does NOT work well as policy- yet tax dollars continue to pour in for this. Programs that include information on and access to birth control DO work better statistically — yet, because the christian right doesn’t want to accept that mary is having sex – even more of my tax dollars are wasted.
Who is not afraid to speak for me on this? One of the department of education secretary’s first acts was canning an episode of a pbs show (whose mission is to portray DIFFERENCES among people and places) for having the audacity to show lesbians in vermont. What on earth kind of country is this becoming? No Child Left Behind is so grossly underfunded that children aren’t being educated yet the secretary focuses on this. And let’s remember that some of us don’t want our children exposed only to wonder bread.
The Democratic party has lost it’s rich language and diversity. It hides under the covers and has become the party of apologists and poll jumpers. I know where I stand. I DON’T know where the party stands anymore.
I’m not afraid to say I believe access to affordable healthcare should be a basic human right in this country.
I’m not afraid to say, “BAD DEAL” on the President’s crazy Social Security scheme. My mother lost almost everything when the market crashed – HELLO, people may be savvy investors when young but when their health fails, they AREN’T and then their children are left in horrible positions. So WHY don’t I hear this from the party?
I’m sick of the party’s self obsession w/itself. We’re getting killed out here and if the democratic party can’t off the therapist’s couch and take a stand, there won’t be a party left because people like me will leave and create a political voice that speaks for us. And if some want to call that suicide, I’d be interested to see what they’re calling right now.
1. Its not just Iowa, standing alone, that is the problem. It is Iowa, combined with the front loading of the primary process that allows a candidate to coast to the nomination (as both Gore and Kerry did) merely on the strength of Iowa and NH.
A process that worked, by contrast, is that of 1992: Iowa and NH had some winnowing effect, but a candidate who lost Iowa and NH could still win the nomination in the South.
So to get an electable candidate, the Democrats need to somehow create a process that gives the South a decisive voice. Ending the “Iowa first” policy is one way to do it but not the only way. If the Democrats can space out their primary process to reduce the influence of the first few states, that works just as well.
2. The notion that John Kerry is a “centrist” shows how utterly out of control the Democrats’ left wing is. Kerry was not a flamethrower- but he did have a solidly liberal record. To draw an analogy to the Republicans: he may not be a Tom DeLay, but he is certainly no different from a Bill Frist- someone who robotically votes the party line, even if he does not go beyond the party line. Between 1999 and 002, Kerry’s ADA rating (adaction.org) ranged between 85% and 95%.
And because Kerry (a) is from Massachusetts (unfortunately a handicap) and (b) has a 20 year voting record, he is perceived as more liberal than a Southern governor with identical issue positions would be.
3. The notion that anyone to the right of Kerry is comparable to a Democratic version of Charles Mathias is also rubbish. Joe Lieberman, the alleged conservative in the Presidential field, has had an ADA rating over 75% for each of the past five years.
4. Finally, the notion that the Democrats just need to “be Democrats again” overlooks certain historical realities.
Since 1968, the Democrats have only elected two presidents – both Southern governors who managed to be perceived as moderates.
When the Democrats nominated northern liberals, they lost again and again. Lost with Humphrey. Lost with McGovern. Lost with Dukakis. Lost with Mondale. Lost with Kerry. What part of this don’t you understand?
The problem with the recent Democratic candidates (and indeed, with the party in general) is not that they are too liberal or not moderate enough, it is that they are simply Republican-lite (or Bush-lite, if you prefer). In the 2000 debates, Gore agreed with Bush on nearyly every issue. In the 2004 debates, Kerry’s nuanced points on the most important issues (national security and Iraq) were so subtle that only the pundits could decipher the differences.
Democrats have to stop worrying about offending some “on-the-fence” voters and trust that by offering an obvious alternative, they will gain many more swing voters than they will lose. The fact is, the only way for the Democrats to get back in the ball game is to take off the Elephant coat and start being Democrats again.
Why on earth do Democrats continually talk about the need to nominate “centrist” democrats, which in the current political climate can only mean DINOs (Democrats In Name Only). If Joe Lieberman or some other conservative war hawk were nominated neither I nor millions of other democrats would bother to vote. What’s the point in trying to elect Bush-lite? If people support the Republican position on issues then they vote Republican. They don’t want an imitation “me-too” Democrat who doesn’t know where he stands.
Bush gets millions of votes from people who don’t even agree with his positions on issues – because they believe he’s solid and firm and they know where he stands, and that he’ll follow through on what he believes. This election proved that being strong and wrong is better than being perceived as wishy-washy and right.
You never see the Republicans rolling over and becoming liberals when they lost elections! We need to have the moral courage to stand up and say “this is what we believe and we’re not changing” to provide a real alternative to the slash and burn politics of the right. Otherwise the Democratic party might as well change its name to the Whigs.
“Finally, Howard Dean’s collapse in Iowa in 2004 was due in no small part to widespread concern among Democratic caucus-goers that Dean’s strident anti-Bush and anti-war rhetoric would make him unelectable in November.”
Funny thing about that, Ruy… It would be nice to see some figures on just how large the “no small part” was for this effect. You’d have to admit we were also told ad infinitum that it was really because of all the orange-boarded Dean outsiders who flooded the state, and after all, who’s to tell Iowans what to think? Point is, has anyone conclusively determined why Iowans rejected Dean in favor of Kerry?
Joe Lieberman is a centrist?
Anyone reading Iowa should discard the 2004 election. The Iraq War and 9/11 made this an unusual election. The judgment of the Iowa caucuses, and Democrats generally, was that the party could not nominate an anti-war candidate, that doing so would be construed as anti-patriotism (see Bush v. Dukakis) and weakness (see Nixon v. McGovern).
In this the Iowa Democrats were almost certainly correct. An anti-war nominee would not only have had to run against Hyper-Patriot Republican propaganda and the steady War Drums from the corporate press/media, but also the deeply embedded belief of the overwhelming majority of Americans in the “rightness” and effectiveness of American military power.
A large majority of Americans, without consideration of any facts at all, will support any use of military forces and call it patriotism. Anyone who opposes or even questions the use of military forces is immediately branded as unpatriotic.
This is not uniquely American, but it is an American problem because of America has a awesome military power and there are no outside restraints on its use. The invasion of Iraq, like the Viet Nam War, has almost no support outside the States, but there is really nothing anyone outside the States can do to restrain the use of American military forces.
Oh good grief. John Kerry not a ‘centrist’? He was nominated *because* he was a centrist, and his military record was thought to give him security cred.
Though I hope the Dems find more electoral success than they’ve had recently, I have to agree with Eugene Debs (who, granted, was not known for his elector success) that “I’d rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don’t want, and get it.”
I was willing to give Beinart more benefit of doubt after his initial post-election blatherings, but this is approaching the silly. First, as Ruy documents, his argument has the disadvantage of being false. But, second, it appears Beinart truly believes there’s some prospect of a Joe Lieberman ever getting the Dem presidential nomination — which is akin to a Republican in 1977 hoping for Charles Matthias in 1980. The party is no longer McGovernite, but it’s never going to be Sam Nunn, either (if it ever went that direction, the Green Party would overnight become a real factor in electoral politics).
Beinart ought to note a few things. First, Clinton’s success was not (as some at the New Republic like to believe) a matter of dissing the left wing, but of making all wings of the party feel part of the coalition. The sort of candidate Beinart craves would have a VERY difficult time doing that. Second, Kerry — who, by his lights, was a marginal hopeful — came within a hair of being president. Just as voters by 1976 were showing far more propensity to vote conservative than they had been just a decade earlier, so voters now are far more disposed to a “Massachusetts liberal” than they had been ten years back. Democrats have been GAINING with voters, not losing (even ’04’s bare tick backward came more from incumbency than ideology). Finally, the GOP faces major challenges in the four years ahead, with the war and the economy seemingly headed relentlessly toward nasty outcomes. A Democratic party that was barely defeated in 2004 looks to be sitting pretty to reap that whirlwind. Starting stupid intra-party fights (something even the DLC for once seems shy about) is counter-productive, and likely irrelevant.
Could Kerry have won Iowa had he (and Edwards) voted for the “$87 billion”? It would seem that they believed they couldn’t. The nature of the caucuses forced a symbolic vote that (in Rove’s words) was a gift that kept on giving to the Bush campaign. The type of committed activists that are likely to participate in the caucus system are also the ones least likely to put aside ideology even when it forces suicidal actions.
Republican control of the White House and Congress will allow the timing of votes to their advantage anyway. Why pepetuate a system that makes that easier?.