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.
Speaking for the Illinois 10th, first term Congressman Mark Kirk would be the poster boy for Moderate Republicans. His equally centrist Democratic opponent 2 years ago, made them almost politically indistinguishable, in a close, but issues driven election.
This district is home to the affluent North Shore suburbs bordering Chicago, a natural constituent (and home to many employees) of the Chicago Tribune. Although the scandal torn state GOP is still under the ‘silent partner’ control of the Conservative wing – which solely can dictate the slating of Republican candidates – it is highly doubtful they would attempt to knock off Kirk in a primary, for obvious reasons.
Which poses a daunting dilemma for Democrats. They would be helped first, if they could possibly link Kirk in some way to the fringe element of the GOP, which is doubtful. Even if Kirk continues to support the Iraq Invasion, it is still not a liability. Because, many of these moneyed, Rockefeller Republicans held their noses and voted for Bush.
Which forces Dems to field a candidate with the gravitas of a Rahm Emmanuel, or dare I say, a Barack Obama.
By 2006, accountability will hopefully have caught up with the Bush administration, and some moderate Republicans may choose to insure he does no further damage by booting a likable sycophant.
History is important, but only to help learn what is needed to change the outcome the next time.
What you did in 2002 really isn’t that relevant if you want to win. Develop a new game plan. And start now to do what’s needed to win. I’m in MA and we’ve got a totally DEM Congressional delegation which is not at-risk for the foreseeable future. I’ve got the interest, motivation, and some resources, to direct toward turning Red House Districts Blue.
There must be hundreds of thousands of folks in the same situation. Mobilize them by turning each race into an Internet Drama.
I hate to say this, but the kind of thinking that you displayed in your post is what’s going to keep the DEMs in permanent minority status.
Stop playing Washington’s game and create a battle plan which can win in Iowa.
Iowa 1 and 2 will be in play only if the incumbents vacate the seats. Jim Nussle, House Budget Subcommittee chairman, is unbeatable–we took a shot at him in 2002, but didn’t even come close. He can bring home too much to the district, and he has a lot of support in the Dubuque area, where Dems would have to do well to win.
If Nussle leaves the House to run for Iowa governor in 2006, however, we would have a shot at that seat with the right candidate.
Iowa 2 is occupied by Jim Leach, one of the most liberal Republicans in the House (e.g. he has a pretty good environmental record, is pro-choice and voted against the Iraq War resolution). We took a shot at him in 2002 with a great candidate, but fell just short. He even carried the “People’s Republic of Johnson County,” home of Iowa City and the state’s most liberal voters. There are too many people who don’t understand that a vote for Leach is a vote for Tom DeLay running the House.
If Leach retires, this seat is very winnable–in fact, Dems would be favored given the way it is currently drawn. Otherwise, it will continue to be a heartbreaker.
It would be great to pick up one or both of these seats by 2010, because Iowa will lose a House seat and we need incumbents to have a prayer of winning one of the remaining four districts in the state.