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.
“reforming the nominating process” – I think we’d be much better served by having a single national primary election day (or week) sometime in the late Spring.
Ostensibly, the need for staggered primaries arose in the days when the candidates had to move from stump to stump by horse–real or iron. And with no telemedia, that was the only way for voters to see and hear the candidates and their positions. Natural newspaper bias could never effectively provide a mass media coverage sufficient for all voters to trust. The candidates HAD to move around the country and speak to the people face-to-face; and that took time.
A protracted primary season also gave the nation time to vet the candidates and their positions, particularly through a series of debates. Again, this needed to play out on many stages in front of the voters.
Now though, the primary stumping begins 18 months or so before the convention. The candidates are well known via the telemedia to most if not all voters by six months into the marathon. Vetting is happening constantly, both through a blossoming of alternative media journals and the ability to stage debate after debate to a national audience. Simply put, there is no need to stagger primary elections any more. To do so is a relic of a by-gone age.
The process into which the primary season now has morphed is really an exercise in individual state influence and power. As has been noted here, no eventual nominee in recent memory has failed to win either IA or NH. Those states’ constitutional mandates for pride of place is a testament to that fact. They will not cede their disproportionate influence over the electoral process. They permit an undue power over the nomination process to those with the resources to swamp their states with appearances, mass media spots, and campaign apparati. Nor is this fact lost on other states, evidenced by their current scramble for position in the order of the primary sequence to achieve relevancy at least and reserve a share of influence over nomination to themselvs.
Like the general election, shouldn’t all voters in a primary enjoy the same measure of influence over selecting the nominee? Claims that IA and NH are somehow representative of the rest of us are really naive, since the correlation of IA and NH voters’ decisions to the final nomination at the convention, in fact, depends on the results in IA and NH. Of course an outcome will correlate well with its dependent variables.
Moreover, by actually recognizing and using effectively the technology now available to and pervasive among us, we can balance, shorten, and diminish the campaign donation influence in the primary process. I think we will end with nominees more aligned with the mainstream of their respective parties and we will have much more relevant primary elections in all states. The question we must ask ourselves is: what exactly is being protected by preserving the antiquated system?