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.
Interesting but isn’t this kind of information supposed to be useful so it can establish what we all can agree on or even where there aren’t absolute disagreements? I think it also helps to show where Republicans and R leaners aren’t exactly on the same page and that’s at least some of what Democrats should be emphasizing when talking to people who tend to vote Republican.
Because it seems that Democrats talk to people that don’t vote for them about what they think they should care about rather than what they do.
And don’t Republicans focus on what their voters are currently united on? From this poll, you can see support for the wall as well as views on size of government are there for Republicans and R leaners so they obsess over that. They don’t give as much attention to what they’re divided on (because thats what Democrats are supposed to do) which is also probably why we don’t hear about a lot of things we used to hear them carry on about before.
I wish this poll like this would’ve included questions about Foreign Policy and our relationship with allies, wars for terrorism, right wing terrorism, law enforcement, security, public schools. What’s important to people from any political party doesn’t change because of whats trending being something else and also I think you’ll find more division within the Republicans and leaners there.(getting tired of that word)
There has to be some effort to address white identity politics for many reasons but I’m mentioning it for this post because the Gop is using it as a way to infer Democrats aren’t loyal to the country and that is affecting support for policies that would be healthy for this country. Republicans also use it as a way to gain support for policies that are not and will eventually reach them too.
On white nationalism, question how the Gop’s and current administration’s relationship with Israel and Saudi Arabia fit into that especially when they go after the amazing but also very normal freshman gals in Congress
I think it could be useful to remind people of the native ethnic, religious and language diversity in Europe. (I know for myself there were a lot of things I didn’t know about Europe until I started a family genealogy project a few years ago)
It could be asked what people think about increasing the severity of child support enforcement if the state is unable to help single parents in the many ways that they do now.
Some questions about father figures and male role models could be put out there too.
Its bizarre to me that the people who were the most upset about the way dads were portrayed on television and blamed it on the left and ultimately Jews are likely now supporters of the current administration. Are we sure this is the “yay testosterone” party?
Is the GOP trying to portray American white men as the most unappealing creatures and lousy fathers on Earth? I would like to see that question in a poll.