Quo Vadis, Democrats?

[DGuller]

I think it's up for debate as to which wing on the left is out of touch.  I'm not at all sure that the Reddit wing of the party is the one in touch.

[Valmy]

I think it's up for debate as to which wing on the left is out of touch.  I'm not at all sure that the Reddit wing of the party is the one in touch.

I wasn't talking about ideological wings. I would be perfectly happy with a moderate energized party.

[Oexmelin]

The problem with the mythical center, is that it doesn't really radiate the sort of energy that a crisis requires. But, by all means, if centrists are willing to be out there, demonstrate, put continuous pressure on their representatives, get active in local politics, that's awesome.

Waiting to be adequately courted by electoral politics doesn't strike me as a viable strategy right now. And that is as true of self-appointed reasonable silent majority, as it is of young keyboard activists.

[Sheilbh]

I think it's up for debate as to which wing on the left is out of touch.  I'm not at all sure that the Reddit wing of the party is the one in touch.

That's fair I think the point I'd be making is that the way to test is through argument and competition not constantly circling the wagons.

And I think this ties to a point you've often made more on the "woke" side of things - I saw this from a recent European research paper on US attitudes:


The point here is not that the Republicans/the right are more tolerant or that they're better at handling disputes, but instead that it seems like Democrats have a more tightly bound attitude around a set of beliefs. Deviating on any one of those beliefs is enough to be seen as outside the group, while Republicans are (inevitably with Trump) more flexible. A degree of heterodoxy on x issue does not put your place in the Republican coalition into doubt (this may also just be an inheritance of the way modern conservatism has formed of often slightly opposed views allying). To an extent it's a re-statement of the old, the right welcomes converts while the left looks for heretics line - but I think it's also part of the conflict averse approach.

But it also makes me think of John Ganz's recent book on the 90s because part of his argument, I think, is that fundamentally the Democrats were better at party discipline. They were able to largely expel and keep out a lot of their fringes in a way that the Republicans weren't able to. The Republicans were more porous, more exposed to flare-ups of a populist energy within the party (though, generally, at least until either 2010 or 2016 the party was always able to restore control). In the short-term that was incredibly effective - I think looking at the last 40 years though it has made the Democrats more brittle, more conservative/seniority based and, I think, less able to imagine alternatives. In a way both parties are being shaped by the forces of the 90s - the Democrats because they're unable to get past that political moment and the Republicans by the crazies who were proposing radical (and to my eyes often alarming) alternatives.

Obviously I've my own views which I've said before on what the answer is for the Democrats - party-building in and of every state and community, building up from (and actively recruiting) working class communities, an openness to people who disagree with you and old-school American populism.

It's striking that inequality is at historically high levels, you look at the people in and around Trump and just the sheer "loot the place" stage of extraction from very rich people in or close to government (Musk is only the most extreme). It is the political world of the Gilded Age and I think you could do a lot worse than look at the populism of that era: no billionaires in government, no stockholding for Congressional representatives or their family (put it into an independently approved blind trust), good government and reform. Obviously I think that is more challenging if the party wants to win back Silicon Valley or includes in Congress people like, say, Nancy Pelosi (even though I think she's a very effective politician).

[Valmy]

Hell I would happily line up behind that Senator Slotkin, who seems to be a massive Ronald Reagan fan, if she was competent politically and had tons of momentum behind her.

Give me a right wing Democrat if that is what is on pace to win.

[Valmy]

Kamala Harris was openly campaigning with the Cheneys. I am not sure how more tolerant of offending views one can get.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I'm not running for the new DNC Vice Chair election:🧵
I started Leaders We Deserve for a simple purpose: to be the Emily's List for progressive young Democrats.

Maybe, instead of trying to put in progressive people they should try to put in effective people that get out the voters.

[Sheilbh]

Kamala Harris was openly campaigning with the Cheneys. I am not sure how more tolerant of offending views one can get.

I think both of those points are more about specific politicians - and I'm not really sure it's necessarily the problem. I think the problem is more at the party level.

So what I mean is if you're going to try and build a party and work with people all over the country there'll be some people you really disagree with on some things because they're regular voters in a state that's voted Republican for 80 years - ignore the points of difference, try to find the common ground and build from there. You think of the campaigns that have helped really protect and in some cases expand Medicaid in really red states like Idaho through local campaigns - that's the type of energy I think Democrats should be looking at trying to generate.

On the Cheney thing I said I thought was a mistake at the time and still do

I think that's the sort of thing that communicates within Washington and to political obsessives. For those communities it reads as an impressive display of bipartisan unity on this single issue, putting country before party etc - I think 99% of those people have already made up their mind and are convinced (or not) on the issue of Trump's fitness for office. I think outside of those groups campaigning with Sanders and AOC one day and the Cheneys the next, instead communicates that you don't actually stand for anything - with the added bonus of associating your campaign with two failed wars.

[Oexmelin]

Maybe, instead of trying to put in progressive people they should try to put in effective people that get out the voters.

The problem is that people confuse effectiveness with their preferences. You can have effective progressives, and you can have effective moderates. It's the expectation that finding the right set of ideas that meshes with the zeitgeist constitutes effectiveness that, in my view, is wrong.

[Admiral Yi]

The problem with the mythical center, is that it doesn't really radiate the sort of energy that a crisis requires. But, by all means, if centrists are willing to be out there, demonstrate, put continuous pressure on their representatives, get active in local politics, that's awesome.

Waiting to be adequately courted by electoral politics doesn't strike me as a viable strategy right now. And that is as true of self-appointed reasonable silent majority, as it is of young keyboard activists.

Energy is a tool, not a goal in and of itself.  A tool can be productive or it can be counterproductive.  I am not convinced the energy being displayed right now is doing much to convince Trump voters to switch their vote.  More like the opposite.

[Sheilbh]

The problem is that people confuse effectiveness with their preferences. You can have effective progressives, and you can have effective moderates. It's the expectation that finding the right set of ideas that meshes with the zeitgeist constitutes effectiveness that, in my view, is wrong.

I don't really have issues with a progressive (as Hogg views himself), moderate or conservative person in politics trying to promote candidates who share his views - I sort of think that's the point. I don't really agree with positioning of being effective and having political opinions as opposites in a democratic political system (I can see prioritising technical effectiveness in a depoliticised state like Russia or in filling the Chinese state which is subordinated to the party).

Also effectiveness is slightly contextually neutral - so a lot depends on not just your preference but both the actual context and your analysis of it.

It's an extreme example but I often think about it with Zelenskiy who is clearly an extraordinary leader. I think he would always possess those qualities and capacity but it would never have been revealed to the world without the extreme pressure of leading at a time of invasion. This is often the case with successful or effective leaders during a crisis - and, from my reading, I think it's really difficult to predict.

But also what makes an effective, consensus building consolidating leader is often very different from an effective, transformative leader. People will often disagree on what's needed at any given time and some people are probably guilty of thinking every time requires their preferred solution (I am guilty ).

[Oexmelin]

I am not convinced the energy being displayed right now is doing much to convince Trump voters to switch their vote.  More like the opposite.

I think one of the major dividing issues between your perspective and mine is that you seem to envision mostly politics as electoral politics.

[Admiral Yi]

I think one of the major dividing issues between your perspective and mine is that you seem to envision mostly politics as electoral politics.

I am aware of other kinds of politics, royal court and one party state jockeying for power for example.  And of course Clauswitz claimed that war was an extension of politics.

[Oexmelin]

But also what makes an effective, consensus building consolidating leader is often very different from an effective, transformative leader. People will often disagree on what's needed at any given time and some people are probably guilty of thinking every time requires their preferred solution (I am guilty ).

I don't disagree with any of this.

My point was mostly that often, when people ask for an "effective leader", they mean someone whose views are those which, they think, align with already existing preferences in the electorate, and are able to "sell them".

To me this has always been a reductive view of politics, and I think one that leaves us defenseless when what you need to defend is less "views" than principles of a democratic polity.

[Oexmelin]

I think one of the major dividing issues between your perspective and mine is that you seem to envision mostly politics as electoral politics.

I am aware of other kinds of politics, royal court and one party state jockeying for power for example.  And of course Clauswitz claimed that war was an extension of politics.

This could be the beginning of a great conversation.