Will exuberant progressivism change how Jews vote? To prove their progressive bona fides liberal jews had to express reservations about Israel.
The ante has been raised, and now to be a good progressive Jew you need to actively fight for increased Muslim immigration into the US, as some did in engaging in civil disobedience against the travel ban, and express great satisfaction in the advent of American Muslim politicians. Considering the gauntlet some Jews encounter on American campuses and the plight of European Jews in Malmo Sweden, France, Germany, Belgium and Britain at the hand of Muslims, no not white nationalists, I would say be careful what you wish for, and thank God for Israel. American progressives and many democrats have made no secret of their alliance with Farrakhan associated progressive movements. Despite the vote in Missouri workers prefer freedom from the union yoke which makes their jobs more expensive and raises prices for the rest of us. So let's see how pragmatic the Democrats prove to be.
6
Please let readers know that Ms. Davids received her law degree from Cornell.
Not too shabby.
4
Really? What is pragmatic about "Abolish Ice"?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/nyregion/abolish-ice-democrats-republ...
8
Dear Michelle,
Just watched a CNN segment where a guest (young woman) was giving the host (another young woman) her reasons for wanting to jettison Pelosi. Her argument: she's almost 80! When (rightly) pressed by the host who said her reason was ageist, the guest offered this gem: the party needs "new blood." I swear she said that. Why not just call her an old hag while your at it? Talk about ageism-plus-misogyny. Or I guess that IS misogyny. If she had complained about Nancy not wanting to investigate, impeach, etc., George W. when she became speaker, I guess an argument could be made. From what I see, Pelosi was a great Speaker. She got healthcare passed. She corralled the troops. Got things done. Booting her now is caving to the Trump/GOP who has been vilifying her since before Obama was born a Kenyon. I suppose we should distance ourselves from Obama too while we're at it. Michelle, please explain to the youngsters why we should back Pelosi, and why there are legitimate targets where they can direct their ire. Geeze.
Marsha R, Ventura, CA
13
I want to add my voice to the many here who are sick of template journalism: pick a classic take, trope, or cliche; roll out the hackneyed language; find and quote the always-plentiful disappointed Independent who is waiting for a purple unicorn and won't be happy with any existing professional politician; fill up the requisite amount of column inches in less than an hour; collect paycheck; repeat.
The other reporters (and they are many and admirable) who actually observe and listen to the actual candidates and make an effort to find and listen to a range of opinions about the candidate are really writing interesting stories because they are TRUE, so each story is different and individual. I want to thank those journalists for their creativity and bravery in a current climate that makes the truth dangerous.
6
An electoral-college majority, the only majority that matters in electoral politics, is not going to swallow Democratic Socialists of America'sd guff. It was Barack Obama's embrace of "progressive" (not really) policies that elected Donald Trump. If Dems choose a socialist or a progressive, which are essentiallly the same statist thing, even the Donald, for all his dishonesty, may even get a second term if Dems make the fatal progressive/socialist faux pas.
If Dems really want to storm the swamp in 2020, they will pursuade LaBron to retire and run.
Run, LaBron, Run.
Come on Michelle, you are smarter than this column. Primary elections radicalize because most citizens do not participate; especially in those primaries that are closed. Look at my district in Utah. Lee Castillo won the Dem primary. He is a gay Hispanic. Talented and deserving, but nonetheless he's going to get beat in a landslide against one of the most corrupt and bought congressmen sitting in our legislature. He'll come in 3rd to the UUP Candidate. The vast majority of citizens are not members of a party, but this obsession with primary elections, and identity politics, are hurting Democrats and ultimately the ability for congress to govern (term limits are desperately needed, since most believe their position is a career and not a service). Why? Since both sides involved in primary elections have fundamentally moved away from the center, where governance actually happens. I'm in a definite minority, but really feel it is time for run off elections where all candidates are on the ballot and citizens vote their top three, and then the top two, despite party affiliation (non-partisan elections would be the best), are against each other in November. Finally, you used examples from urban areas. Of course, those areas are going to the left, but to win congress you have to win in RED STATES!! BLUE DAWGS are the best chance for the Dems to take back control along with Nancy Pelosi promising to hand over the reigns of leadership after the election.
4
As usual, Democrats are horrible at branding. "I'm with her." Are you serious? Get rid of the term Democratic Socialist. It has too much baggage. There are still plenty of voters out there for whom the word "socialist" means commie pinko. Be a Democratic Socialist if you want but just call yourself something else. Progressive Democrat works just fine without turning out X% of your potential voters.
8
Very cute verbal footwork in this article:
"Tlaib's [primary] victory double's the D.S.A.'s likely representation in Congress." Yes — from *one* to *two*!
"Her [Ocasio-Cortez's] primary victory was thrilling and hard-earned, and she's a charismatic and rousing spokeswoman for her values." Her victory was indeed stunning — but as for the rest, speak for yourself. I saw Ocasio-Cortez's Thursday night CNN interview, and think her remarks were canned and shallow (speaking for myself, of course).
And then there's Ms. Goldberg's fetching headline phrase, "pragmatic left". She applies the term – undoubtedly knowing it appeals to skeptical centrists – without specifying what (if anything) she means by it. The closest she comes is mentioning issues, like ending cash bail for minor crimes, that have previously been endorsed by people whose views span a considerable part of the political spectrum.
7
I am not surprised that many organs of the media alleged that the Left failed in last Tuesday's elections.
I sincerely believe that pollsters and media outlets rouitinely underestimate liberal and left strengh and belittle our achievments.
I have seen this for years. I could give you scads of examples, from the 60's untili today, when liberal strength was underestimated so the left would give up and not campaign with vigor and panache.
In 2009, polls said Blumberg would trounce his Democratic rival in the NYC mayoralty. The polls gave Blumberg enormous leads, and this was, I think, fabricated so the opposition to Blumberg would be disheartened and not campaign. In fact, Blumbarg only won by 52 to 48 percent.
In 1986, when Mark Greene ran against D'Amato for the Senate, we were told D Amato would easily win by double digits. He won by six points.
In 1980, on the day before the NY presidential primary, the NY post said Carter was way ahead, but Kennedy won 59 to 41 percent.
And of course we should never forget the New Hampshire priumary of 1968. The establishment thouight that anti war activism was consigned to the West Side of Manhattan and San Francisco. (When they aired audio of anti war activists speaking, they turned the treble up to make them appear immatuire or neurotic). Gene Mc Carthy was supposed to get 12 percent of the vote. He got about 44 perecnt of the vote.
We on the left also believe that much of the news is fake.
5
Ocasio-Cortez has repeatedly made ridiculous and untrue statements, e. g. claiming that unemployment numbers are low because of people having more than one job ("pants on fire."). Yet, this does not trouble liberals the slightest. We really are in a "post-truth" world.
I'd ask everyone to review her PolitiFact page. https://www.politifact.com/personalities/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/
10
Paul Ryan is leaving. He has accomplished everything he set out to do. He brazenly said that the Trump/Ryan tax cuts will create huge deficits that will require cutting back on Medicare and social security. Centrist and conservative Democrats were invisible because they worried about their hides. They abandoned conscience in the interest of self preservation. The resurgence of traditional Democratic values has been deemed "radical".
There is nothing radical from the left in trying to preserve social security and Medicare and the safety net. There is nothing radical from the left in trying to restore the modicum of of assurance that Americans enjoyed when the system provided a fair shake for those who played hard and played by the rules. The centrist Democrats have been cowards for too long. Neo-liberal Democrats were never Democrats at all. Progressive Democrats are the last best hope of the party; and, I dare say, the republic as we know it.
6
The new blood in the elections is extremely exciting. Remember when Dukakis & Howard Dean were our liberal leaders? Whoa, compared to todays crop of exciting new-comers, remembering those guys dreams up memories of bunged up white guys in suits, ties...hitting the golf course, shooting a ridiculous gun etc.
Very excited for the progressive future.
1
This otherwise decent article perpetuates the misguided view that Nader helped Bush get elected. The idea that you can count the spread between Bush and Gore in an electorally pivotal state, like Florida, and - if it's less than the number of Nader votes (i.e. Democrat-leaning voters) - conclude Nader "caused" Gore to lose. It is so simplistic - and likely false. Sure, with 20/20 hindsight, if Nader withdrew from the FL election (as he did in MANY states where he thought he could play a "spoiler") the outcome may have been different, indeed. This view simply ignores the substantial impact of Nader's participation in the entire election (including debates) throughout the country, in terms of issues and values addressed, voter participation, etc.. Had Nader NOT run for president, the electoral spread between Bush and Gore, across the country, would likely have been GREATER. Also, assigning causation in retrospect is just flawed logic. Would you blame a mechanic who didn't properly repair an alternator that kept a forecaster from work and reporting weather that would have reduced voter-turnout (especially the less motivated and/or senior citizens), thereby giving Bush a win in that state?
2
It's not "pragmatic" as much as it is "humane." Women are winning on humane issues about providing health care where Trump has curtailed it; affordable access to higher education where states have been cutting back on funding and raising tuition as witnessed by teacher strikes across red state America; and on good paying jobs where Trump has reneged on his $1 trillion infrastructure program in favor of a $1.5 trillion tax cut for the wealthy individuals and corporations. These are the "bread-and-butter" issues that used to be the heart of all Democratic agendas from the New deal to the Great Society. It's time to elect these women who want to work for their constituents and not corporations. #CodeBlue
5
A tipping point is on the day of the November elections when the American people will go very big for democracy and against this covert Russian ideology that is deeply hidden in Republican ideology.
Women are the central activists who are and will change America forever - and this is pragmatic politics where the Democrats are standing for democracy and a caring society.
Protect America from Russia.
4
Personally, I'd prefer a robust infrastructure that works for all of us to a $trillion computer company any day. How many more $trillion companies do we need to have before we find a way to rebuild the highways, fix the water systems, improve the waste treatment systems, vastly improved the electrical grid, etc, etc, etc....
6
Even when the GOP made gains in Congress in the recent past, sweeping economic progressive legislation managed to pass. Just look at Missouri, where the right-to-work proposition was soundly rejected.
I think a lot of people overestimate just how capitalist the heartland is. My grandparents on my mother's side were Kansan prairie populists to the core; they hated the big city bankers and corporate titans even more than big government. Rust belters despise people like Romney since he reminds them of the suited bosses who shut down their factories and mills and put whole towns out of work.
If these socialists harped on their economic message hard and without apology, they could potentially make major inroads into Trump country. They risk hurting that by focusing too hard on identitarian issues that nobody outside cities or academic circles truly cares about.
5
It’s disturbing that many Democrat’s reaction to Trump has been to move way, way leftward.
The simple fact is that Trump’s victory was enabled by the support of the very working class that was once the Dem base - until Trump picked it off on the basis of economic anxiety/resentment (and to a lesser extent, derivative racial prejudice). The Bernie Sanders far left move was tried and tested, and it was soundly proved a non-winning proposition - gracing us with the current president...
There have been instances where the peculiar dynamics of one particular district or another have faintly suggested that budget-breaking social programs are the winning ticket, but those lessons are not transferable to the broader political landscape.
Democrats must decide whether they want to have one-tenth of the loaf, or move more to the center, addressing the very real economic concerns that trouble their traditional constituency. Money for retraining, relocation to where the jobs are, etc. are the price that must be paid to get back in the game and make sure the R’s budget-exploding “Starve the Beast” strategy doesn’t succeed. That strategy WILL translate to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cuts shortly down the road. It’s basic math if you check it out... The price that will be paid if Democrats do not choose this winning strategy will be war, institutionalized prejudice and class warfare, shortly down the road.
From where i stand, the choice is clear.
2
Fair enough. But the large question remains: which "Pragmatic Left" candidate can beat Trump? I don't see a single Democrat emerging as the party's common-sense standard bearer yet, and the election will be here before we know it. If the Dems call on screaming eagle Warren or grandpa Bernie, it will lose. They are viewed as too far left by too many voters, and I wouldn't call either of them pragmatists (even though they may actually espouse some pragmatic ideas). Who is going to rally enough of those voters who usually sit on the sidelines? There's nobody ready to wear that mantle that I can see.
4
Green Party voters are not going to vote for the Dems. Why is this so hard to understand? They are not Democrats and have every right to participate in democracy. How many times have I seen "Bernie's not a Dem" and "go start your own party" or "Greens need to start running in smaller races first?" Dems are better off trying to figure out how to get the large numbers of people who don't vote at all.
3
Ray,
Well said, agreed.
3
The green party has become a de facto wing of the Republican party.
4
John,
So...the Libertarians are now de facto Democratic's?!
C'mon.
1
The words, “useful idiots’ come to mind.
Glorious self sacrifice doesn’t seem to me to be a useful cause.
1
Nader didn't elect Bush. Neither did the Libertarians or the socialists. The voters with a smattering of election fraud elected Bush.
Everyone knows wealth trickles up; otherwise, there would not be wealth. The government spends dollars to promote the collective welfare, the common good of the country. It spends it first and then decides how much to tax out of the system later. If you don't tax enough or in the correct place, then you get inflation. This is why housing prices continue to rise but wages have not. The wealthy are buying properties as investments and squeezing out the middle class from homeownership.
Someone here had the excellent quote: "Sometimes, just sometimes the Democrats throw the people a bone with some meat on it; the Republicans - never."
The Democrats that provide real meat on the bone are those like FDR and LBJ, and now Bernie, and Ocasio Cortez. When the left leaning Democrats (the ones that actually care if people make it to their full life expectancy) get into office, the standard of living improves for Americans. The rest are only feeding from the trough.
Half of the guilt of our current woes falls upon the electorate that believes that people do not have a right to healthcare, food, or water (i.e. Flint). Are these people drawing the line on a right to air or do we not have that right either? The other part of the guilt lies in the complacency of FDR style democrats - those that should have held the line years ago.
6
Good column, and spot on. The sky is falling claims that the "left" is going radically left are based on some isolated cases.
4
Socialists are not pragmatists because socialists are ideologues.
6
R,
Then we can apply the same thought process to conservatives and capitalists?
Trickle upon theory of giving money to the wealthy so they can give some to those poorer.
Pay CEO's more money so they work harder. Pay laborer's less money so they work harder.
Yep, plenty of non pragmatic ideologues all around. Huh...
7
It is somewhat divisive to even think too much about who is "progressive" and who is "centrist". A candidate should represent his or her district whatever that means. Above all he or she should win. The party can accommodate diverging positions. The place to reach consensus is not the local level.
The second observation is that we have been brainwashed by right wing budget hawks. When I was young in the 1960's college tuition at state universities tuition was free to nominal. At the City University of NY it was just free and had been since its founding in the first part of the nineteenth century. Support for this policy was totally bipartisan and at the state level Republicans tended to be more supportive of state universities than Democrats who wanted to divert education funds to urban schools. It was never thought to be unaffordable. Just when and how did these previously Republican policies become "radical left". Democrats need to get this across , namely that many of these "socialist" or "leftist" policies were historically nothing of the sort.
6
Ah, all the Nader haters are out in force again. Such fun. I voted for Nader, and I am proud of it. Not because I didn't find Bush's presidency a stain (it was), but because we voted for Nader for something larger than one presidential election. Al Gore lost that election (or more accurately, was not installed as President) for dozens of other reasons (Can't even carry his home state? Seriously? Keep a popular President at arms length (great idea!) Joe #$%@ing Lieberman? Are you KIDDING me?)
And of all the unintended consequences, think about it. If not for the utter incompetence and awfulness of the GWB presidency, do you think we would have pushed the social justice calendar ahead by 50+ years or so and have elected a black president directly afterward? Absolutely guarantee that would not have happened. Guarantee it.
3
@Bruce
But for Neville Chamberlain, no Winston Churchill as PM. But for GW Bush, no Obama. Okay. But also no WWII or Iraq War. Helping elect an awful President is a hapless strategy and one that shouldn't elicit pride or non-disprovable assumptions about what might have been.
6
@Crusader Rabbit I held my nose and voted for Gore. Gore lost. Democrats lost because they chose him. He was another neo-liberal. No FDR roots.
Meanwhile Al Gore lost his own state. If he could carry his home state the election would not have come down to Florida.
Part of the reason that progressive Democrats look to be so far left is that the right has shifted farther right.
We've talked about many progressive policies for years, like Medicare for All, universal free education, various economic policies that would benefit those who are unemployed and underemployed and more.
This weekend my local Democratic Party will participate, just as it did last year, in a "Back to School" bash. We will give away donated school supplies and register people to vote, as we have every year. Poor children shouldn't have to beg for basic supplies like crayons, pencils and notebooks, but without help from the Democratic Party and other organizations, they would be behind on day one, because they would not have the supplies that help them to be successful students. Democrats Care! and we are practicing what we preach one child and one adult at a time.
11
Equal, and equal under the law. That is the promise this country was founded on. That was the hope and change I voted for. That is what the so-called right demonized.
Equal in every way. This is not Identity politics. It's the founding principle of our, Our, nation.
3
Legalize marijuana, universal healthcare/social security and free college/student loan forgiveness. That's what I would vote for. They bailed out wall street, its time they bail out the American people. Lets take a chunk in the form if a one time tax and bail out everyone with credit card debit. One time bankruptcy forgiveness. How about a universal paycheck for everyone. $1500 per month for people who work or not. This is the kind of socialism that sells in America. Not the bread lines and hyperinflation of Soviet era. Tell everyone that you will pay them to stay at home or work they will vote yes. Let the people that want to succeed do it. Those that are not interested let them still have Netflix and daytime courtroom shows.
3
There is no pragmatic anything. We do what we need to do and that is that. To calculate political positions is pointless.
How about race hatred and anti environmental practice as a program? You know the Republican plan.
Anyone who thinks having some guts for a positive progressive set of policies is nuts is themselves gone round the bend.
Pragmatism is politically unaware...really!
1
Most of the people who voted Green would not vote for a Democrat anyway (otherwise they would've voted for one). Instead of hurling insults at these people we should figure out the best way to engage them, similar to the way we do with moderates who flip between parties.
4
A liberal Muslim won in Detroit ! What an accomplishment in a city where there are no Republicans. Amazing.
4
The funniest part about mouthbreathing Fox people is their fear and loathing of socialism while unknowingly supporting much of the policy platform. I support ACA but hate Obamcare syndrome.
6
Sorry, but universal preschool and being gay don't count as leftist. They count as moderate.
A real left would also promise universal non-profit health care (including dental and behavioral care), a progressive tax structure with a top rate where Eisenhower left it, fully-funded (free) public schools and state and community colleges and universities, solid labor and union support, comprehensive programs to eliminate poverty and provide affordable housing, nationalized renewable energy, consumer-friendly banking, infrastructure projects and repair and stark ethical standards for doing business in America.
We have grown so accustomed to the reactionaries and fascists and totalitarian capitalists who run the country that we confuse the modest political center for outright Marxism.
A real left would be a beautiful thing.
10
@Occupy Government
Actually, I didn't know that being gay was a political position at all.
4
Above all, what should unite Democrats and even moderate Republicans in this election is the opportunity to restore democracy to our government. The last few decades have seen the erosion of democratic institutions: equal access to voting, elections free of the influence of dark money, a non-partisan Supreme Court, a Congress that believes in compromise, a Congress that doesn't obstruct a president just because he's from the other side, etc. We've seen it all and practiced by both sides.
Trump was elected because he tapped into a deep well of frustration that the government no longer worked for the common person. He hasn't fixed this, but he got the message.
The party that can tap that well again, and promise to restore democracy could win this year, and 2020, and for a generation. Who will it be?
3
I see incrementalists as the centrists and the Berners as the revolutionary all or nothing right now far(ther) left with pragmatists no doubt the majority. I also see the pent up desire for policies that a majority of Americans support. Medicare for all will be a long hard slog, $15/hour minimum wage, support for Planned Parenthood, DACA, and women's rights to choose as non-negotiable and longstanding.
1
amazing we call ourselves a democracy but can't get close to what 70% of the country wants on most major issues.
6
There is a chance of a blue wave in November. But there is a caveat. The leftists and centrists need to be on the same page focusing on most important issues that we are faced today. Stop the nuisance of sactuary city, abolition of ICE, free college, Medicare for all etc. etc. it spunds like what Trump did in 2016 to manipulate the voters. All citizens regards of red or blue, they care for the basic needs of our life- air we breathe, water we drink, education and jobs we need. Focus on priorities, not on divisive issues like identity politics or gun rights. Unfortunately, some of the so-called progressives want to use the same divisive strategy used by Trump. This strategy is going to give the win to Trump on a silver platter in November. Those “progressive” ego maniacs don’t see the dangerous impact of 200 plus federal judiciary appointments for life by Trump. The incompetent morally bankrupt judges will destroy the basic foundation of our great nation. We can stop many of those appointments with a win in the midterm. The question is whether the leftists can see the big picture. I hope that they digest their grandiosity and work with centrists to save our nation from the dangerous acts by Trump
1
The headline is on face not true. The Left has won the minority of races and Ms. Goldberg just cherry picks two races and ignores the rest. She makes a point that Left leaning avowed socialists have become a force in the Dem party and I agree with that. That is not "winning" . They are an important part of the party, but moderates are just as important. It is not like the phenomenon in the GOP where most every moderate was tea partied out in the last 20 years. In dark blue areas, the left is having traction, and in more moderate areas in races like Conor Lamb's seat, Alabama Senate, VA governorship, moderates prevailed and this should be expected.
4
Michelle,
You are absolutely correct: Not every disagreement is a war. The Democratic party's strength is in its diversity, which is first and foremost a diversity of viewpoints and opinions. The Republicans are very limited because of their rigid ideology that cannot be translated into workable policies that improve the lives of ordinary people. In fact, Republicans strive to assert their power to make people's lives more miserable simply for the sake of power.This is why they elected a bully to the presidency. The key word that you offer Democrats is pragmatism. We are the party with ideas for how to solve problems in our society and our nation as we live in and with the realities of the modern world. Pragmatism will win over ideology.
3
A minor point but one worth making nonetheless:
"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s movement..."
No matter what followed, that sentence from CNN would have been wrong, because progressive politics do not belong to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Neither do they belong to Bernie Sanders. I'm really sick and tired of all of this hero worship on the Left, especially when it targets people who really haven't done anything yet-- Cortez so far just won ONE election, but all of a sudden the progressive movement is "hers?"
There are scores of progressives all over the country who never get this kind of attention because they eschew traditional politics (not talking about non-voters here; just community activists who choose not to ever run for office). Calling Cortez the "face" of the movement just because she traded in her activist flip-flops for politician pumps is disrespectful to all of them, and if she is even half as down-to-earth as we're expected to believe she is, she would agree with me.
7
Let's face reality---without changing campaign finance by elites, our entrenched power structure will still be able to block candidates who will work for the public interest. Instead we’ll keep breeding the same species of politician attached to big money’s advantage, while pretending to work for the average voter. We’ll have to pick 1 or the other, hoping for the lesser evil.
We do see now some better, more public spirited candidates emerging---but who will finance them, to compete with the powerful opposition? Who will their parties pick and what will their resulting platforms be? How much compromise will we have to tolerate—again and again?
3
As long as this new Democratic party avoids the subject of immigration like the plague I agree with the writer. If they start with this disbanning ICE business they will lose moderates and Independents. One would have thought they learned that lesson in 2016.
6
Why aren’t the basics of immigration being discussed? The phrase “open borders” sounds like a large mob can run across the borders, which I don’t think many want. What about seasonal work permits? Please educate us about how it is now and possible solutions. Our day care problems could be solved with temporary work permits for young people from south of the border who want to learn English, but are happy to go home. And so on. A lot of the undocumenteds here send money home to build a house and pay for schools for their kids.
They want to reunite with their families.Can we began to discuss actual policies, rather than just the separated children?
Well said, Ms. Goldberg, although I might offer this tidbit for further reflection. What is, exactly, this moment? What happened to make this moment? Who's in the weeds? Who has clarity? For example, Bernie told it like it was and was seemingly building the case model up until the Brooklyn debates, and then he went sideways. Why? Well, the HRC wing held the Super Delegates. for reasons that may be heard in whispers by inside voices and as it turns out, Tad Devine, may have been less than "divine." The point is, what is now? I have never had more clarity in my life, but how many of us do? How many understand the nature and magnitude of the past four decades that derailed in '08 and what that really meant? OWS and the Tea Party spawned. OWS ushered in Bernie (and Elizabeth). The Tea Party may have culminated in Trump. The vision and pathway should be crystal clear. Is it? Why or why not? I'll end with this hint. Who is Nancy Ashbrooke? Does it matter if one's ideals and actions are in alignment? What of our culture? "If you can't trust your friends, what then?"
Man, an awful lot of trolls in here (both the usual and the new). Wonder why the prospect of Democrats running on a platform of economic justice engenders such a response from them...
4
I consider myself progressive and part of the left wing of the Democratic party. However, I can never forgive Ralph Nader and the people who voted for him for bringing on the national disaster of George Bush and Dick Cheney. I hope today's candidates for national (and other) offices remember and take to heart that nothing good will happen unless they WIN elections. Winning elections in this country means eschewing ideological purity and avoiding dismissal of the needs and values of a broad cross-section of the American electorate. Narrow appeals won’t defeat Republicans!
7
There's always been plenty of left leaning Democrats. It does not mean we all supported Bernie Sanders. Many of us supported Clinton and I personally was surprised at how the left spewed the Republican vitriol against her. She was the first politician eho brought national health care to the drawing board. The Repugnants started on then to errode her reputation and efforts. The crackpot wing of the left gave us Trump more than any other group. When any contingent uses emotion instead of logic, a crackpot can come to power. Next few elections, any third party voter will put that crackpot right back, instead of squashing his q immediately. November 2018 is the most important do over in politics ever! Don't vote third party. There's no other discussion that counts. Unless you're all satisfied with living under the red menace, Trump, the Repugnants and the NRA.
2
Angel,
Logic says the 7 million Trump Democrats more affected than the 1 million Stein voters, of whom only some were Democratic.
Logic says the 308,000 Bush Dems, more affected the outcome than the 97,000 Nader voters, of whom only 24,000 polled as Dems.
But that is just logic.
Also, Sanders introduced MFA before HRC did.https://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/clinton-on-sanders-health-care-history/
1
I’m not sure America is psychologically ready for political socialism, even though a majority of Americans will depend on our socialistic programs like social security and Medicare. It would be a transition easily fought by republicans even though the republicans led by trump are accepting the attacks on America by Russian communists. I believe equal to socialism is middleclassism, if the Dems would embrace a redistribution of America’s wealth towards the middleclass it would undercut the gop voting strategy of attacking welfarism, religious attitudes and gender biases.
We can as liberals disagree on which policy positions we should be promoting but today there should be no disagreement on uniting together to oust the regressive, repressive and morally repugnant right wing extremists that have taken over our government. Turnout 2018 should be our mantra
8
I'm sorry but I found this article positively unreadable. I don't exactly think I'm a dolt. I do have an undergrad degree in English (secondary school teacher) and a post-grad MBA in Finance. Nevertheless, I could hardly make heads or tails of what this article is trying to say. And, there's not enough time to diagram the sentences so they make sense to me. Seriously, I'm sorry for a negative post, a true rarity for me.
1
I thought I was a progressive democrat until what I have witnessed and heard transpire in the political sphere and liberal media in the last 3 years (See NYT).
If this is what the future holds for the Democratic party then I'm going independent and will most likely be voting against the Democrats as a protest against shameless and overt reverse discrimination.
5
Voting for reasons of petulance brought us Trump. Can you not see that? We get the Democrats in and then fight it out in the family.
1
@Humanbeing
Negative. What I see is off the wall identity politics, a force feed notion of equality NOT based on the content, value, and quality of character but a based on an entitlement to redistribution founded on a sheer existence quotation coupled with an anti-male (white male) agenda.
So, your strategy is to be a quiet socialist in order to get elected?
1
With all due respect, Michelle, how old were you in 2000? Do you even remember that election? That Democratic "loss" had nothing to do with the Greens. That election was straight-up STOLEN by GW Bush. Look it up if you were to young to remember.
5
As long as the dominant paradigm on college campuses is a post-modernist, neo-Marxist one, the "pragmatic Left" can never win. Where are all my fellow "Henry Jackson Liberals"?
Not teaching at a university, I can tell you, where the minds of the leaders of tomorrow are formed. Just ask that child of Westchester privilege, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.
3
I am so sick and tired of the lame attacks on Greens who accuse of being flaky and crazy and stealing votes from Democrats who are entitled to these votes. The Green Party is primarily ideological in nature and actually has political principles unlike National Democrats who as pragmatists and opportunists largely have none, both at local and national levels. If you want votes, you have to earn them.
Many Greens are former Democrats or independents alienated by the corporate ownership of the Democrats. Bernie Sanders brought ideas and hopes to Democrats, but for the most part this does not mean this has radically changed institutional Democrats, particularly the Clinton group. The Democratic Party has not renounced accepting corporate money and not changed its continual defense of big business.
We Greens are proud of our 2016 Presidential candidate Jill Stein who can on a platform of ending the drug and oil wars, national healthcare for all. and public funding of college education.
3
@john THIS! Thank you! If Dems are so concerned about losing votes to those spoiler Greens, why don't they try, I don't know, EMULATING them so that they will actually EARN Green votes, rather than simply demanding them like petulant children?
2
@john
Good luck. Hope that the new right stacked supreme court and a second Trump term helps moving forward the Green agenda.
5
Good points about the Green Party. Our country is not parliamentary government with proportional representation. Under our country, a vote for the Green Party is a vote NOT cast for the Democrats, which has the result of indirectly supporting Republicans whether they be right wingers or Trumpists. Green Party supporters should ask themselves “does voting for a candidate like the self-described space alien descendant Joe Manchik” better for the cause of environmental and worker rights, by helping elect a Republican who is ideologically opposed to both of these notions? On the other hand, perhaps would their cause be better served by casting a compromise vote for a Democrat?
4
What the establishment, "moderate", and "centrist" Democrats fail to see, or are just in denial about, is that many of the new progressives will NOT vote for anyone taking corporate cash; don't expect them to fall in line and vote Democrat if a Republican-lite candidate is chosen--they will stay home. These people are organized and connected on the internet--they don't read newspapers. They have seen that the status quo on both sides, or anyone advocating incrementalism, will just continue the misery of the majority who can't enjoy the American Dream because of the greedy few at the top and corporate destruction of the natural environment. So, get on board and support uncorrupted candidates! If Bernie has all the enthusiasm, get behind him instead of pulling votes away from a winner.
6
There is one piece of real news here, that in Philadephia, a new D.A., Larry Krasner has abolished cash bail for misdemeanors and many non-violent crimes. Not mentioned is that across the USA this still remains as an essential part of a tracking system designed to harass minorities and poor people while giving them criminal records, and that we have an AG that encourages this and a president that adds even, "rough'm up". (Sandra Bland"s video of being dragged into the police station, bound hand and foot has been pulled from the internet) What they called zero tolerance was actually, still is, a designed effort to kidnap little children, so far with no consequences to any of the perpetrators. Kidnapping is against the law.
Also not mentioned is that the Social Democrats main agenda includes prominently healthcare and fighting climate change, (maybe wishful thinking on the latter, but this is the main issue of our time, and as also is: Are we to remain as a Democracy?)
On the Ohio race, is there a paper trail for a recount? Recall that in the Pres. election the exit polls in close states did not match the vote count, and that Republicans have tried to fix the elections thru gerrymandering and voter suppression, wherever they could.
And in the coming election, the Mueller investigation is about fixing an election. Everything they do is relevant right up until election day; none of this 60-90 day moratorium stuff before an election. That was the problem the last time.
9
Many columnists look great as defenders of progressivism, but they stay safe and centrist. They don't specifically attack how we finance elections, so they ignore the underlying blockage to progress for the public interest.
Corporate interests are very well financed and organized nationally to fight hard for the dominance of private profit in politics. We the People can’t compete. This will be a norm until we reverse Citizens United and then rebuild. Only in a distorted democracy is this called a 'left wing' idea.
Our media never even talk about this, even as they lament our many national problems. It's accepted as a norm that corporations regulate our govt for their interests, not the other way around.
In many other democracies their conservative parties may want budget cuts, but they don’t denigrate elected govt itself as a threat to freedom and liberty. Thus they can use govt to benefit the citizens that elect it---the whole purpose of democracy.
Here' the pundits, press and cable tv hosts never even question the way we hand over our elections to the richest mega donors and corporations so candidates can run. But that is the major block, before what most voters want can become law---fairer taxes, health care for all, higher min wage, funding for education, training, and infrastructure, gun safety laws.
Thus our media is not informing voter on the issues affecting our lives, while it pretends to lament our national problems.
11
@Meredith I love your comment. Corporately owned media are the beneficiaries of all the millions of dollars that goes into political campaigns through ad buys. They will continue to ignore progressive candidates and movements. People who want to know about candidates who don't take corporate cash find out about them on alternative media sources like The Young Turks, another entity that oddly almost never gets mentioned in the corporate media. Get money out of politics! (just don't expect to hear that from the MSM)
3
Identity politics will end the Democratic party. Basically they're telling us to vote for someone because of their skin color, sexuality or religion? Good grief. I could not tell you the religion of any of my local or state representatives because it does not matter. Most of us vote for someone's platform, not identities alone.
16
The GOP has been running on identity politics for decades. Literally since Nixon, they have used white anxiety to gain votes. Why do they get a pass, but the Democrats get hammered when they advocate for the big tent?
2
I'm not sure what the headline means by "pragmatic left." If it means fiscal liberal, I'm in. If it means diversity and affirmative action forever, I'm out. If it means not saying you've descended from space aliens, then, yes, I would agree that that would be pragmatic.
3
@Anonymous The platform that most are supporting can be found at the site of the Justice Democrats.
1
Stop with the $15 minimum wage!
$21.75 minimum wage!
No tipping system!
Stop taxing incomes under $50,000!
Bring down the right to work states!
Long live the working poor!
3
BRAVO!!! TV's corporate media can't handle the fact that there is a wave of progressives using the "S" word--loud and proud--to describe their Socialist leanings. THRILLED that they are making inroads. We need Democratic Socialism--now, more than ever. I am thrilled to support an ideology that is based on fairness, egalitarian principles and dignity for every American, no matter the size of their bank account.
7
I think it is unfair to demand from Greens to abandon their party and vote for Dems with whom they disagree only because the Rep side is even worse. If Dems want the Green votes they should give them something in return. Because up to now, Dems more worried about wooing rights and hoped to shame lefts to vote for them. And I don't think just because Green didn't get elected, so they are useless. I crest them very much for left shift in Dem party as well as for normalizing Socialist label. Being outside party they have more influence than if they were inside. Now Dems know they could not take lefts votes for granted, they have to earn it.
5
@yulia, It's called "infighting" and it is unproductive.
2
To people like Nancy Pelosi (whose ring I feel sure Michelle Goldberg would drop down on one knee to lap) Democrats must be referred to as disarrayed, because she owns the array.
Noam Chomsky has reported for 40 years that all people all want nearly the same things and would take them if allowed a pure democracy: peace, personal autonomy and social justice. He has also reported for that time that it is unchecked private power (the forces of money) that withholds those things from people, via the mechanism of government. Money owns the government, on average.
The fundamental law here is that capitalism and democracy are inversely proportional, each diminishes the other. People seek a compromise, the Democrat party, being run by plutocrats, resists compromise, and so it puts people in what Goldberg calls disarray.
6
There is no Democrat Party, it's the Democratic Party.
3
@Ann Twiggs - I am pleased you were able to overcome that unforgivable misrepresentation on my part, such that you could post a correction. ;)
Yes, we need pragmatism and a focus on people in order to transform the Congress this November.
The word "socialist" and "socialism" are bantered about carelessly, without consideration of their wide scope in many countries of the world today.
The beauty of socialism (people-ism) is its vast range of application.
Some form of "socialism"—depending on the needs and circumstances of a country—is the best form of government humans have been able to come up with.
[Surely not "capitalism", which greeds itself to death, cycle by cycle—witness the recent Great Recession—if not kept in check.]
4
@srwdm
"People-ism" as in akin to the term Human Resources? IOW resources to exploit?
Socialists love people, they are delicious.
1
What bothers me most about the "Democrats moving left" hysteria is that the policies the leftward shift highlight, things like Medicare for all and student loan forgiveness, are common in other advanced western democracies. We're just trying to catch up.
Compare these humanist and actually populist policies to the shocking and revolting rightward charge of Trump Republicans who would rather be Russian than Democrat, who cheer separating families at the border, who relish in their racism and political incorrectness. The far left wants to make life better for people. The far right want to sow fear and discord so that whites only succeed.
Criticizing the so called far left as no different that Trump's rising fascists is the mother of all false equivalencies.
185
@Tony in LA - So Antifar is not the flip side of the coin from white supremicists? So not allowing a speaker who doesn't march to the exact same tune as the far leftists on campus is ok?
@Tony, very well-said!
1
Perhaps Michelle doesn't write her own headlines but this piece seems more about how a few Sanders/Warren democratic socialists are doing so well in the primaries rather than how pragmatic centrists are doing better . The difference between left centrists and socialist Democrats is not so much one of ideology but of practicality, of where we want to go and how fast we are going to be able to get there. Hillary came up with a universal coverage health care plan in the early 90's that tried to get to the goal in one fell swoop. The abject failure of the plan taught her that incrementalism is the better strategy and Obama used that lesson in crafting the ACA, to be sure a first down but and not a touchdown, but it halved the uninsured. A small but important reason Hillary lost was the churlishness of die hard Bernie supporters whose disappointment about his loss led to their leaving the playing field altogether or getting behind the Green nominee Jill Stein. As a political tactic, the GOP has long conflated socialism with communism and would have characterized democratic socialism in exactly that way. The GOP will do so again in November. Democratic socialists need to remember that "politics is the art of the possible" (Otto von Bismarck) and also "who gets what, when and how." (Herbert Lasswell).
6
@sleepdoc: I love your comment. Very well-stated and absolutely true. Thank you.
Anyone notice the Democrat in this sentence (and in the last National Election) lost buy the nearly the exact amount of votes that went to the Super-Left wildcard?
"Joe Manchik, who claims to be descended from space aliens, won 1,129 votes in the special election in Ohio’s 12th Congressional District. Democrat Danny O’Connor trails the Republican by 1,564 votes in that race, with almost 3,500 provisional ballots still to be counted."
The real story of what's gonna happen in November - right in your own column. Hyper-Left candidates are gonna split the vote and turn the whole ball game over to Republican's - therefore advancing exactly NONE of their agendas.
42
@Ignatius J. Reilly
magical thinking here
reminds me of hillary blaming her loss in Michigan on jill stein!?! please. this assumes - as you do - that these voters would go dem if they had fewer choices.
we need more choices not fewer - the dems and the gop are, to paraphrase gore vidal, two wings of the property party - we need more choices - HRC lost because Michigan b/c she is greedy and out of touch and spent more time on martha's vineyard in the summer of 16 than Detroit
4
@Ignatius J. Reilly - I don't see any evidence that this is happening any more than usual. Support for the Green Party hasn't increased from its typical ~1%, and there haven't so far been any cases where defeated left-wing primary candidates have either announced they're running as a Green or independent, or urged their voters to back the Greens or stay home.
Are there going to be a few cases where a Dem candidate loses by a very narrow margin, smaller than the number of votes the Green candidate got? Sure, but this happens every cycle and is worse on the other side. The Libertarian Party runs a lot more candidates and has the same vote-splitting effect on the Republicans, and the Constitution Party contests a few races as well.
2
@Ignatius J. Reilly, Being a fake Democrat attracts Republican money.
Thank you so much for this fair and honest article. I had read some of those other articles in astonishment and anger at the misinformation. Many of us met these candidates initially through interviews or repeated appearances on The Young Turks, who runs a series in which Justice Democrats and other progressive candidates are interviewed. Money was raised for them that way too, because these candidates don't take corporate money--they need thousands of small donations instead. Considering how young this movement is, I am overjoyed with all the wins and grateful to those who showed so much courage to run. It is the most hopeful I have felt about electoral politics in my 57 years.
3
Let's stop using the word populist for economic policies that are more fair and balanced, not favoring the rich, thus are suitable for a working democracy. That are what's basically American according to our professed values of equality and opportunity for all.
The word populist can be distorted. Some don't want to be associated with its implications of favoring the 'disadvantaged'. Many voters identify not with populism, but what they see as success, not failure. It makes them feel good---even as the're being manipulated and losing economic security.
The ideas progressives are pushing today should be centrist and many of them once were in past generations---before the right wing distorted how we label left/right/center.
Is a 15 dollar min wage really so left? In the US, yes.
So let's not keep using labels that Fox News likes--- 'left wing, socialist,' for what should be political norms, and are in other countries. We're still the only developed country where health care for all is still a political fight----portrayed as a threat to our 'freedom and choice', and to the moneyed establishment who finance our politics. It's been ok in our politics to fight whatever cuts profits.
Our politics has been allowed to manipulate many voters' fear and mistrust our own govt we elect to serve our interests---a distortion of democracy.
Most Americans want now favor Medicare for All, but it matters little against the power of entrenched mega donors in our elections.
6
Dems need only to hold Town Halls and listen to what their constituents want to talk about.
It's probably Health Care rising costs and coverage cuts: SS/Medicare stability, rising income gap between richest and poor; Trump's tax cuts for the Rich (ballooning the deficit), skyrocketing consumer prices made worse by Trump's tariffs; education and massive student loan debt; and the constant revelation of factual news on proven corruption, deceit, and lies within Trump's government.
It is appropriate to point out their Republican opponents won't hold a Town Hall because they don't want to answer their questions.
4
In my heart, soul and aspirations I applaud the wins of candidates like Occasio-Cortez. She's representative of what we need in Congress begin to turn aside the ugliness, and isolation initiated by the Trump presidency.
We cannot be impatient. FIRST we must win elections. If Democrats need to field moderates who almost sound like conservatives in order to attract the votes of the people in Red states, then we must do that. Proposing a dream and losing elections hardly serves our purpose.
Voter perceptions of candidates are every bit as important and the candidate's policies and intents.
Hillary Clinton would have been a good president. But in her campaign she left the impression that she had forgotten about the real needs of the real people. She didn't dispel the notion of having her hands in the pockets of wall street. She failed to get a majority of white women voters.
We need to be absolutely sure that our message includes believable and practical assistance in getting jobs for the underemployed and underpaid blue collar workers who have fared so badly since the great recession.
The Trump administration has failed miserably at following through on their phony populist promises. Democrats need to be absolutely certain that we provide a clear distinction both from Trump and from a pervasive perception that mainstream Democrats are just as elitist and anchored to their PAC's as Republicans are.
4
Is defending Maduro's tyranny and economic catastrophes pragmatism?
1
"Tlaib’s victory doubles the D.S.A.’s likely representation in Congress." Great. From 0.2% of the House to 0.4% Not likely to make a difference.
1
In defense of the Greens, they had little trouble bringing in the funds unless you compare it to the Clinton establishment Democrats. Sure, they can bring in the funds while giving lip service and insults to the working class and raking in the graft. Please don't promote this as success for the Democratic party. Eventually, the charm wears off and the supporters walk away.
4
Excellent article, a welcome counter to the strange narrative that emerged in the press this week after the primaries and special elections. These progressive candidates (losers and winners) are developing a vision for the Democratic party that has been sadly lacking. It's a long-term project and everything can't be evaluated in one election cycle. But it's probably a good sign some journalists are downplaying they successes--they are worried.
2
I wish people would stop blaiming Ralph Nader voters for Al Gore’s loss in Florida. The few thousand that voted for Ralph Nader was a drop in the bucket to the millions that didn’t even show up in Florida.
The no-shows in 2008 gave the election to Trump. I think he is still smarting that he came in third to a de facto none of the above.
It is better to show up and leave a blank ballot than it is to not even show up.
4
"We are awesome and will cut your taxes and increase revenue and prosperity for everyone" (even though all of the prosperity has been going to billionaires for four decades.)
But the Democrats respond with, "We're the lesser evil."
Worst slogan ever!
If I were to design a party that was supposed to lose to the GOP as much as possible it would be just like the National Democratic Committee, and hopefully staffed will all of the same people.
There is already a party of the rich. Democrats can't be the party of the rich. The truly rich use their money to sway public opinion toward policies that benefit only them. They tell us that it is bad to centralize power under the government, which is the Representative of the People in our Republic, and instead centralize power in the hands of a few thousand people that control more than half of all wealth. Bill Gates does not know everything These mega-rich, who are now eyeing the shores of North Korea for ultra luxury resorts mostly used for tax shelters, claim that they are the Creators of Wealth (because they get free money from the Federal Reserve) and the Creators of Jobs (even as they fire everyone to drive up the stock price.
Workers Create Wealth Not Financiers. Financiers use their niche in the market to siphon $trillions.
We the People are Sovereign.
What do we want our government to do?
Taxes are spent by us.
What the American People didn't vote for, Laura Ingraham, is a country controlled by global billionaires.
3
The very expression "pragmatic left" is a huge oxymoron, as there is nothing pragmatic about socialism. It is base tyranny.
That said, as some of the comments note, we could learn some things from the Norse, including unapologetically drilling in the Arctic and off shore; assiduously refusing to sponge; socking away lots of money so that we wont' indebt or burden our kids; few, if any, minimum wages; broad school choice; closed borders and compelled assimilation.
If the left were "pragmatic" -- or, at least, honest -- it would specify precisely where it proposes to come up with the trillions necessary to pay for all the 'free' stuff it promises to give to people stupid enough to elect these folks.
Envy is NEVER a promising basis for policy. If we were ever dumb enough to give these folks power. we would be much more likely to emulate Venezuela than Norway. The entire appeal of the "pragmatic left" is promising people that other people will pay their bills. That never ends well.
Put simply, if the Republicans are the "Party of the rich", sign me up; I don't want to be poor, and that's the inevitable consequence of socialism (absent the sort of discipline which drives the Amish and Norwegians.) Equality, after all, is the natural state of human affairs: everyone has nothing. Only freedom and defense of property rights change that.
If you leftists love socialism so much, join a kibbutz. But have the decency to leave those who love freedom out of your workers' paradises.
3
Respectfully, I think your kidding yourself and others. Yes its fun and interesting that these candidates are making headway. But far from presenting a threat to all that Trump and his Republican friends present, they play right into their hands. Do you seriously believe that America as a whole will ever embrace or accept socialism or anything with even a taint of it? No. Lets face it, the truly pragmatic, effective democrats across time have been as ruthless and cunning and manipulative as their republican counterparts -- think FDR, JFK, LBJ and Clinton, to name a few. That's never going to change and arguably, is only getting worse as we continue to lionize other take-no-prisoners American originals: Jobs, Musk, Bezos--to name a few. The formula has not changed and never will and realizing that and dealing with it is where pragmatism begins.
2
A title like "The Democratic Socialists of America" will really bring in the independents and angry white voters won't it? I've been a Democrat since 1970 and in this early 21st century period it's a loser. Sure, there are isolated victories, like Ocasio-Cortez in one of the bluest districts in the country, but it won't work when we get to 2020 against the Electoral College, which proved that it was a corrupt as the original law and most Republicans. Pragmatism is not the philosophy of the Democratic Socialists, and like many Democrats I agree with many of their goals, the rest of America does not and will not vote in that direction.
1
Well, Americans did vote for Obama, even although he was portrayed as socialist, Muslim and not American.
3
Based on decades of research into how people self-identify and how they vote, here are a few facts to ponder:
-Self-identifying as R, D, or I(ndependent) are not equally distributed: there are more Is than either R or D
-Is and Ds resemble each other more than either resemble Rs in their attitudes toward social and fiscal lib/conserve scales. Rs are far more doctrinaire than either Ds or Is
-The winner of every Presidential election since Gallup started asking the self-identifying question has gotten a majority of the Independent vote
-Ds favor individual personalities with lots of charisma, and novelty - and youth - helps (JFK, Bill, Obama - Hillary not even close), compared to Rs who are far more ideological, less personal. Hence, Trump's personality didn't hurt, so long as he espoused the right issues (at least verbally)
So, Ds need to find someone who is not that old, not a familiar face (sorry, Elizabeth and Bernie) and has the ability to SEEM TO connect with everyone in a crowd, i.e. charisma.
Who will that be? Stay tuned!
@Nat Ehrlich You would not have predicted the successful wins of Obama with your thinking. If Bernie runs, the enthusiasm will be double what it was before because he has been tirelessly touring the country doing town halls since the election. You can see them on YouTube since the mainstream media doesn't cover them much. The young folks are the future and they don't spend much time watching cable news. They don't care about age if a person shows the energy and passion required. TRUMP can't even take a walk -- he needs a golf cart! If Bernie runs, the establishment will be the minority that will have to fall in line with the uncorrupt progressive message if they want the Dems to win. Name recognition is also a huge factor in elections and Democrats would be foolish to ignore a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. Bernie is simply THE most popular candidate and it's because of his integrity; he's not some fake who is still taking cash from the rich and corporate donors.
3
Identity is not this progressive's "priority". The bulk of the Democratic Party is making corruption, not identity or socialism, the main thrust in November. What the party desperately needs to know now, not the day after:
1) Whether the part of the party represented by Michelle Goldberg and Alex Ocasio-Cortez will support the rest of the Democratic slate or pull a Bernie when it comes to people in the big tent who don't agree with you.
2) Whether or not any of the billions of Democratic Socialist supporters and other twitterers are registered to vote and will actually go by foot, car by mail, not by social media, and do what a responsible citizen does in a democracy: Vote.
The rest is meaningless. We're in need of a levee en masse to end a destructive regime. Save the revolution that pits your progressives against my progressives on who's "pragmatic" and a true progressive. Do those two things first, we need to save the country and then decide how we're going to change it.
And as for the "Democratic Socialist" agenda: Most of it is actually reactionary, and that's the really sad part for people my age watching people your age. We had free public higher education decades ago. We discussed and pushed universal health care and tried to get it in, courtesy once of a Cold Warrior anti-socialist named Harry Trumann, courtesy of your Bernie opponent Hillary Clinton. We had good jobs and strong unions. Your "progressive" is why we need to end what's happened since.
2
In Washington CD-9, the progressive Democrat, Sarah Smith, is currently leading the GOP candidate, meaning, if those numbers hold, she will take on the entrenched Democrat in November.
2
Pragmatism: when you know what ideals are and still recognize reality.
What a concept.
2
Take away arrogant, elitist, out-of-touch, aging Nancy Pelosi, and that would boost Dems' chances in November. So far, 27 Dem congressional candidates have refused to say whether they would support her. What bothers me most is that she may become Majority speaker if the Dems take the House solely because so many women may enter the House. Not a good reason.
1
The differences between Democrats of all stripes pale in comparison to the radical threats we are facing.
5
I welcome disruptive forces in politics like the Democratic Socialists even though I find most of their ideas to have long term, counterproductive ends; I welcome them because it keeps the system honest ... it makes those in power uncomfortable.
I am pro non public sector labor, pro living wage, pro affirmative action/equal opportunity and see a desperate need for new people - with an emphasis on women and people of color, but not exclusively - to step up and shake things up. I am also pro life (I think I might have lost a recommend or two). I also believe in limiting government as much as possible without compromising the social safety net such as Medicaid, Medicare and support for the ACA. I believe in smart, reasonable immigration rules and policies not open borders (ideally, I would love open borders but it is not practical). I don't believe in abolishing ICE. I pro gay marriage. I get the idea of Western/Southern culture and guns and have no problem with owning guns for hunting etc but not assault weapons.
Where does that leave me? A person without a party. Therefore, I welcome all newcomers that disrupt the system and make people uncomfortable including the Democratic Socialists.
Viva la revolucion
5
I am a Democrat, and the DCC does not represent me. Any person who begs for money, and sells their soul to Corporate American is merely a Republican-lite . They may be very good people, but they no longer own their own votes, and they are not, therefore, still Democrats. They must move back to the base meaning of democratic, or be replaced by the Democratic Socialists who will remember who pays the taxes, and who supports, and are, the soldiers, and who works in the fields and the factories.Our representative will be one of us, not one of you. You may grovel at th feet of the Oligarchs if you wish, if it makes you feel good to live in a $6 million house, go for it, but stop pretending you are a Democrat -- you are a conservative, and you abandodned us!
5
The Democrats aren't in disarray; the Democrats are in disarray. Hard to keep up.
1
NYT, CNN, and many other news outlets cannot seem to provide fair coverage to the left -- this was especially damaging during the 2016 primaries; time after time biased reporting in favor of the conservative candidate who went on to lose against the current president led many who might have voted for Bernie Sanders, had they they not been fed a steady diet of coronation narratives, to think that he had no chance.
8
@edlergraf Where do you think campaign contributions end up? In the pockets of giant corporations that run mainstream media outlets. You should never expect them to cover any political candidate or movement whose aim is to get money out of politics. That is the NUMBER ONE issue for progressives as it affects all others. It's the same reason establishment Democrats fight progressives--they like their wealth and power and are not going to give it up without a fight.
4
Yes, pragmatic and for the people.
The beauty of socialism (people-ism) is its vast range of application.
Some form of "socialism"—depending on the needs and circumstances of a country—is the best form of government humans have been able to come up with.
[Surely not "capitalism", which greeds itself to death, cycle by cycle—witness the recent Great Recession—if not kept in check.]
3
If progressives and radical left take over Democrats, the party will start losing many moderates and even many Asian and Hispanic immigrants. Socialism hasn't succeeded anywhere in the world. Regulated, common sense, capitalism is a much better and popular answer. Identity politics and political correctness will drive away some educated, Democrats leaning, Americans away.
Extreme right is doing better because it appeals to base human nature. There is not much in socialist agenda except sense of fairness. But there is no better motivation as self interest for most people. You can't bet against human nature when 330 million people are involved.
3
I like some of these candidates their ideas and energy. However, anybody who self labels 'socialist-X' raises my suspicion. Perhaps because I escaped from Venezuela, the country that invented and is enjoying two decades of 21-century socialism.
3
To all fairness, Venezuela was hardly a paradise before socialism, that's why the country turned to the socialism.
5
Once, We the People came Together and Formed a Social Contract.
We Declared that We are All Sovereign, From Many One.
Nature and Nature's God made us All Equal under the Law.
(Many of those left out of that social contract have been added through Amendments to the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment in particular, makes everyone born here a full citizen of the United States, with equal rights under the law. It says nothing about corporations.)
As Sovereigns we are essentially King. We the People have the ability to make decisions, and expect Our Representatives to faithfully execute them.
Together as a Sovereign Representative Republic the People have the right and responsibility to raise funds to invest in our selves and our government.
The Constitution specifically granted Congress the Power to Tax and Regulate Trade. (Republicans decided to double tax SALT deductions used by workers just last year.)
We the People have the Right and Responsibility to Govern through our Representatives.
We don't have to borrow. We can tax!
Who talked us into paying INTEREST on Debt?
Why do the Centrist Democrats help them talk us into it?
But the People are too lazy to manage our Public Servants so they sell us out the those who stole all of the money then told us that the poor stole all of the money. MATH PLS
We have let the mega rich buy up all of our mass media so they can convince us that They are the Wealth Creators and that our productivity is theirs.
Its a Lie.
4
Democrats have been very good at delivering the message of what they're going to do for their constituency, but just not how they're going to do it. It's akin to the hopium that gamblers thrive on; one of these times I'm gonna strike it rich. They don't know when, or how, but definitely worth risking it all for.
@Kurt Pickard Did you ask where the money would come from to give tax cuts to corporations? To increase military spending? To participate in over a half dozen wars? One thing is certain, taxes on THE RICH (e.g., $300k/yr)--not average citizens--will increase. However, with free health care, employers could pass on those savings to their employees, raising their wages.
An additional way money will be raised for things like college tuition and health care is through a minute fee on stock transactions. The NYT had a good article on this back in 2015 https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/opinion/the-case-for-a-tax-on-financi...
1
Can the Dems square the circle ? Support a working class agenda and take in Wall Street money ?
(From the likes of Wall Streeters Schumer and Pelosi , probably no).
5
If this is what it takes to get rid of Trump & cronies, so be it. There will be much damage to repair.
1
Michelle, you are the only window of light at the NYT...and good for them! Thanks, and keep it up.
1
"So it was strange to see headlines in the following days arguing that the left wing of the Democratic Party had hit a wall."
Why was it strange? Some of them made good points. From the Politico article:
"The Berniecrat left desperately wants to convince...that a democratic socialist platform holds the ticket to victory in heartland districts like this one—so much so that Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez gave a full-throated endorsement to Welder over another compelling and fairly liberal candidate in Sharice Davids. ...Davids exhibited a bit too much of an incrementalist streak for some progressives, arguing that single-payer health insurance is not realistic in the short term and supporting free community college instead of promising to make all college debt-free."
Note Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer, who defeated the Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez candidate, campaigned for expanded Medicaid (like Georgia's Stacey Abrams) - not Medicare for all.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/08/02/whitmer...
"(Whitmer) said she supports “universal coverage” and would work toward that goal in Michigan but is not going to “deceive people and tell you I can magically fix everything all by myself. I’m not going to utter buzz phrases, because I think it’s deceptive to pretend a governor can count on two waivers from the Trump administration, and a constitutional amendment, and a hundred billion dollars. I’m not going to play those games."
8
A minor point but one worth making nonetheless:
"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s movement..."
No matter what followed, that sentence from CNN would have been wrong, because progressive politics do not belong to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Neither do they belong to Bernie Sanders. I'm really sick and tired of all of this hero worship on the Left, especially when it targets people who really haven't done anything yet-- Cortez so far just won ONE election, but all of a sudden the progressive movement is "hers?"
Gross.
10
Nancy Pelosi, of all people, accidentally came up with what should be the Dems' new slogan: Stop the culture of corruption. Better than the ridiculous, "A new deal."
The problem is the Democratic Party "establishment" involvement in corruption—for instance, witness the Clinton machine control of the DNC and involvement with Wall Street.
It's time for the nearly 80-year-old Pelosi—the face of the entrenched "establishment"—to step aside.
4
By all means keep on moving left, Dems. The more your toxically divisive identity politics and economic pipe dreams of government-guaranteed and hyper-regulated everything continue to bake into your party's DNA the easier it will be for the more modest and classically liberal elements of the GOP, once shed of the Trump infection, to reclaim the conservative mantle of principled, free market, free trade, constitutionally minimalist governmental leadership. I have no idea how long it'll take but I sincerely thank the progressive left for doing its part to remind every independent, moderate and swing voter just how radical today's Democrats have become. Keep up the good work guys!
2
Yeah, yeah, the conservative mantle was so attractive to so many people that it so easily fall to Trump. Keep trying your old mold, maybe you will attract some people.
2
Angry right-wing commenters are now offering their helpful advice. Excellent. We see the sweat of fear forming on their foreheads.
7
My father is 100, was in the USAF in WWII fight against Nazis, a retired major.
He is sharp as a tack, as they say, and has said he plans to live long enough not just to vote in November, but in 2020 against whoever replaces trump when he's impeached and removed.
Presidents are also Commanders-in-Chief --- and I was sickened by trump's harassment and slander of the pregnant war widow because she wouldn't say he'd consoled her.
He wants to use the the American Armed Forces as bling in a French-imitation parade for his own greater glory.
He mocks and despises POWs who criticize him -- people who fought for the right to criticize presidents!
Soldiers are dead in the ground, killed, we are told, fighting for the right to write and say whatever we want without the government "hitting" us, as he a calls his illegal, anti-Constitutional reprisal/retaliation/revenge against Americans using their rights, with lies, slander, threats, concocted accusations.
Some of these have led to death threats against the people he targets.
This is not the America my Dad fought for.
It is the not-America he fought to prevent, and at age 100, is still fighting the good fight.
Vote, everybody!
Meantime, call your reps and senators and tell them to speak up and say trump should be called to account under oath before Congress to explain his attacks, like declaration of war on the "enemy" free press, against Americans using their rights.
If he won't come freely, impeach.
Call.
Vote.
5
Here in South Minneapolis, the DFL endorsed candidate to succeed Keith Ellison is Ilhan Omar, also a Moslem woman. She has to get through a primary on Tuesday, but she probably will. In that case, there will be two Moslem women in Congress on January 1.
2
It is absolutely key that democrats, no matter what their stripe, come together to take back the House.
When the other side is engaging in fascism and toying with abolishing democracy, we must stand united. No time for family squabbles.
3
In the primaries vote Dem, or Green, or Spartacist Youth League, or whatever, as you will, but for the love of heaven: vote for every Democrat in November. Nothing else has any chance of getting the Trumpublican coalition of oligarchs, racists, and neofascists out of power. Infighting about ideological purity is exactly what They want us to do. Don't repeat the mistakes we made in 1980, and 2000, and 2016.
3
The democrat socialists could be called many things, naive, mathematically inept, etc - pragmatism not so much.
4
Just keep going. America is not going to buy socialism.
1
No, we're too poor from giving the capitalists our money
3
Ocasio-Cortez is "a charismatic and rousing spokeswoman for her values"? Who are you kidding? She can't string together two coherent sentences and is clearly in over her head! Your fantasy of a far-left socialist wave sweeping the country behind a unified Democratic Party is just that - a fantasy. It's not where the country is and it never will be.
3
Well, Trump set the bar so low, everybody looks as Demosphenes
2
Could you write ALL the NY Times opinion pieces please? Talk about reasoned and committed and smart.
Or better yet: can YOU run for congress?
2
Harry Truman put it very simply: Democrats help people who need help. Republicans help people who DON'T need help.
Democrats also need to relearn the word SOLIDARITY, especially in the next election and 2020. They need to stop voting for the FSB's useful idiot candidate, Jill Stein, the Republican's best friend next to Vladimir Putin or the latest third party straw man probably funded secretly by the GOP to siphon off Democratic votes.
Democrats need to vote Democratic, the complete slate. As Harry Truman also said: From the Courthouse to the White House; and above all:
NO REPUBLICANS IN 2018! NO REPUBLICANS IN 2020!
NONE! NOT ONE!
2
"The Democratic Socialists of America alone has done more to build left political power since the 2016 election than the Green Party did in the 18 years after Nader helped elect George W. Bush."
Nader didn't help to elect W in 2000, in fact W didn't win Florida.
200,000 Florida democrats, who'd voted Clinton in '96, made it close enough to steal.
A big part of that switch can likely be tied to the puffery published in the NYT about W starting May of 2000 and ending in Sept of 2000--authored by the now columnist Kristof.
Retired Jews from the North East treat what the NY Times reports as unquestioned truth. And many of those retirees live in Florida most of the year and vote at a near 98 percent turnout.
In Florida there were other factors, like Harris and Jeb Bush throwing many black voters off of the rolls.
Oh, and the exit polls have Gore winning Florida.
So, not not Nader, much more the NYTimes.
4
Sharice Davids is a corporate lackey. She's going to get decimated by Yoder.
This sort of delusional analysis is the reason the Democratic Party is in the shape it's in.
6
Stop with using the word "socialism". It's poison. Even the Scandinavians who have actual socialist programs, won't use it. They call themselves "Social Democrats". I saw commercials during last election primaries with pictures of Bernie AND Soviet gulags. Stop shooting yourself in the foot, Dems! Hitler and Stalin who called their parties "socialist" have tainted it forever. We can use new words, that's supposed to be one of our vaunted human advantages. Language. Get it straight or keep losing in national races.
4
The Pragmatic Left Is Whining
What a pipe dream.
prag·mat·ic (adj) dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.
If you were to listen to the raising superstar Ocasio-Cortez, the above definition does not apply.
Free everything, and a job guaranteed. And no idea on how to get there. This is the voice of the Dems now. This is all we hear when we see her face, this is the face you show the world. This is not realistically, it's just like your article, pure pie in the sky.
You say: 'In truth, there’s nothing surprising about left-wing candidates losing their primaries. The happy surprise is how many are winning. Unsexy as it sounds, the real story of progressive politics right now is the steady accumulation of victories'
Reality says: she endorsed 6, 4 got trounced and the 2 that won had been at it for way longer than this carpetbagger has been in the lime light. To say Rashida Tlaib won because Ocasio-Cortez showed up to a rally in the end of the campaign is unfair to Mrs Tlaib in many ways
Keep parading Ocasio-Cortez, you're just making sure Trump 2020 becomes an easy reality
2
every idea once was new and seemed impossible. Freedom for slaves, interracial marriages, 8hrs working day, Medicare, Medicaid, free public schools, Social Security and yet eventually they became real and everybody accept them, and now we are not thinking how to dismantle them but rather how to make them better. If you don't try, you'll never have anything new. Innovation are necessary not only in industry but also in society.
3
@Shark You are wrong about "reality." Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a Justice Democrat. Their wins and losses can all be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Democrats . Almost 20 wins so far. Pretty impressive for the first wave of Bernie Progressives who don't take corporate donations - we were told none of them would win and that NOBODY can win without corporate cash. Do you want a government for the people or for corporations?
2
In another 20 years when the baby boomers die off, the Democratic Socialists will take over. And after 20 years of that nonsense, the rapacious capitalists will return to power. Americans, in general, have a short attention span and suck at nuance, their brains short-circuited by constant infotainment. A centrist candidate will be far too vanilla to ever hold power again I fear.
2
Spoiler Alert !
The November "Blue Wave" will be as anti-climatic as the Y2K Bug... All sizzle and no steak.
Liberal 18-26 YO's do not vote! Even worse- this is a mid-term election and I doubt many know the name of their Congressional Representative.
Lastly- It is local and state politics that will ultimately determine the fate of this nation. Liberals need to look beyond their backyard compost pile and start getting involved in regional issues. The GOP has a 15 year head start on them..
40
@Aaron
"Liberal 18-26 YO's do not vote!"
Especially they won't vote for the low energy 80 year-oldsters who thought "A Better Way" and "For the People" could motivate votes.
Why should 80 year-olds - who have no future left - decide for those with decades left?
If the Democrats allowed only those under 30 to run for Congress, they'd win in a landslide.
1
@Aaron Young people have woken up and organized and are starting to vote. Maybe you don't notice because they are mostly on YouTube, Facebook, and other places older folks don't congregate. These Justice Democrats knock on tens of thousands of doors to meet their constituents. Those people are much more likely to show up and vote. They don't take corporate cash so they aren't beholden to donors. It's hard to fight that stance - US citizens on both sides want money out of politics!
Many of these progressive wins were in local and state races, so I don't understand your comment about liberals "getting involved in regional issues." It sounds like you are living in the world of the past.
1
@Aaron Please...
We KNOW the wave is coming because Republicans can barely hold districts that have solidly Republican for the last 50-100 years. This is an extremely bad time to be a Republican candidate, maybe one of the worst in decades. The Democrats don't NEED massive numbers of young people to vote (although I think they'll get significantly more youth votes than usual), the Republican party is shedding it's numbers extremely fast, especially among people with a college education. They're approval amoung college educated women has CRATERED. If the Republicans had the coalition they had in 2016, maybe, but that is gone, gone, gone now.
2
I keep seeing articles like this. Look, I'm a Democrat, but I'm telling you, as long as you keep focusing on these social issues the Democrats are going to lose. This is exactly why we have Trump as our President. Because the Democrats won't shut up about whether their candidate is Gay or Black or Trans or Muslim or a lesbian-feminist. WHO CARES?! And if you do care, why? Most Americans aren't that interested. Start focusing on jobs, the economy, homelessness, the widening divide, between rich and poor, the erosion of the middle class, environmental devastation, climate change, affordable education, gun control and a thousands of other issues that almost ALL Americans can relate to. I really don't care what color your skin is, what your ethnic origins are, what your religion is, who you want to have sex with, or whether you're a man, a woman, or someone in between. Can you tackle the important issues facing our country? Stop advertising your personal brand and get on with the job at hand!
207
@Htiek
Exactly! The Boomers will vote to save social security and medicare. The left's insistance that schools have to let students use whatever bathroom they want that week is the reason we have Betsy Debos pushing public funding for private schools. Girls just getting their periods have a right to a little privacy.
We will never achieve our goal, justice that is blind to color and creed, when the first question prosecutors ask is the race of everyone involved.
Black cops shoot black people. Icky men look up cheerleaders' skirts when they prance about. I was a girl in Army basic training in the 80's. My level of sympathy for voluntary sex workers who get treated like whores is very, very limited.
Social security. Medicare. Those are winners.
@Htiek You obviously aren't interested in the platform of these candidates because they ARE ADDRESSING exactly the issues you list. Go to Justice Democrats dot com and learn the facts! Many progressives hate identity politics as much as you.
3
@Htiek I am inclined to agree with most of what you say here, that we are not hearing enough about solutions. But at the same time I believe that people who are gay, feminist, Muslim, dark skinned, etc. have been marginalized politically and economically for many years, and possibly failed to be politically active or even vote because of their place in our society. So some of this emphasis is bringing people out of the shadows and giving them a voice.
For those democrats in more moderate districts, promising to stabilize Social Security, Medicare and healthcare markets while limiting and reducing out of control drug prices would be a great centrist start. The far left shouldn’t get too greedy in districts where the socialist label, unfair or not, creates increased political risk. If successful, those important accomplishments alone would go very far in setting the table for more. You can’t make any progress if you don’t control Congress and most state governments. Grabbing a larger share of rural voters with outright support of local healthcare facilities, airports, broadband and infrastructure wouldn’t be a bad idea either. It’s good for both the party and the country. It’s about time Democrats stopped losing whole districts by only a few hundred rural votes. Find at least a bit of common ground, it’s right there in front of you.
3
I agree with Michelle that the Greens’s position on corporate fundraising is one of the reasons that their self-multiplication has failed up to this moment.
As a long-time member of the Green movement—in the 1980s I started the Queens Green Party with leadership in sustainable aviation in the metro NY area and in producing a monthly public TV program entitled “Ecology in Queens” for about 10 years—I am now engaged as registered Green Party member in North Carolina in platform reform emphasizing funding reforms, monetary transformation, and a beyond Green sustainability strategy and pragmatic program.
I would like to see that all political parties on the national, state and local levels discuss the three-dimensional character of sustainability, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the integrated social and ecological values of the Earth Charter and Pope Francis’ encyclical Laudato Si dealing with taking care of our home.
3
@Frans Verhagen Check out the Justice Democrats and their Green New Deal. I was a Green Party member, but I don't believe they have much of a future in electoral politics. Justice Democrats have been successful at winning elections without taking corporate cash by having armies of volunteers and thousands of small dollar donations.
1
The GOP has a racist Confederate sympathizer running for Senate in VA, a white supremacist running for Congress in NC and a Neo-Nazi running in IL.
Why the media downplays this is beyond me. Are people who advocate for Medicare for All worse than the open racists of the GOP?
187
@Sterling first of all, all these were covered in the media and I have read about them. I feel you want the newspapers to jump on this in the sense of look how bad these Republicans are and make them national cases where they are outliers. Note that the GOP refused to endorse either the neo Nazi or the white supremacist (that is a NC state house seat, of which I would imagine the 10,000 or so state races are not covered either). Both of them are in safe Dem seats anyway and have no chance of winning. The VA governor is a Trumpist and down 20 in the polls. So they have been covered, and do not deserve national coverage and I see your interest as just a gotcha for the GOP rather than being particularly newsworthy.
2
@Sterling
It makes better copy and is more entertaining. Unfortunately.
There is nothing pragmatic about the Left.
To deal with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations, the definition of pragmatic, is diametrically opposed to how the Left operates. Lest we forget.
What silliness. The commies “doubled” their representation in Congress (from 1 to 2), a black guy beat a white guy in a city that’s 90% black, a referendum against something all Democrats are against (right to work) passes, and you say “the left is winning”? See actually, this is why the left is constantly losing. They just can’t see the forest for the trees.
33
@Mike Huh, the Missouri referendum was a state wide vote. Are you saying that only Democrats voted or suggesting that Missouri is a blue state? Could have fooled me!
3
@Mike - What she means is that the Left is deciding that the haters deserve to be beat up, and are in the process of doing that.
1
@rms "Are you saying that only Democrats voted or suggesting that Missouri is a blue state? Could have fooled me!"
Rather than undermining my point, that furor reinforces it.
Who cares as long as they help bring down the criminal cabal now in Washington. As a matter of fact it is refreshing that the usually disorganized do nothings on the left are finding out winning is the name of the game. Bobby Kennedy once commented that there are too many liberals ,"Afraid of Power," and had no use for anyone who would not work their rear end off to win. Ruthless Bobby was in fact the blueprint that Democrats desperately need to restore sanity and end the Alt-Right assault on everything the U.S. is "supposed" to stand for.
74
@Greg Hodges ' As a matter of fact it is refreshing that the usually disorganized do nothings on the left are finding out winning is the name of the game.'
6 races, lost 4 of them.
Not exactly the definition of 'winning'
1
@Shark; Yeah; a district that Trump won by 11% in 2016; was won by less than 1% on Tuesday. Republican for 30 years. Great victory by the Trumpocracy. You guys are real winners.
1
Justice Democrats, Sum of US, Our Revolution—tell Tom Perez to stop purging them from the broken DNC, raided by corporate consultants. Corporate Dems have yet to reach out to this energized base of volunteers and small contributors against corporate donations.
Thank you for mentioning two of these groups.
When the Koch brothers put ten people on a Tea Party bus, every news organization was there. But these extraordinary voices and this talented and dedicated group of candidates and volunteers is left below the radar. Bernie still comes up when you google "Most popular politician in the US," but his air time remains as it always has been—minuscule compared to the lavish coverage of trump.
8
Any Democrat not living in a solidly blue state knows that Democrats in red or purple states do not have the luxury of running many candidates on the "far left" of the political spectrum. We have to coexist with lifelong Republican voters who are only gradually becoming disillusioned with trickle-down economics, as they are just now starting to realize that the guys they think are representing them in Congress really do not give a darn about them and their economic well-being.
We also have to deal with far-right theocrats and ideologues who have a strong, organized base, thanks to mega-churches and their extremist agendas. We must also contend with a strong Republican party, which represents the richest people in the country, who are willing and able to pour fortunes into combating any candidate who threatens their absolute hegemony over the distribution of wealth in this country.
We also have a large, apathetic group of putative Democrats who have essentially slept through the past thirty years. They rarely come out to vote in primaries, having cut themselves off from the "unpleasantness" of politics for so long that they frequently don't even know when an election is coming up. When I'm out canvassing, the most frequent response I hear has nothing to do with Trump or policies or Democrats or Republicans. It's, "Wow, I didn't know that there's an election coming up!" That is frequently followed by, "Why should I bother voting? Nobody ever does anything for me, anyway."
3
Again, Im amused, and bumfuzzled by how so many people cant come to grips with the underlying messages of these "socialists", and others not using the label, who've been presenting such ideas for decades. And get great support for these ideas when presented without all the baggage of "State-socialism", or Soviet, Maoist Communism tagging along for the ride.
People, stop letting fauxFox and Friends from planting their absurd propaganda into your heads. Even if you dont watch, its clear many of you are picking up their propaganda. These candidates are not promoting Soviet era Communism, or Maoist, or Castro era communism.
Come on! Show some ability to discern the huge, gaping differences.
Or! How about you dig deeper into these candidates and their policy ideas? Crazy right? Not going off half-cocked, with too little information and making absurd claims.
Do the work!
7
We definitely need a new paradigm - left, right and center, liberal, conservative have become meaningless terms loaded with the history of the last century and offering little to address 21st century problems. Practical vs. idealogical might be a helpful way to approach a politician's rhetoric.
1
A lot of the comments today seem to be fishing around for a term that is not socialism but is more specific than progressive. Good terminology already exits, waiting to be resurrected - what's wrong with populism and populists?
1
It doesn't seem to me that the goal is to take over the Democratic party so much as to get money out of politics and solve the problems of wealth inequality, access to justice, access to education, and opportunity.
Without that clear focus, Social Democrats will, just as all political groups that have come before, make the quest for power more important than improving the lives of citizens. We can't let that happen.
3
My only wish is all Dems would run on policies that work - there is an excellent list that will profoundly change people’s lives — Medicare for all, gun control, addressing climate change with a carbon tax/density/biking/car-free cities, marijuana legalization, ending mass incarceration, immigration reform. All these can appeal to the voters in the middle and even the right — and Dems can sell them by framing them in terms conservatives care — such as legalization saves money. GOP voters aren’t sympathetic to the moral arguments; but they are open to the fiscal argument. If we speak to them in a way they can hear us— great issues win.
But we lose both elections AND the ability to make change AND the issues when we harp on *politics that feel good* but that aren’t effective policy — and we enrage independents and the right.
There’s such a clear path here... it’s stunning to me we can’t take it. It’s simple: great policy, not politics.
4
This life-long Democratic voter (I've never voted R) wishes that:
a) the Democrats would be the champions of the workers of America: anyone who works for a paycheck and those retired from same. Taxes that hit the poor the hardest, sales, excise, payroll, property, etc., need to be reduced while taxes that don't impact a person's life choices as much (taxes on very high incomes, taxes on wealth including estate taxes) need to be raised. Taxes on investments -- and all income -- should be at the same rates as taxes on wages and salaries.
b) Democrats would be the champions of getting money out of political races. See the book, Republic, Lost for the best ways forward.
c) Democrats would get clear messages on the above and on health care for all: Medicare for All is a start. It's a short, clear message and it takes care of the problem, but see taxes above.
d) Democrats, whenever they have the power in the legislatures and executives, work to incrementally and when possible, faster, work to further a) and c) every chance they get.
4
@Lennerd
Don't forget, as a lifelong Democrat, I vote for corrupt politicians, so long as they claim to serve me. So many New York Democrats have been convicted of crimes, but they were my criminals. Senator Bob Menendez, charged with corruption by the Obama DoJ, acquitted of some charges, censured by the Senate Ethics Committee, but still a Democratic crook. I wonder why nothing changes with all of the Democrats I voted for, then I realized that Democrats are as much into money grubbing and corruption as Republicans.
1
Perhaps the media made too much of the Ocasio-Cortez primary win. Only 13% of the registered Democratic voters in her district bothered to vote. It could be that most of the rest figured the incumbent, Joe Crowley, would easily win so there was no need for them to take the time to vote for him.
Crowley had served in the state legislature from 1987-1998, and has been in Congress ever since. He has become the 4th ranking Democrat in the House. It was natural to assume he would win.
Most of the people who showed up to vote were the ones who bought into Ocasio-Cortez’ platform and identity politics, but they may not represent the district’s electorate. None-the-less, Ocasio-Cortez will win the November election because the district is heavily Democratic. The candidate who wins the Democratic primary also wins the general election.
6
why does the Green Party "not want to raise money"? from our experiences, the progressives tend to be more obsessed with the morality and cleanness than the liberals, let alone conservatives. that attitude has helped the progressives to declare a superior ground as to moral politics, to easily light into the establishment's corruption and immorality. And at the same time, that moral superiority (or must-be-superiority) becomes a sort of containment, making harder to win an electoral seat due to financial problems, and most of all, lower attention from voters.
politics based on morality is sacred and justifiable, but the progressives in the United States may, as do in South Korea, have to ask themselves if the morality itself, morality as a dogmatic ideology, has come to be another restraint on them.
2
The Trump administration has proven that political leaders can delight their base, while antagonizing/ignoring all other political centers of gravity. What does pragmatic even mean anymore?
2
Well said as usual, Michelle. Democrats need to win first and govern second. Governing should be about effecting policy that can be legislated, ideally on a bipartisan basis. We have the impetus, let's take the long view, but let's get started and not be distracted by shiny objects. Our descendents' world is in the balance.
2
...But the democrats are in disarray. Believe it or not the presidential elections are upon us. An election that, while on the one hand can't come soon enough, and on the other, is coming all too soon. Why?
We have no viable candidate to run against Trump. And we still have people like Bernie S and "the Clinton's" and Nancy Pelosi--all of whom have to step aside, retire, or at least remain silent. These people alienate voters.
So who will we put up? A "generic" democrat. That won't work. We need someone at least as radical as Trump. But who is it? The democratic party has no clue. What do we do? I'm depressed...
2
Wesley Bell is a remarkable man. It's well worth your time to listen to his interview with Lawrence O'Donnell. He's thoughtful, articulate and decent.
This new groundswell is the passing of the torch to a younger more vibrant political activist. Comfortable with social media they know how to organize and get their message out. Their message is strong and pro-people, pro-safety net, pro-equality, and not for lobbyists and corporations and greed. Whether it can sustain we'll see but so far it's doing great. Most of all these new candidates are putting hope back into the mix.
Let's hope the Democratic establishment doesn't screw it up like they did in the last election. That cost was way too high. Let them stand back and offer advice from experience then get out of the way.
3
Per Nate Silver's FiveTwentyEight statisticians, Sanders' irresponsible rhetoric caused Hillary's loss in WI, MI and PA. I support most democratic socialist positions but not at the cost of electing a madman man to the presidency.
We would not be facing a tax law that will make most of us serfs, the destruction of an alliance that has kept most of the world peaceful for seventy years or the hastening of the climate change that may end of human life. Hillary would have had at least one, probably two, Supreme Court appointments that McConnell could not steal.
In my experience, few democratic socialists have any knowledge of Hillary's priorities, policies and accomplishments nor of Sanders', for that matter. Like any politician, she has made decisions that frustrated and angered her supporters, including me. But she is a public servant in a way that Sanders' has never been. She understands that many of the 319 million people in the US do not believe as she does. She knows that a president must find a way to connect with them, to bring them over to the right side. In a democracy, compromise is vital to good governance.
Hillary would have made this country and this world a better place for all of us. Instead, a relatively few democratic socialists gave us trump, just as Nader gave us Bush and two endless wars. No matter how laudable their goals, democratic socialists have wrought immediate misery and, possibly, utter destruction on us with their naivete.
3
To all fairness, we had the opportunity to see what she offered and that was more of the same, meaning there would be much improvements. She was against Medicare for all (we are not Switzerland), she cozied up with bankers, she voted for Iraq war, she destroyed Libya. And after she lost, she blamed everybody except herself. So, forgive the lefts who didn't believe that she could deliver better life.
3
Donald Trump's chest thumping is infectious.. the so called pragmatic left barely won one seat so far as I see it right now.
Bummer..
Lets take the roll call after November !
I sincerely hope they really stop internal squabbles and become a force quite like the tea party in GOP!
Till then.. please stop counting the chickens! .
1
Such a pity that these well meaning people insist on calling themselves "socialists." Pragmatist has such a better ring and sounds solidly American. Too many of us still remember that Nazi was the abbreviation (in German) for The National Socialist Party.
1
@Penseur: Yes...I said the exact thing to my husband. Socialist is not a good label. Progressive or even Pragmatist is much better.
It's quite interesting that people like Bernie Sanders and many others who actually care about and are voices for average Americans, working people (95% of us), elderly, children, human right, educational and economic opportunity for all, dealing with the realities of climate change, a healthy environment, peace instead of war, ending subsidies (simply end) for fossil fuels, providing health care for all, ending the incredible corruption in our government, making the transition to the low carbon clean energy economy, holding crooks and corrupt politicians accountable, ending massive hand outs to the wealthy elite (recent tax cuts), and they are pummeled as being .........socialists. It is amazing to see how critical thinking has been wiped clean from so many American minds, how so many people have been dumbed down thru 40 years of constant lies from Fox Fakers and other faux news hacks, and so many right wing politicians who've been purchased by a few wealthy oligarchs. Bernie and others who promote using our resources to improve the well being of all people instead of those with the most money already are subtly vilified for being SOCIALISTS! It's outrageous to slap a false label on people like this knowing it will cast them in a negative light instead of highlighting their voices in the most positive ways because they care about other people, not merely their own political gain. Where is our collective mind these days? Are we really that ignorant as a society?
4
Nonsense. What Ms. Goldberg and, clearly, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez do not understand is the number 235.
It does not matter what kind of Democrats, socialist Democrats, centrist Democrats, blue dog Democrats, organization Democrats -- any kind of Democrats -- it takes to get elected in 235 congressional districts across the nation as long as 235 do.
You have to have that many to win control and to interfere in districts where a center Democrat can win and a farther left Democrat will lost and damage the centrist is downright stupid and also demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of U.S. politics -- of politics. Politics is about one thing: Winning.
You don't win? So you were right and correct? So what? You lost and in the House if you don't get to 235 any way you can with anyone you can, you lost. If you don't take a governor's office, you lost. If you don't get to 51 in the U.S. Senate, you lost.
So please, Ms. Goldberg, wake up and smell the political corpse of rectitude in politics. You want rectitude in December, it will be 235 Democrats voting for a speaker, whoever that is, and taking control of the House on Jan. 4.
And I don't care who the 235 are as long as they get there because the one and only vote they ever cast that ever matters is to organize and control.
Just write about that and stop writing about Democratic rainbow chasing and division.
5
@Carl Zeitz
Dead on.
My stoner Democrat friends keep telling me they can't wait for the Blue Wave happen on election night. They plan to watch it from home, from their couch, high, while all the suckers are out there voting...
1
"Ocasio-Cortez’s...is a charismatic and rousing spokeswoman for her values." Nice choice of adjectives there. Leaves out the most important: tragically ignorant of both basic economics and geopolitics.
7
I just hope that the progressive left has become practical enough to not stay home on election day if their preferred candidate loses in the primary. The Russian bot inspired myths that they bought into last time around helped to bring us to this point.
As for the greenies, I gave up on them after 2000 even though I am a rabid environmentalist.
1
America, in November you have a choice to make; I hope you will vote Democrat, you really do not need more of this:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2018/08/10/ulysses-pennsylvania-sidner-eri...
1
Free stuff and open borders! What could go wrong?
5
The so called "Green Party" has done more indirect damage to this planet and its inhabitants than any other organization in existence with their naive (nihilist?) meddling in U.S. elections.
They are tools of Republican operatives and quite possibly of Russian security services.
Fools.
1
Don't blame Greens for inability of Dems to attract voters. Seems like Dems want to get in power on the back of Greens. And Dems always could vote for Greens denying victory to Trump.
1
@Will. Enjoy living under corporate overlords for the rest of your life, then. The Greens don't get more coverage, and therefore more votes, because they don't raise as much money; they don't raise as much money because they are far less corrupt. If we could get money out of politics once and for all, and afford all parties equal coverage and access to things like public debates, then perhaps third-party candidacies wouldn't seem so nihilist.
1
Trump's a disgrace but I'll take him over socialists.
8
The Bernie and Alex Socialism Show was a hit with the coastal critics, but kind of bombed with the Nielsens.
I think the subscription fee was too high.
3
Democrats in Array. Await that headline.
2
The bellwether race to test Ms. Goldberg's premise is for NY 19 which pits Trump supporter (90% according to fivethityeight.com) and incumbent John Faso against liberal Antonio Del Gado. Del Gado edged out a more moderate Democrat Pat Ryan in the primary.
Don't forget Ilhan Omar from Minneapolis. She is Muslim and a Somali immigrant and running for a House seat from the 5th congressional district.
1
Ms. Goldberg -
Have you been able to find or hear from Tom Perez recently?
Is the DNC active here, or just waiting to determine which way Dems are heading so they can leap to the fore and pretend to lead?
2
More Democrats in Florida voted for Bush than Nader.
The more times you repeat a lie does not make it true.
4
No matter how you slice it republicans are going down. They will spin every little shred of the tea leaves their way but they're merely whistling past the grave yard. They are doomed by the most corrupt and dishonest regime in our history to which they are joined at the hip. They are trying so hard to hide from the truth but the Americans collectively are not as stupid as the republicans wish they were. Their cynical approach to government keeps turning off the very people who once supported them because hypocrisy left out in the sunlight can't scurry under the rocks quickly enough. Its foul order is left behind and prepublicans keep failing the simple smell test. They stink and they're going to feel the door hitting them from behind in large numbers as they're evicted from power. A new day is coming and it won't be too soon.
1
Michelle, I wish you would write about the Koch brothers and their "weaponized" hold on America.
Please consider watching Bill Maher discussing the Koch brothers and their Brett Kavanaugh agenda with Duke University history professor Nancy MacLean. I was scared before...and now, I'm terrified. Watch out America...we are being distracted by trump's tweets while the Koch's hidden agenda is about to ruin us.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bill+maher+interview+nancy+...
5
Michelle, the Democratic Party is very much in disarray, at least as the Jewish block is concerned especially those of us who are supporters of Israel.Liberals have become full fledged Socialists, & are advocates of Hamas & Palestine., or may I be so bold as to say within their ranks are thriving Anti semites, like Keith Ellison.I would rather not cast my vote then vote for these radicals.
5
Opposing illegal settlements in occupied territories is not anti-Semitic. Opposing US military aid going into supporting the extremist policies of Israel’s government is not anti-Semitic. Stop playing victims when you support the aggressors.
4
The green party should go away.
3
The Green Party is really a Republican ally that inserts itself into close races to help elect Republicans. They are also supported by Russian trolls and Putin.
2
@Judy
You don't like Ralph Nader?
1
Yeah, this rhetoric really will bring Greens in the gold of Dem party. The Green were right. Dems do not want them, they only want their votes. Could we blame the Greens for not wanted to be used by Dems?
2
Except that the Greens work against their own goals when they inadvertently get GOP candidates elected. I don't know why this is such a hard concept
The ONLY Democrat to atually win a seat in Congress since Trump outworked Hillary is a man who sounded EXACTLY like Donald Trump. Go there all you wish, Dems, I actually hope that succeeds.
This candidate of our writer's is the ONLY person supported by the Left's fave socialist not to be embarrassed the other evening.
Call that a victory? You've got a solid fifth of the country behind you. You're stuck over there with the ''Hillary's server was legal'' crowd.
2
Wishing for success for your socialist agenda will not translate to success. This country is controlled by the people you condescendingly despise, and Ocasio-Cortez' nonsensical slogans will fail to prevail.
6
Pragmatism is open borders and a $15 minimum wage. Oh boy ...,,
4
An exciting time for liberals! Half loaf Democrats on the run is a beautiful thing.
1
The only way the Democrats can ultimately deafeat the MAGA party is by moving to the left in an uncomprising way, even if it seems unpragmatic to some in the DNC.
1
Nope. I see the democrats as insane anarchists who value illegals over citizens. How can we even have a debate over arresting and deporting people who commit violent crimes? It is lunacy.
4
Main stream press likes to walk the center line, poo poohing gains by radicals of any type. See how right they were on the reptiles from the "right". So here is my number one piece of evidence of why playing to the middle doesn't work, (especially now since no middle exists). 2016, a qualified 3rd way candidate preaching mush, getting along and displaying gaudy credentials loses to a sap whose bests days were left on the Howard Stern Show in the in 90's. Why? He turned out a large contingent of rabid dog, racist Johny and Jill Rebs. This while the 3rd way was looking for their turn again. You want to claim to be an anti abortion, second amendment believing, states rights loving Democrat. Get in a time machine and join George Wallace and Lester Maddox. You would find your party. Or, if no time machine is available, join the Johny Reb rabid dog club.
After Ralph Nader delivered Goofball W. Bush to the White House in 2000, the Green Party withered in pure shame.
2
Cover more of this in the news section then! Because from the coverage of this paper you would think every Democrat is a Sanders clone who can’t do basic math.
1
I think this headline is insulting. The Dems have always been pragmatic and caring. Hillary won the popular vote by a mile. It is not their, "Disarray" that is the problem. It is the depressing number of ignorant,hateful people who vote for trash like Trump.
3
Some excerpts from Jack Minzey Or maybe not. The left attack dogs think some one else wrote them. Of course the don't challenge the work because it's true. Every NYT reader should read it as well if you dare to expose yourself to the truth!
The Mueller investigation is about removing President Trump from office and overturning the results of an election. We all know that. But it's not the first time they've done this. The first time a Republican president was elected this century, they said he didn't really win. The Supreme Court gave him the election. There's a pattered here.
This isn't dissent. It's not disagreement. You can hate the other party. You can think they're the worst thing that ever happened to the country. But then you work harder to win the next election. When you consistently reject the results of elections that you don't win, what you want is a dictatorship.
If the Democrats are in the White House, then the president can do anything. And I mean anything. He can have his own amnesty for illegal aliens. He can fine you for not having health insurance. His power is unlimited. He's a dictator!
But when Republicans get into the White House, suddenly the President can't do anything.
There’s no shooting. At least not unless you count the attempt to kill a bunch of Republicans at a charity baseball game practice. But the Democrats have rejected our system of government.
Follow the leaders: Scandinavia!
42
@frankly 32
Approx. 9 million of each respective highly educated, employed and homogenous Scandinavian nation versus the U.S. 330 million discordant, undereducated and underemployed bloat with high percentages that are 3rd world immigrant and criminal.
@frankly 32
Many Scandinavians are growing disgusted with refugees and asylum seekers. According to a 7/10/17 US News & World Report article titled "Sweden's Debate: How Warmly to Welcome Outsiders",
“ … the Swedish door that has historically swung open wide to accept migrants is swinging back. The flood of immigrants, refugees and asylum-seekers that has streamed into the country in recent years has forced the government to tighten rules governing migration into the country.
The waves of migrants have also stirred a public backlash, one that challenges the country's image and core values of tolerance and openness."
A 9/16 NYT article "I’ve Become a Racist: Migrant Wave Unleashes Danish Tensions Over Identity” wrote, "The center-right government has backed harsh measures targeting migrants, hate speech has spiked, and the anti-immigrant Danish People’s Party is now the second largest in Parliament”.
I doubt Scandinavians would agree with Ocasio-Cortez that an agency like ICE needs to be abolished.
1
@frankly 32 Leaders in what, exactly? Commerce? Promotion of liberty? Nobel prizes? What?
I appreciate that the fine folks in that part of the world are particularly happy in their cozy little government-feathered nests but in order to command the the title of leader one has to, well, lead.
Nothing to see here.. A typical 'Times Pick'.
Candidates like Ocosia- Cortez only look "leftist" because the Democratic Party moved right under Bill Clinton. If FDR had run during the economic crisis of 2008 on a New Deal platform, he would have been vilified as a "Socialist" by the Clintons, Schumer, and Pelosi. Much of what is advocated by Democratic Socialists is really just traditional Democratic policy, and the party establishment's attempt to suppress them only shows how far it has moved away from its roots.
7
I'm skeptical.
Doesn't this ignore the disaffected Republicans?
Stories about the future of the Democratic party are pointing in two directions. Those of the energized fa- left seem driven by anecdote and under supported by facts. That's hardly pragmatism.
Pragmatism involves analyzing hard numbers, and I'm not seeing them here.
I am seeing such umbers in stories that suggest that beating Trump requires appealing to moderates.
2
As a lifelong Democrat approaching 60 who left the party in 2016 to join the Greens, I can vouch for the high likelihood that few of those who voted for Joe Manchik would have voted for the Democrat Danny O'Connor in Ohio-12, for a variety of reasons.
First and foremost, Green candidates, like Bernie Sanders in 2016 and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in 2018, accept no corporate funding, believing it to be a corruption of our democracy. It's one of the primary reasons the party struggles with movement building, but this independence from the money sources that pollute the political process is a firm and unshakeable Green principle.
Democrats on the left are now emulating Greens here, but there will be tremendous pressure on them from within their party to toe the line and make nice with Wall St, Silicon Valley and Hollywood because corporate money has become central to the Democrat's technocratic, professionalistic ethos. When Greens look at Democrats, they see shills in the making, no matter how sweet their rhetoric sounds.
I am not saying all Democrats are corporate shills, but I know many Greens firmly believe that. They will never vote for a Democrat, never mind a Republican.
The ultimate point is, there is a reason to vote Green. Perhaps public financing of elections and major electoral reform (e.g., rank-choice or approval voting) to tilt power back to the people would make the Greens less essential to voters like me.
6
@Christofer Pierson Totally agree! Rank-choice voting would resolve a lot of the unnecessary animosity between Dems and left-leaning third parties, rendering it impossible for Dems to keep slinging Spoiler Mud at Greens while encouraging everyone to start standing up more for Main Street and less for Wall Street/Silicon Valley. It would ultimately benefit both the Dems AND the Greens.
2
I believe the Democratic Party can embrace all of these ideas. It is clear that in some states and districts far left ideas will not fly, but can't all Dems, across the ideological spectrum, work together for the same general goals? I believe we can and, now more than ever, we need to put differences aside and unite.
1
Sorry, but its doubtful whether anyone in the rest of the country cares about an election in New York, or California for that matter. The issue here is democracy, full stop. It is not about left or right. The USA is a deeply conservative country and the left (today as opposed to the 1920s say) is largely reactionary as a result.
The pragmatic left is anything left of the republican right. That's the road democratic have to take. And it is a wide and diverse in terms of policy and ideology.
2
Practical is exactly what the left is in many parts of the country. Higher wages.more educational opportunity, health care for all,sustainable energy growth. These are policy positions that demonstrate moral courage and clarity that help EVERYONE regardless of gender or color.
Democrats embracing these simple tenets of the "promote the general welfare" mandate in the constitution is the winning strategy for elections across the country.
Immigration....abortion....bathrooms.....monuments...these are the issues that defeat us in elections when we allow them to be the focal point rather than economics and the prosperity that we want for working class people. There is nothing fringe or radical about wanting more for working families in every facet of their lives.
3
As am a Pragmatic Centrist I believe everyone should have healthcare and Infrastructure spending is a must. No free college, or job guaranty. Immigration policies need to be fixed. No separation of children from parents and DACA children should be allowed to stay but borders should stay as borders and people should be allowed in based on whether we have a need for high tech or farm workers. Fence NOT needed.
3
This claim sounds awfully similar to the claim made by the administration and the supporters that a strong one quarter GDP number makes a trend.
4
To me its simple. Politics is the art of compromise. If the far left continues to refuse to compromise with the rest of the Democratic Party, the Republicans will control the government for years to come. It was the far left Bernie supporters who gave the election to Trump and the Republicans by their refusal to vote for Clinton and other Democrats.
8
How long have we been hearing about "the Pragmatic Left?" Since Mike Dukakis? How about Adlai Stevenson? We need a PROGRESSIVE Left more than ever. We need a VISIONARY Left to deal with the immense challenges facing this nation and the world. This doesn't disallow pragmatism, but if that's the heart of the Democratic Party's message, it's a losing proposition.
7
Is there a pragmatic left ?
28
@John
If we can "pragmatically" spend billions on forever war, explain to me how it is not "pragmatic" to shift that spending towards Medicare for All, infrastructure upgrades, renewable energy, etc?
3
@John
Yes, he's called Bernie Sanders.
Bernie is loved for his pragmatism and ability to work with everyone but the ideologes like Paul Ryan. When Sanders took over Burlington, VT as mayor it was a mess. When he was ousted by penny-pinching Reagan Republicans the town was running smoothly. After the Republicans botched a couple of winter storms bumper stickers appeared:
"At least the #%#&ing socialist plowed the roads""
3
@John You must be a Republican. Read the article.
And the DNC would also like to thank today’s Republican politicians for completely destroying any notion that they are even remotely capable of actually running the government. It’s not everything, but it sure helps allot.
1
I have met a lot of people who make big bucks and could afford to pay more in taxes without feeling pinched and yet are not for universal healthcare or other humanistic, "socialist" programs that in the long run would benefit society as a whole. For most people, conservatism then is just a political philosophy that one uses to justify one's basic selfishness.
5
Sorry, but August is a long way from November, and a couple of Novembers ago Democrats presumed they had the White House. They were so confident, they sat at home and didn't bother to vote. It's not a "war" within the party that will split it up. It's indifference.
5
Part I
President Donald Trump’s performance will prevent the Democratic Party from fracturing between its pragmatic moderate wing and its activist liberal wing.
It will also prevent the activists from beating the pragmatists in most head to head primary matchups outside of majority-minority districts and statewide, for now, because the pragmatists have understandably prioritized getting rid of Trump and his enabling congressional Republican majority.
However, make no mistake, the energy and the future belong to the activists due to the corporate takeover of our democratic government, a phenomenon I refer to as “Washington, Inc.”
Consider what Washington, Inc, did to two of the most articulate fiscally conservative Republicans in Congress today. (See Part II)
I agree with your take on the diversity within the Democratic Party--except for one thing: The term "socialist" is problematic for many voters since most Americans cannot define what it means. I have a suggestion for a common sense solution arguing that the devil is not only in the detail but also in the name:
http://www.reflectivepundit.com/reflectivepundit/2018/08/warning-to-prog...
1
Michelle, the Clintons do not want to let go of their hold of the democratic party. They and their rich friends want to own the party. Our youth say, no thank you, to these wealthy folks who think they now what is best for the party, which is politics status quo. We are sick and tired of the democratic party owned and sold to the wealthy of the country.
3
Some comments with respect to the prospect or charge of "Democrats in disarray":
1) Again, what Sanders and kin push is not socialism. The label "democratic socialism" is a misnomer and unhelpful. Bernie should have known better. I don't fear the term, but many still do. So, talk policy, not label.
2) That aside, "Democratic socialists", FDR Democrats, liberals, progressives, Dinos, or whatevers should not prematurely fight among themselves, thereby encouraging the greater catastrophe (e.g. chanting Bernieites at the Democratic convention). The enemy is not within the Democratic Party. Internal differences, which are usual, should be taken up later in deference to that greater good of curtailing Trumpism.
3) This means, at least in part, that pragmatism needs to prevail. As a supporter of Bernie, but a pragmatist, I remain more convinced than ever, for example, that Hillary would have been massively preferable to Trump. Indeed, I now take that assessment to be self-evident. It should be a guiding principle in November and beyond.
4) Thus, the paramount and pragmatic necessity is to curtail Trump and friends, restore an effective liberal democracy (e.g. three independent branches of government), and, yes, drain that pathetically corrupt swamp. All else is secondary. The price of failure is not the afterglow of having fought the proverbial good fight. It's Trumpism.
4
Make the Rich even richer OR help everyone else lead a decent life. That’s the choice between Parties. VOTE.
5
The Republicans cling to an old fogey agenda, embracing policies - and not ideas - that date back 40-50 years. They just seem so outdated and square.
Democrats are looking forward 40-50 years, and to what they want our country, our environment, and our climate to be. They want us to be healthier, educated, and invested in things like solid infrastructure, rapid public transportation, and positive international relations.
3
Democrats are rebuilding from the bottom up. We like to have choices and we will all pull together when the choice is made. You can count on that.
1
@Barbara Adams - why do you think Democrats will all pull together? If 2016 is any example, and I believe it is, we will not.
1
Ocasio-Cortez and the Democratic socialists' agenda is just what this country needs right now. And most voters, if they were familiar with their positions, would agree. The only problem, and it's a big one, is that they call themselves socialists. How out of touch does one have to be to think that that label would not put off many voters. Most people do not spend a lot of time researching candidates. The republicans know this and they've become adept at short catchy phrases. Democrats have yet to learn this. Call yourself a socialist in this country and you can say goodbye to many voters who otherwise would support you. Stop it now and start winning! Stop talking to progressives who already get it and start convincing the undecided center. What's wrong with FDR democrat? Your agenda means nothing if you don't win.
1
I don't think this group is likely to implement the ultimate Democratic Socialism ideals - namely the end of free enterprise - for the simple reason I don't think they have the stomach for all the killing and destruction it takes.
After dozens of experiments, in every single case when fully socialist economies get implemented, the killing starts and the copses stack up. Last century in the 10's of millions. Every single time.
No matter how well intentioned it started or how many good and decent people it fooled into supporting it, it always ends the same way.
Now, if someone wants to argue for a social democracy, like in northern Europe, with free enterprise and a wide and deep social net, let's have the debate. There are pro's and cons.
Denmark has an income tax rate around 60% and a sales (VAT) tax around 10%. Interestingly, their business tax was much lower than the US before the Trump tax cut so they obviously believe their private sector needs to be profitable and competative.
4
Yes. But I worry about the Green Party, and others, who are voting 'with their consciences' because a Democratic candidate does not tick every box to get their vote.
Some of those small percentages are going to make the difference between a GOP controlled Congress and toppling Trump.
It's a luxury to split these hairs; and those who can afford to do them are the ones, almost always, who are not particularly affected by these outrageously abusive Trump policies: they're not transgender, or immigrants, or the economically disadvantaged.
Everyone has to grow up, right now. Politics is about compromise. And we are fighting the axis of evil.
2
Absolutely agree with this column. We are witnessing a much needed moral change coming from a fusion of Democratic Socialist candidates running in Democratic Party primaries, and the center of gravity in the Democratic Party is shifting toward, what Michelle rightfully calls a pragmatic Left.
As a former member of the Green Party, I implore Greens to see beyond their myopic solipsism and join with liberals, centrists and Leftists in the Democratic Party until the proto-fascist, criminal cartel Trump administration is gone, along with its enablers in Congress. A unified front against racism, xenophobia, sexism and homophobia is desperately needed. Now is not the time for Green tea, first we need some cool, blue water to put out the fire.
2
We need more, not less, diversity in theoretically representative government: more women, religions, color, sexual orientation! There are enough old, white males, of which I am one!
However, the overwhelmingly important issue for representative government today is representation with character or high personal values: honesty, integrity and the like. We need a government with both a sound head and a incoruptible heart; in a words mature representation of a district or a state, less obsequious in its representation, or synchophantic in its party loyalty.
Men, women, and people of color that have personal courage, integrity and their own vision: the courage to be voted up or down based on what they believe, not on what message they believe will be best received!
3
I doubt that the left wing of the Democratic Party knows what the word “pragmatic” even means. They certainly haven’t the slightest idea of what the word “Socialism” means. If they did, they’d call themselves Social Democrats instead of Democratic Socialists. Maybe then they would have the chance of defeating some more Republicans instead of defeating Democrats (which often seems to be their primary aim.)
3
So Dems need to romance the Independents that they have been insulting since the election, win back the Working Class that they abandoned decades ago, convince "flyover country" that Socialism is now good, and that Gender Neutral bathrooms are the latest rage, all in 4 months for an elections cycle that typically has low voter turn-out?
Sounds pretty pragmatic to me.
5
One Democratic Socialist gets a win, a new prosecutor is chosen in one city, and a state votes to keep unions alive. Out of how many elections and referendums in the country?
These three events somehow mean something significant about the future of the Democratic Party? Wow.
Meanwhile (summarizing Goldberg's article), two far leftists lost, and a Green Party leftist once again created a win for a Republican.
By my count this means one far leftist won and three lost, including one loss that will definitely mean a victory for a Republican.
Yes, Ms. Goldberg, the far left is on a roll. The "Pragmatic Left" (whatever that means) is WINNING!
5
Sorry, Ms. Goldberg, you are still wrong. Centrist Democrats have the best chance to turn the tide in the mid-terms. You grossly overestimate the numbers behind this brand of neo-Democrats you are postulating. They represent mostly young millenials who have poor voter turnout.
5
I assume by "pragmatic," you mean Democratic Socialists are working within the establishment Democratic Party. That's all to the good, given the political structure that rules this country. But what I'd like to see is an end to the two-party system. A few more viable political parties from across the spectrum -- Socialists, Greens, Libertarians, even Communists -- would make for a healthier political culture, if for no other reason than it would force coalition building on politicians who have gotten too used to their corrupt, winner-take-all feather beds.
2
Stop blaming the powerless Green Party...especially if you're trying to get them to vote for your Democratic candidate.
Are you going to ban all parties except the two current parties who hold all national and state offices? Presumably not - so you need another excuse for the Democratic failures you so often blame on the Green Party.
Why isn't it the Democrats' fault that they didn't get every Democrat to vote for the Democratic candidate?
Maybe after you've got all Democrats actually voting for the Democratic Party, you can start blaming fringe parties for not voting Democratic!
2
The choices are stark.
If the Democrats profit from the Trumpuglicans’ overreach and shameless errors, we will confront choices between:
Trumpuglican corruption and the Democratic return to probity.
Trumpublican cruelty and the Democratic quest for empathic concern.
Trumpuglican “reality show” mendacity and a Democratic concern for truth, honest debate, and facts.
Trumpuglican shamelessness and Democratic probity.
The Trumpuglicans’ authoritarian personality cult, with its attendant tribalism, and the Democrats’ respect for universalist norms of justice and equality.
The Trumpuglicans’ focus on narrow self interest and the Democrats’ promotion of general societal wellbeing.
Let us hope the Democrats seize this opportunity to become the reform party and that the vast majority of voters vote their consciences in November, 2018.
3
Get out and vote. Get all your friends and family (the Democrats among them) to vote. Don't be afraid to show your disapproval to the people you know who are sitting around not getting involved and letting US do their share of the work of Democracy. Those people are not just part of the problem they ARE the problem. And sometimes--just sometimes--they need to hear that we know it and don't like them for what they are not doing.
1
Trump has done more for socialism than anyone in America. It's a backlash. I will vote for all democrats in November as a Trump protest. Make no mistake: socialism is a road to ruin. But there is no room for the middle in American politics anymore.
1
I have to hope that the DSA fails spectacularly for the sake of the Rs, the Ds and the country. They are like a political wing of groups like antifa and have the support or at least acquiescence of many on the left and that includes the media, enabling them to be more aggressive, even violent. I have always been positive that our country keeps getting better despite the doomsday prophecies and the partisan left and right attacking each other relentlessly (and any apostate on their own side). But, it is hard to remain positive when you see our two useless parties moving in the directions they are. I saw a Congressional hearing (Strzok was the witness) recently, where both parties behaved so atrociously, you had to wonder where it is heading, if Congress even has a constructive role to play anymore. I hope clearer-headed Ds and Rs both see that the extremes of their parties are not good for anyone. For all his faults, sometimes seeming stupidity, and unlikeable personality, I would prefer even Trump to a group like DSA. Even less intellectual than him (if Ocasio-Cortez is any guide), dedicated to uncivil confrontation and intimidation, utopian remedies and anti-Americanism, they are our next disaster to avoid. Imagine, a party where Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton would be considered on the right. No thanks. Wake up, Ds, before it is too late. People like that turn on their own side in a heartbeat.
6
If that’s the case Trump will win in the end. There is no such thing as a pragmatic ‘left’.
3
Any candidate who supports "statewide universal preschool" is advocating an educational boondoggle which will achieve no lasting educational benefits but will install another permanent constituency of workfare drones.
Headstart can be regarded as the pilot program for this effort to make early childhood education the teacher employment sump of American. Whatever its early pre-school education benefits are, they are dissipated by high school graduation. The only statistically significant different between those once in and those never in the program is a shorter rap sheet.
1
Yes, the left needs to be pragmatic. That Trump loves to lower taxes (for the wealthy) and spend money needs to be addressed. Who is paying for his forays to Bedminster and Mar a Lago, not to mention that few days in Scotland? Is it us? Is it our tax money? Now he is hyper on his "Space Force" and what I see is trillions of dollars flying off to space with this folly that his military advisors don't need or want.
Is he even thinking about the people he is suppose to represent and for whom he agreed to be a good steward? Hardly. Of course, he's bad enough, but, as we hear from Nunes and his ilk, Trump and keeping him in office is priority #1. How sick is that? When will the Republicans put the PEOPLE before the party?
And people are afraid of Democratic Socialism? And some believe that voting Green is a positive statement? I lean Green too, however, when I saw Jill Stein dining with Vladimir Putin - along with Michael Flynn - I shuddered. I'll take some Democratic Socialism any day, especially, if it re-vamps the ACA and gives us Medicare for All.
3
A note for Ms. Goldberg: Election results show a clear pattern.
Democratic Socialists and other left-leaning candidates can win in heavily Democratic Congressional districts. Ocasio-Cortez in New York and Rashida Tlaib in Detroit are prime examples.
They cannot win in more mixed districts with competitive Democratic vs Republican races - Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan being the obvious case.
A local commentator wrote that in rural Michigan she saw many signs for Gretchen Whitmer but “not one for El Sayed”.
As a Democrat, I like it when they introduce their ideas to the broader electorate, but not when they act as “spoilers”.
7
Media, like the stock market, is often behind the eight-ball. By the time they report the news, it's old news. Journalists have had a time keeping up with today's politics, and this "administration," but that is because of preconceived notions, that are usually wrong. The press needs to cover ALL candidates, particularly in the early going, not the ones they have crowned as worthwhile. This country wants the things that progressives are promoting. There is very little, by their assessment, that could be considered "extreme." National unity, education, health care, peace, increased domestic spending, decreased military spending, fair, progressive taxation (NOT on the middle class, as Republicans warn, but on the wealthy,) living wages, money OUT of politics, attention to the environment and clean water, and the *common good.* All of these issues are uppermost in Americans' minds, and none of these are part of Republican policy. Progressive Democrats are the new moderates, the middle, no matter what terrible thing extreme right wing-nuts may say. They are the enemy of the people, not the press.
Democrats have to get over the thinking that being a Socialist Democrat is a bad thing. Americans need to take a reality check. And people who live in poverty and who dream of "making it big" in America and becoming as wealthy as the Republican Party would have them believe also need to get real.
Medicare and Social Security are two extremely popular programs that service the needs of countless millions of elderly Americans. People staunchly opposed to anything "socialistic" become rabid if any politician even suggests that these programs dissolve because they are too expensive.
They are socialist programs! That's not a bad thing.
People in this country need to spend more time reading up on issues that directly affect them and less time on FaceBook. As Ben Franklin once said: "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
3
Last Friday on Real Time with Bill Maher, professor Nancy MacLean of Duke University pointed out-- in terrifying detail-- how the Republicans, with their overwhelming and nearly unassailable control of so many state governments, are poised to convene a constitutional convention at which they will endeavor to transform that historic document from one of "Checks and Balances to one of Locks and Bolts".
Their plan is, among other things, to overturn the 17th amendment and pass the so-called liberty amendments detailed in right-wing radio host Mark Levin's 2013 best seller that no liberals have heard of, 'The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic'. I'm sure this will be facilitated when the liberals gladly rush into such a constitutional convention in their overconfidence that they can "fix" the second amendment while inserting their own corrective amendments designed to shore up the politics of identity that have come to characterize the party to the detriment of tangible controls on the monopolistic powers of the Big Finance, Big Military/Industrial, Big Pharma, Big Tech interests which employ so many of the smug, self-righteous, entitled, yuppy technocrats who seized control of the Democrat party after the debacles of Mondale and Dukakis, lured into bed with focus group methods and the politics of personal aspiration detailed so clearly in British filmmaker Adam Curtis' award-winning 2002 BBC documentary 'The Century of the Self'.
See Sun Tzu, 'The Art of War'
4
The Democratic Party's inspirational sclerosis at its "hang by the fingernails" top is forcing the energy among its younger ranks to seize power from its outdated, immovable, power-obsessed elders in any way it can.
Such generational evolution can be messy, but today's emerging mass of younger voters will never relate positively to gerontocratic Party leaders. Hillary Clinton should know something about this but she probably doesn't.
If this sounds ageist, that's because it is. I know a thing or two about "old."
1
I think Greens, and other liberal-minded voters answered that age-old dilemma; is it better to challenge an institution from the outside, or join and attempt internal change. Denied a place on debate stages, labeled “spoilers” for votes of conscience, overruled by super delegates when a knock on the door was slammed shut- perhaps Senator Clinton’s loss was a wake up call.
And I think you do a great disservice to the Greens, and especially Mr. Nader, by using one....space alien....to define a well-intentioned, environmentally responsible group. When Mr. Nader dies, I hope it won’t take fifty years for .....a newspaper....to record his lasting contributions to law, politics, conscience.
And yes, pragmatism is welcome. As is the Party finally opening it’s door.
3
"Terminally flaky Green Party" is well said and should be remembered that way by anyone voting to save Democracy; the Green party & their "leaders" split the Democratic party with the disastrous results that put that guy in WH in 2016
3
How tiresome all this is. The Republicans flaunt their radical and destructive notions as "conservative". They even wear red hats. Aren't Dems grown up enough to say," yup! and proud of it!" when accused of being:
liberal! (thus, social security),
left! (Medicare and Medicaid),
progressive! (unions and all they've given us),
maybe even the palest pink! (government agencies--however flawed--to ensure that our environment, food, water, medications, working conditions are safe).
I don't agree with all of the politicians in this article, but they offer humane and realistic solutions to American/global problems which are only getting worse. Let's just get 'em elected!
The extremist party currently running our country daily proposes brazen acts of cruelty and destruction IN YOUR NAME. In mine. Turning them out and at least trying to undo the damage they have already caused is (I think) our first priority.
And maybe we should get ourselves some bright hats! Thank you.
7
As a Progressive, I enjoyed the column except for the part where you blame Nader for Bush.
Yes, about 95,000 people voted for Nader in Florida. But Bush got over 300,000 votes in Florida from Registered Democrats!
So why aren't you also blaming those Registered
Democrats? Or, better yet, why aren't you entirely blaming the Democratic Nominee, for flipping so many Registered Democrats? You know who else flipped a lot of Registered Democrats?? Hillary Clinton.
So stop third party voter shaming. It's the candidate's job to get my vote; not my job to give it to him/her.
4
William J. Clinton and Barack H. Obama were both well too the partisan political right of FDR and LBJ as expected but Ike and Nixon as well. There is nothing liberal nor progressive about being "pragmatic" aka corrupt, cruel, cynical, hypocritical and unprincipled. The "pragmatic left" is a deceptive euphemism oxymoron for a right -wing conservative Reagan Republican.
4
I wish the NYT would stop covering elections as nothing more than a horse race and start educating people about how these elections impact people's lives.
How about doing some stories on locales that have a higher minimum wage, accessible health care etc. and contrasting them with locales that don't?
6
For me, a voter for over half a century, the answer has been, and will continue to be, simple. If you're a Democrat you have my vote. If you have the gall to identify as and run on the Republicans party line, don't even think about asking for my support. As of 2016, anyone who dares call themselves a Republican has either my sympathy and my scorn. I did not feel this way until now. Not Nixon, nor Reagan, or the Bushes filled me with such angst. Republicans had the unmitigated gall to nominate a known mentally unstable (no genius) hate monger as their standard bearer. That was the final straw. Their fate is sealed. May they go the way of their predecessors the Whigs. Let US be done with them.
DD
Manhattan
8
Hello Green Party. I’d like to formally invite you to disband and rejoin the Democratic Party. You have been nothing but grief for us and endless joy Retrumplicans. Swing the party left if you like, just don’t kill our chances by equating us with the right. This is the most important election in a long time, let’s not have another purity test.
4
They may not be super heroes, but these wonder-full women are super and they're winning! They've embraced the New Deal legacy of basic human decency and equality in their positions on education (free tuition at taxpayer funded state colleges), health care (expanding Medicare), and wages (a livable minimum wage and a Job Security provision by expanding Social Security). After Trump's attempted repeal and then wounding of Obamacare by removing the individual mandate, his $1.5 trillion tax cut for the rich that led to his abandonment of good paying jobs through a promised $1 trillion infrastructure program, these amazing women are demanding a Re-Deal for working Americans. This should not be a "pragmatic left" v. a greedy right conflict; it should be about basic human decency where everyone from DACA children, farmers and auto workers in the Midwest, those needing health care to survive, and all wanting a good, affordable education for their children can share in "the American dream." Let's hope they keep on "winning"through November and beyond.
2
Interesting, but how do DSA democratic candidates reconcile with the Sanders wing that looks to Scandinavian social democracies as a guiding light ? It seems like a real disconnect.
3
Let's be honest, both parties are big tents. What matters are the directions each of them are generally headed. If you want to move, even in small steps, in a progressive direction, vote for your Democratic candidates, because on average you'll be going in the correct direction. If you want to move in the opposite direction (regressive), do us all a favor and stay home.
3
My faith in the ability of Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot is unbounded. In the Arkansas second district where I live, we have a very live race to replace our Republican congressman. It is the only statewide or congressional race that appears to be competitive for Democrats. Our attractive, young, Democrat is running to the center which is the only hope in this district where 76% of rural voters in the last election voted for Republicans. The ads being run against him are all about Nancy Pelosi, higher taxes and big government--apparently if Pelosi becomes Speaker she can raise taxes all on her own. Democratic candidates will have to pick the approaches that best fit their districts, but it sure would help if Pelosi did not make it so easy for Republicans to make every district a national election. Keeping her in her job because she has earned it is like running Hillary because it was her turn. We know how that worked out.
5
It is important that Democrats accept the winners in every primary wherever the winning candidates may stand on the moderate to far-left chart. Some congressional districts or states are more conservative or more liberal than others. It seems to me that the Democratic Party has done a good job in finding the right candidates for the right places. Win in November first, then get together and sort out differences. Actually the differences are not that great. Mostly they have to do with arguments about incremental vs. immediate action. The goals are the same.
4
Bernie Sanders has been elected to serve in the House and the Senate since 1990. It makes sense that his endorsements, especially after his phenomenal run in 2016. Ocasio-Cortez has won exactly one small primary. Why is she being given so much stock? Let her survive a few terms in the House, assuming she wins her race in the Fall, and let's see if she can get anything done beyond promoting big, expensive ideas with absolutely no plans for how to pay for them.
6
@RE wait, what? Bernie Sanders phenomenal run in 2016? He got whooped. If it wasn't for the harassment by the Bernie Bros at caucuses, he would have lost an embarrassing landslide for Clinton.
Let's not rewrite history.
2
@Joe Sabin - he started with nothing and made himself a viable candidate who gave Hilary a run for it. I don't believe Clinton would have won without the Bernie Bros (I was not a Bernie supporter); my point was simply that Bernie has been involved in actual policy making for many years and I respect his opinion even if I don't always agree with it. Ocasio-Cortez is a completely untested candidate with absolutely no legislative experience.
@RE - (my comment was sent prematurely - meant to say it makes sense that Bernie's endorsements are meaningful)
1
Living wages, affordable healthcare, quality public schools, high quality daycare, affordable post secondary education, environmental protections, a fair tax system, combating income inequality - these are not liberal issues. These issues concern every developed nation in the world. Except, of course, the United States as Trump works day and night to disable everything that once made us great. The days these conservatives pine for had social cohesion, high taxes, and "we're in this together" mentality. Public libraries, public schools, and the military were places where rich, middle class, and poor mingled. Now, the wealthy isolate themselves in gated enclaves while they grind the rest of us into poverty. This is not the America I want. If speaking about these issues is socialism, so be it. But I believe this is what most Americans hunger for and desperately desire, an equitable country where people willing to do an honest day's work can survive with dignity.
6
Medicare for all, but at least, at first, a public option and a plan to insure EVERYONE. Free college tuition at public colleges, but at least AFFORDABLE college for any student who shows promise. Expand Medicare and Social Security, but at least don't let the Koch's destroy them-- make the super-rich pay their fair share of taxes. The right to Unionize to achieve fair wages, benefits and working conditions. On THESE THINGS Democrats, sensible independents, and even many Rebublicans CAN AGREE.
7
That's good to hear, because I've been nauseated by the fear that the DSA will fail to support moderate Democrats who win primary elections, and sit on their hands or throw away their votes in meaningless protest in the general. In other words, that the DSA would become worse-than-useless spoilers like the Greens. The world is suffering now because of that behavior in 1980, 2000, and 2016. Repetition in 2018 and 2020 would be even more harmful.
4
Excellent article, I couldn't agree more. The Democrats have a few healthy primary battles while Republicans flee the party, retire en masse and generally contemplate whether their party can be more than a white nationalist front after the Trump era. Yet somehow, "Democrats in disarray" continues to be the story du jour
4
Pragmatism aside, I think that another important element of the growing left is that they are filling the growing void that the increasingly rabid right opened up as it lurches toward plutocracy.
2
I was a life long Democrat but when I moved to retire, I changed to an Independent. National Democratic leadership is uninspiring and needs to be swept aside. Republicans are abhorrent. So neither party is a comfortable for me. Perhaps some of the newly elected "Democrats" will refresh the scenery and provide true leadership.
BTW - I love my Medicare. I was in healthcare for 40 years and I have the best health insurance I ever. The administrative burdens are low and I am not supporting a insurance company CEO with his/her six houses, three planes, two yachts, etc.
8
Of course you love your Medicare. You are receiving insurance that will cost well in excess of anything you ever paid in. In other words, WELFARE. As someone with a high income who covers my whole family with insurance, I hate your Medicare as I am forced to pay astronomic uncapped taxes to support it. That’s money that should be going to my kids. You’re welcome.
2
@J the J Democratic socialists should have waited until Hillary was in the Oval Office to attack the status quo in the Democratic Party. Neither the growth of their numbers nor a handful of small electoral victories justifies putting trump in the White House.
You might keep most of your Medicare but trump and the GOP tax law will make life otherwise untenable for you. Every other program that makes life in the US better than life in a former Soviet satellite country, will have to be cut to the bone because the very wealthy no longer have to pay their fair share of income taxes.
I don't want to live in the world that a Republican-dominated Congress, Supreme Court and White House has given us but the democratic socialists, under the influence of a man who wanted revenge for his invisibility for nearly every minute of the forty useless years he spent in Congress, decided to paint Hillary as so evil that he convinced tens of thousands of naive voters that it was worth putting an ignorant, mentally unstable man in the White House instead of public servant who would make our lives better, not worse.
I wish that Bernie Sanders had stayed in his tiny state that has fewer people than the mid-sized city that I live in. Enough of his followers voted for trump, another third-party candidate, or stayed home for Hillary to lose WI, MI and PA, thus the presidency.
He has done more harm to this country than can be calculated.
1
The party has a single objective--to win elections. Only after the election does the party infighting begin. That is good and the way things should work. The Democratic Party should seek ways to form a coalition of many groups under a single tent. There should be no single issue that everyone must adhere to. Each group that makes itself part of the coalition must promise to accept the results of the primary election and to work as hard as they can to make the party a winner in the general election. They must bring all of their adherents with them. There is no place in a party for a group which will take their adherents with them to the sidelines if they don't win.
The Republicans are uncomfortable with this activity of a party because the Republicans are not good at running positively on a particular issue. They ARE good at running against things. AND people. They need symbols of the Democratic Party to run against. And they need leaders of the Democratic Party to run against--read Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton. Without those targets, the Republican Party is lost.
5
Americans need a government that helps them, not hurts them. We need:
affordable and available health care
good jobs with fair wages
good roads and public transportation
affordable housing
security in our old age
good public schools which offer many kinds of training
clean water and air
peaceful streets where people respect each other and no one carries guns
We need a government that helps us, not hurts us. We can't afford the Republicans, they are destroying our government's ability to deliver these needed services in order to give our taxes to the rich. Vote Democratic.
8
A pragmatic left would not be championing Medicare for all. It would be focused on making Medicare solvent for current recipients, on making it possible to use the program’s huge purchasing power to drive down costs
A pragmatic left would not be championing free college for all, but instead using the Department of Education’s huge power as the major lender of school loans to create major concessions on college tuitions and other costs, to find lower cost approaches.
The Party keeps playing with grandiose ideas at a time when trust in politicians and in government’s ability to do anything well much less cost effectively. That’s the heart of the left’s problem. The people no longer trust government
Try to fix that as a small step towards your long term goals. Until then baby steps not grand leaps
Or continue to be irrelevant
6
"So it was strange to see headlines in the following days arguing that the left wing of the Democratic Party had hit a wall."
Not so strange at all. The Democratic Party and its allied media have been in desperation mode trying to tamp down the progressive movement within the party ever since Sanders came along.
It's ironic that Bill Clinton popularized the saying that, "insanity is continuing to do what you've always been doing but expecting different results". He was the one who helped set the centrist, "third way" course of the party that has been a complete disaster electorally for the party, culminating in the loss of most state and local power, and the loss of all three branches of the federal government.
Yet the DNC Clintonites continue to profess the wisdom of continuing the third way course, even after losing a presidential contest to the most ridiculous presidential candidate in US history.
The two-party system has given us two parties that are well to the right of the public. Progressives are trying to bring the party back into alignment with the policies that the polls clearly show having majority public support.
Meanwhile, the Clintonite centrists are busy running around telling everybody that those popular policies are too difficult and therefore, not realistic.
What an uplifting message.
8
There is a crucial difference between 2018 House races and the 2020 presidential election: the electorate for House races is small compared to the electorate for president; so while a progressive Democrat may be able to win a House race, in my opinion there is no chance that a progressive candidate can win the presidency in 2020 since such a candidate (e.g., E. Warren, K. Harris, C. Booker, B. Sanders, etc.) does not appeal to the broad spectrum of American voters.
2
@Mathman314 You're simply regurgitating what the corporate-media has been telling you.
Think for yourself: polls show majority support for the progressive agenda of Medicare for all, big money out of politics, increased Social Security benefits, a financial transaction tax, free community college tuition etc.
2
The Green Party should have realized early on and still should grasp that fielding candidates at the national level like Nader for POTUS has not worked to grow the party and if anything has tended to hurt the causes the party supports by siphoning votes away from national Democratic candidates. But that kind of self-awareness would mean that the party's top people would need to redirect most of the party's energy into local races to grow the party from the ground up. And that's not sexy. Instead, almost from its birth here, the party, as far as most American voters have been concerned, tends only to show up during presidential election years, typically heard most often complaining on the evening news about not being invited to various debates, and then goes away for three years.
Part of the systemic problem the Greens have is probably a result of where the party came from. The origins of the US Green Party lie in UK and Germany with their parliamentary systems with several or more viable political parties, rather than just two. In the UK and Germany, quite frequently small parties like the Greens can end up in formal governing coalitions and proving themselves able to govern (or not) as a result because that is how many governments must be formed. Our system doesn't work that way.
3
It is interesting to view this 'trumped up' conflict between left and right in the Democratic Party from an international perspective. Even just across the line in Canada the dominant federal conservative leaning party (the Conservative Party, naturally) is to the LEFT of almost every Democratic politician and candidate in the US.
5
In academia we call this "Concept Stretching". Goldberg's use of 'left' is far too generic. There is a big difference, for example, between a prosecutor fighting for civil rights in Missouri and a candidate who supports abolishing ICE. Each jurisdiction's proclivity towards certain "left" leaning policies also plays a major role. It's not as though more radical left-leaning politicians aren't already in the Democratic Party...And to be frank, "socialists" are quite questionably the "pragmatic left".
4
The 'new left', even if losing for the time being, is a force to reckon with, as it forces the opponent to veer left and at least run on a more populist program that benefits the poor and even the middle class...as opposed to the 'rich and powerful's bastion of privilege.
3
"Left-leaning Democrats" need to ignore the headlines and sound bites that try to convince them they are failures. Look at the size and diversity of the Democratic tent – it’s a testament to both the evolution and the durability of the party. That all the interests contained within that tent must come together is clear – there is still a country that values “we the people,” buried beneath the rubble this Republican Congress and their reprehensible leader continue to pile on us every day. It will require all of us, working together, to dig it out and make it shine again. Republicans in their current iteration think of diversity as divisive; Democrats must continue to assert that the fear of others is not a foundation that can sustain us.
6
We keep hearing that it's not enough for Democrats to be against Trump, and that they also have to be for something. This overlooks the fact that to oppose Trump and the Republicans is to be in favor of a constitutional democracy and the rule of law, and is the one thing that all Democrats must agree on. A party that offers a big tent where both Rashida Tlaib and Conor Lamb can find a place is likely to find success, if not eternal harmony. But opposing Trump and all his enablers in the GOP isn't about politics. It's about fundamental American values.
3
Although I do agree in theory with strategically running pragmatic candidates, it's not so simple. It can backfire, which means pragmatic candidates may not be pragmatic.
Centrist Democrats think of themselves as pragmatic - but are they not enablers?
The choice is between (Julien Benda's words) either serving truth and justice or power and privilege. When you compromise with power and privilege you automatically decrease your capacity for truth and justice (Chris Hedges words).
That's what centrist Democrats have done, they've enabled power and privilege (think Clinton), which brought us to where we are.
I'd run hard-lefties in the most conservative counties. The fireworks would deprogram a few, then a few more. Once people hear Progressive policies, it's hard to resist.
If you ask a Trumpster to describe Progressive policies, you will get alt-right ideas. But if they hear them direct, they will realize that Progressive policies are People policies and that, since they're people, they are also Progressives.
4
Michelle, thank you for this positive interpretation of progressive Democrat politics. I am grateful for the enthusiasm, vision and support progressive Democrats have generated especially with younger voters. At the same time, I have two requests progressive Dems:
1. As Thomas Friedman recently described our political climate, (paraphrase), "the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican". Please do not demonize moderate Democrats. Most of what progressives want are heartily supported by all Dems.
2. Please enthusiastically join the campaigns of chosen Democratic candidates after primaries. I agree for the most part with getting as progressive agenda forward as possible. But if Democrats are not elected, a progressive agenda will be lost.
Onward!
4
@Peggy Schjeldahl: Thank you. You said exactly what I was thinking as I read the article. The "labeling" of "some"Dems as being socialist, or leftist or even progressive is annoying and not helping us, rather dividing us...although, of all the descriptive labels, I prefer Progressive. Basically, Democrats are ALL for the same things, which are stated in many of the comments here.
4
@Peggy Schjeldahl
"Most of what progressives want are heartily supported by all Dems."
I don't understand. So why aren't they Progressives?
Is it due to ossification and cowardice?
What's better to win elections, Progressives going weak with Centrist policies - or Centrists becoming strong to champion Progressive policies?
Let's not expect Progressives to slow down or march backwards, better that Centrists catch up.
The old Democrat party used to be centrist, but is now majority Progressive. It's up to the minority centrists to find their courage and join the party.
3
Peggy,
Agreed.
Addendum, Please do not demonize Liberal, Progressive, socialist Democratic's too. This street runs both ways. The hate, blame, scapegoating for previous elections is ongoing and repeated in every Op-Ed. Despite proofs and examples of exaggerations and miss(purposefully) information.
Two way street Peggy.
Well see how this plays out. Always asking one side to compromise and wait is no longer acceptable.
Another generation is lost and the world is burning.
2
As a woman well past retirement age, I welcome all these new interests into the Democratic party. It is wonderful when we have representatives of all the different kinds of people in the US. The melting pot has made this country what it is and I look forward to the new laws and the new policies they will enact.
5
Man, I so disagree with this. Look at Michigan. The Sanders/Cortez candidate lost the gubernatorial race. That's a statewide opinion. It's leagues more significant than a congressional win in one of the bluest districts in the country. Look at Kansas. The hard left failed to secure a district Clinton carried in 2016. Those are the races that matter, the canaries in the coal mines. Democratic Socialists have expanded their influence within their own party, but that's not how you win generals, and this wave of voting makes plain that they will not be winning any generals.
8
Y.N.,
Then you must also consider, as was stated in the story, AOC 'n Sanders backed long-shot candidates. They weren't expected to win. They didn't have the name recognition not the funding. What they did do is get the ideals out to more people, and move the platforms and conversations Left. Which is sorely needed.
Will they win future elections? Maybe. Who knew of the DSA a few years ago? Who proclaimed MFA would never fly and was unicorn and moonbeams? Yet, here we are now...
3
@Y.N.
"The hard left failed to secure a district Clinton carried in 2016"
The Centrists are dug in deep. The Progressive project will take time. Since Progressives are the future, how can they lose? Only by giving up or giving in, and that will never happen. Please don't expect Rome to be built in a day.
2
Thank you for the detail about the Green Party in Ohio winning 1,129 votes in the special election when Danny O’Connor trails the Republican by 1,564 votes, with provisional ballots pending. I hadn't heard that.
Whatever the final count in Ohio's 12th, the Greens get a second chance in November to help restore balance in Congress. Let's hope they don't squander it.
1
I was also somewhat amused by the characterization of Gretchen Whitmer as an establishment Democrat when she supports all of those liberal and leftist policies Ms. Goldberg described. If that's "establishment" then count me in!
I think that this election cycle shows some willingness on the Left to accept that sometimes a moderate Democrat is the only hope in particular district such as Conor Lamb in PA. But the left side of the party also recognizes a primary challenge opportunity such as with Ms. Ocasio-Cortez who is far more representative of her district's values than her former opponent. Good ol' Howard Dean called this the 50 State Strategy and it works. Tailor your candidates to their districts and compete everywhere on the map.
9
I think most people misunderstand the purpose of the Green Party. The Green Party is not some latent political force simply lacking the correct organization or appeal. Despite four planks, they're effectively a single issue party bringing a hard left slant on everything else. As weird as alien heritage might seem, the "hippies" in the Green Party are a lot easier to understand than Libertarians for example. Libertarians aren't exactly crazy but they do keep strange bedfellows.
Let me boil this down for you. If a Democratic candidate mentions ecology or the environment in a favorable light, the Green Party is effectively diffused. Witness Obama. He used climate change as a major plank in both of his campaigns. No Green Party threat in either race. It's that simple. If a candidate goes to a Midwest state like Ohio and tries to dodge issues like mountaintop removal, you can expect a spoiler. Why Democrats find this concept so hard to comprehend is beyond me.
Suffices to say: Democrats should stop blaming the Green party, or any third party, for their own miscalculations. If you needed their votes, you should have done something to win their votes. End of story.
6
@Andy I take issue with the notion that the Green Party is single-issue. No doubt environmental issues are important, but I voted for Jill Stein against Barack Obama in 2012 because of the Democrats' failure (in my view) to live up to his pre-election "hope and change" rhetoric. I was not alone, though a little closer to alone than I was in 2016, when Hillary Clinton had to be forced left, even just in the noises she was making.
The Green Party has long stood for many of the ideas Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ran on and won with, including the Green New Deal: single-payer healthcare, a livable wage for unskilled workers, student debt forgiveness and free college education, etc. We also stand for electoral and campaign financing reform.
We struggle to win elections, but we are way ahead of the leftist Democrats now threatening to drag their party in our philosophical direction.
1
It is interesting that the term 'family values' seems to have vanished from the Republican vernacular since Trump. That claim's falsehood has now been fully exposed for what it always was. The 'economy' is what Republicans have a reputation for focusing on but what Democrats should do is re-frame this. The focus for Republican has not been on the economy as whole but rather on those elements of it that benefit only the large corporations and wealthiest; certainly not main street or average working families.
Democrats need to re-establish their reputation for supporting 'family economics' meaning those things most important to the 95% of us like less expensive health care, a broader safety net if we lose our job, greater security for our aging parents, and a country that is not structurally built to perpetuate inequality.
7
@JeffB
"Democrats need to re-establish their reputation for supporting 'family economics' meaning those things most important to the 95% of us"
Excellent point. Democrats must also recapture the flag.
So now we know. Losing is winning. Tell the Yankees and Mets.
6
People across the spectrum in the 99% are getting fed up with politics for the benefit of the 1%. Trump's [electoral college] victory shows that if the left does not address the still-growing economic inequality the right will be able to claim to do so. This has happened before in other countries often.
3
Michelle Goldberg lives in an alternate universe. The truth is that Rashida Tlaib was the only candidate endorsed by Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez who won, and she won in a deep, deep blue district where she has no Republican opponent.
There are dozens of Democrats running in red districts, like Anthony Brindisi in New York 22, or Phil Bredesen running for senate in Tennessee. It may come as a shock to Goldberg, but these Democrats represent the future of the party just as much as her vaunted lefties.
All are needed if the Democrats are to win elections and govern effectively. The differences that Goldberg and her fellow pundits like to hype are more stylistic than fundamental, and represent local political conditions.
To win elections and govern effectively Democrats must restore their traditional big tent, and provide cover for many political styles, reflecting the many local constituencies huddled under that tent. Once in power, they can hammer out their differences, as they have in the past, and move the country forward.
"Once in power," that’s the key. Absent that, all discussion is academic. Everyone won’t get everything they want by this approach. It involves compromise. But what's the alternative? All too likely, a slide into permanent Trumputinism.
8
Trump is handing the Democrats their platform on a silver platter---pick any issue---health care, climate change, income inequality, education, the middle east, trade, North Korea etc.---that hasn't been made worse by Trump's bull in the China shop policy moves. As these policies come into full fruition and the Russian investigation tightens the noose around his legal team, the narcissist in Trump will push him into weekly rallies with riffs that will make Alex Jones rants seem rational. There is a sizable group of Trump voters in 2016 who wanted change, but they did not vote for crazy--and that is exactly what they are going to witness in the coming year.
2
Right on! Democratic Socialists are nothing if not pragmatic--Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez exemplies that wise pragmatism, as do Whitmer and so many of the "New Wave" of Democrats and Democratic Socialists. The British SAS have a saying: "Pragmatic is clever and clever is wise." That appears to be the spirit of the Democrats, including these solid, bold and brilliant young lions of the left. Nothing wrong with standing tall for what you believe in when what you believe in is just, right and good. Never a wrong time to fight the good fight. May the wisdom of the New Wave prevail and rock a beautiful blue wave in November. Cheers from Lisbon.
Blue skies and good waves,
Mike Tucker, director, Nomad Counterterrorism and author of FIRST LIGHT, NORTH CHINA BLUES, CHINATOWN and HAWKINS
3
What kind of Democrat do we need? A generic Democrat will do for now. I am a very old man and I remember as I child asking my father as the 1940 election was coming up what was the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. Pop was a practical man and got to the root of things in a few words.
He said: Sometimes, just sometimes the Democrats throw the people a bone with some meat on it; the Republicans - never. In a long life I have seen this to be true. Where they can’t stop progress they slow it down, steal some of the meat, put in onerous conditions and delays or try to let it whither in the vine of inflation.
Now for the first time benefits are being clawed back and gifted to corporations and the rich. Pop was right My first vote was for Adeli Stevenson and I am a lifetime Democrat. What have the Rebublicans ever done for ordinary people? History shows that people do much better when Democrats are in power.
Now at 84 I am worried about losing my SS and Medicare and being impoverished and when my savings are gone I will have to move from my apartment were I have lived for over 50 years. Why? So traitorous Trumpocratic Republicans can stuff their pockets.
As bad as people thought Hillary was think about how our country would be if Russia had not put their guy in office.
627
Mr. Bunin was my mother's neighbor for a very long time. And he and his wife were extremely decent to her (and to me and my brother) the last years of her life. The very idea of him having to move fills me with dread.
8
Sheldon Bunin--Democrats need to stand for something, other than self-enrichment, and old ideas. No fence sitters need apply. That is a formula for back-sliding to any earlier time. There should be a real difference between these self-serving, anti-American, corrupt Republicans. Let's move forward>>>with new ideas, and prosperity, and security, for all, not just a few at the top of the ladder. Let's fill in the chasm, that is income inequality, today. All Americans are entitled to a decent life, and that means shelter, food, security, and health care. There are too many who don't have any of these things.
2
@Sheldon Bunin My Grandfather told me the same thing. I am in my sixties and a grandpa myself. It is a shame every few generations we forget and have to learn all over again.
1
Put big glasses and a lot of white teeth in a flashy smile and all these Progressives look the same. I've seen dozens of candidates this fall with the same smarmy oversized smile as if they went to Smile School. Good for them they have their teeth bleached and they all virtue signaled their eyeglass purchase from Warbey-Parker, but they're still Progressives and their policies are still a disaster for 80% of America who isn't buying Progressive orthodoxy.
4
It looks as though Md. Ocasio-Cortez can claim to be a more successful kingmaker than Donald Trump, who is giving himself total credit for a "win" in a race that hasn't been called yet.
2
I wish I could be as optimistic as you, Michelle. There will always be a group of people in a third party that siphons votes from the Democrats. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson grabbed millions of votes from Clinton, and in my opinion, gave the presidency to trump. Plus, we always seem to find a way to shoot ourselves in the foot by trying to appease every single Democrat in the country.
2
@RJR Dangerous conclusion to draw in an attempt to stamp out 3rd party politics in this country. Shameful really. No one should feel comfortable in a Democratic Party that so brazenly played favorites in 2016 and is essentially a status quo, pro-corporate party after Reagan shoved the Dems to the center in the late 80's. Lets not forget how the biggest enemy to Progressives was the 2016 Democratic Party in how they behaved towards Sanders. If Trump proves anything, its that party affiliation means less and less. particularly for the presidency. Run a competent and likable candidate and maybe you'll win.
1
@OK Josef while I agree with most of your comment I take offense with your characterization that I favor stamping out third parties. I said they will always be with us. But I don’t think they are the panacea you believe they are.
Actually, it has long been apparent to me that the Republican Party is as equally at odds with itself as the Democrats. The winners on the Republican side have been the fanatics and crazies, like the two recently photographed stating they'd rather be Russian than a Democrat. That, increasingly, is the public stance of the Republicans. That stance is opposed by the old Republican establishment, but they have their own form of fanaticism and craziness, like the notion that tax receipts jump immeasurably by the act of cutting taxes. I haven't, personally, much minded the turmoil, but I think Republicans in 2016 matched the arrogance and sense of entitlement that Democrats exhibited in 1980 when Reagan won and set the country on the path to Bush II, then Trump, and now spreading disgust with where those two have taken us. We'll see how it goes -- I'm too old now to see how it all works out -- but I expect a new era of Democratic dominance to begin in 2020 and to continue for more or less 40 years.
1
Thank you NYT and Michelle Goldberg for this article.
It rekindles the galvanizing either/or energy of the 2016 election:
either there's plenty to go around (Bernie Sanders) or
greed rules (Donald Trump).
(HRC is not in this equation. This equation is about energy, not status quo.)
Could it be that we're learning from our mistakes?
Just wondering.
2
The phrase balance between progressive priorities pretty much says it all. There is not one face, one color, one sexual identity or goal that fuels this new fire in the Democratic engine. As it should be! This is the melting pot of the world and we should reflect that and be proud of it and use it to make a better Country of open and inclusive ideas and ideals.
2
The Democrats are still very much in disarray. They are splintered across the special interests of various Identity groups, with some elements expressing open hatred of whites and men. This reality is unlikely to appeal to moderate voters in November, and bodes poorly for any "blue wave."
7
Yes, we are — those of us who like a little, you know, actual progress in our progressivism.
3
The media love false equivalence. That love of false equivalence is the clear basis for the headlines and spin on Fox (Socialist torchbearers flame out in key races, despite blitz by Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez) and yes even in the Times.
The truth is that Republicans have shifted hard right and false equivalence demands the media report that Democrats have shifted hard left. I suppose that's not newsworthy.
5
Compare and contrast with the lock-step mentality on the right that is willingly following Trump over the cliff. Where was all the concern that the right was becoming too extreme?
They are in a demographic death-spiral and are holding on to power through gerrymandering, voting restrictions, the politics of race, and the help of Russia. Let's drop the Democrats in Disarray narrative for a bit and start talking about the GOP death wish.
2
OK... err, but last week I was reading that The Democrats were in total disarray. So now they have their acts together?
2
Dear Michelle,
Thank you for your article. It is refreshing to see reason and decency represented in the editorial pages of the Times again. Your paper has an unbelievable antipathy against Bernie and Democratic Socialism. It showed its hand in the last election that gave us Trump over Hillary so blatantly. I really don’t want to say it but it is quite obvious that it represents corporate interests. Healthcare for all, universal free public education at all levels, 15 dollar minimum wage, taxing speculative financial transactions with dubious economic value for society rather than the arbitrage trader and many such items good for a fair society are paid lip service at best. It is refreshing to hear your voice among those tired voices of Krugman, Bruni and Blow. Thank you again.
4
I'm hoping by "pragmatic" you don't mean: open borders, mass immigration, "free" everything, abolish ice, amnesty for everybody who can get across the border, more identity politics and on and on. That isn't going to fly. If you mean pro labor, pro worker, pro environment, pro responsible, sustainable development, pro American values, jobs and u.s. citizens, you might be on to something.
195
@Al,
The wealth of this nation was built on being PRO something instead of AGAINST everything. Think about that. Democrats are pro-education, pro-environment/sustainable development, pro-family, pro responsible governance. The Republicans have done nothing for thirty years except oppose, obstruct, cut and deny. We certainly need more of the pragmatism offered by the Democrats.
3
@Al
open borders,
mass immigration,
"free" everything,
abolish ice,
amnesty for everybody
identity politics.
These are ALL right wing radio republican scare branding. Name one politician who calls for open boarders or free everything.
The Democrats have always been pro labor, pro worker, pro environment, pro responsible, sustainable development, pro American values, jobs and u.s. citizens but the Republicans are just very good at distracting people from that with their mislabeling and mischaracterization to use fear as the motivator. Almost every Republican ad is either about fear or excluding some people from the rights they enjoy (talk about "identify politics").
@Al careful there. You seem to have internalized a lot of the right's talking points about the democratic party.
I am happy about Ocasio-Cortez’s win and hope that people like her are actually elected throughout our country. However, parading her around the country as a political superstar seems a little infantile. Oh yeah, and premature. One would think she won the Putnam County Spelling Bee or something.
5
@ggallo
Be careful what you wish for. Hope the truth isn't as bad as it looks.
Michelle, we can all bet our money that with the recent surge of all the Democrats, Progressives and Liberals in the recent primaries and special elections,Trump,his lawyers and most of the crooked Republicans like David Nunes et Al, are having sleepless nights dreading about the outcome of their illegitimate president's one and one, face to face interview before the elections which our left parties are sure to swarm no matter what.
With Trump's lead lawyer Rudy Giuliani taking the charge of the terms of the interview with the Special Counsel, a situation which his lawyers know for sure that Trump is surely going to perjure himself after tweeting so many divergent and self-incriminating and 'stabbing of one's own feet' type of scenarios, which makes them rightfully aware that Trump'll be found liable to 'perjury' first, 'obstruction of justice next.
No wonder Rudy is floating the idea that since a prosecutor has to fold up an inquiry before the 'two month period' of a major election, he wants Mr. Mueller to wrap up his inquiry right now without an one and one interview between Trump and the prosecutors.
Republicans in congress like David Nunes also know that Trump will be impeached by a new congress filled with Democrats like a Muslim woman called Rashida Tlaib of Democratic Socialists party of America in Michigan who along with many other minority Democratic men and women like Wesley Bell who won the race for the Prosecutor of St.Louis county which includes Ferguson,Mo.
1
It's not "socialism;" it's not "the pragmatic left;" it's the revival of the New Deal/Great Society Democratic roots demanding a Re-Deal. Issue Number ONE is a Re-Deal on health care with universal publicly-funded, not-for-profit health care after Trump promised a better deal that turned out to be multiple failed attempts to repeal Obamacare and left it battered with no "individual mandate," 13 million tossed off the rolls, and those remaining facing a 20 percent increase in their premiums. Issue Number TWO is education where skyrocketing costs have left many unable to afford the education now necessary for upward social mobility. Democrats are demanding a Re-Deal where state colleges and universities that are taxpayer funded return to their original mandate of being tuition-free. Issue Number THREE is a Re-Deal on the environment that under Trump and his accomplice Scott Pruitt have literally torched it with massive fires burning in California and all around the world. And like Nero, Trump continues to fiddle by proposing lowering the automotive mileage standards of the Obama administration thereby pouring more unnecessary gasoline into an atmosphere already over-taxed with CO2 that is causing the global five-alarm fires. Our very survival not only as a democracy, but as a now endangered species is on the line. A Code Blue has been issued and the voters, as you note, have been rushing to the voting booths the rescue America and the world.
5
Fragmentation has always been a problem for Democrats more than Republicans. Fragmentatation has been a perceived weakness. Where the Republican Party seems united front for their agendas. In order to defeat Republicans right now, they need to turn Fragmentation into an asset. Instead of focusing on what divides the Party, focus on what unites the Party. Instead of Fragmentation, focus on Diversity, in thoughts, words and people. A diverse Party from multiple Districts where all ideas are considered. All are welcome.
2
@Tim Schreier
I wish Trump would work to unite our people and our country. If he continues with his mission of causing division, hopefully it will Unite all Americans regardless of party affiliations.
Nader was not the cause of BUsh's win; it was Al Gore's connections, as VP , to Bill Clinton that caused him to lose. It was also one of the reason's Hillary Clinton lost, in 2016., Bill Clinton has been toxic to Democrats. From the day he entered the campaign, in 1991, to today.
Now, we are seeing Democrats, mostly millennials, overthrowing the Democrat status quo, that has strangled it since 1991. Instead of enlisting the wealthy celebrities, they are getting "pragmatic" candidates who are talking kitchen table issues.
The "disarray" that was described is that the leadership has been seen as nothing more than "Republican light". They were kowtowing to the same interests, as the GOP. And, since the Clinton Era, poverty, wage disparity, unionization, infrastructure, civil rights, etc. has declined. We live in a nation where 1 in 5 live in poverty. A nation where those who worked their whole lives, are filing bankruptcies in record numbers. A nation where health care costs continue to rise rapidly. And, we have millionaire politicians, in both parties, supporting their needs, and not 99% of the population. And, finally, Democrats, like the GOP, have divided the population against itself on wedge issues.
So, it comes to no surprise that we are seeing Bwrnie Sanders' "revolution". finally taking hold. He did not win the election, but he won by energizing a large swath of this country sick of Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump, and party politics business as usual.
4
If the Greens are a spoiler, the Democrats should incorporate their ecology-conscious agenda into its own. And why hasn’t it come out strongly for the planet? Until Schumer and Pelosi abdicate there is no hope for the party.
2
Pragmatic? Isn't that the term that was used to describe Hillary Clinton, and why she beat Bernie Sanders in the primary? It seems that the Democrats, and The Times, argued that Pragmatic was much better than Left. The Democrats themselves said Bernie was too far Left for them in 2016. Is this movement really saying that the Democrats made a big mistake in nominating Hillary instead of Bernie?
6
@Tony. HRC "won" a rigged system. BHO and theDNC conspired to give the nomination to Hillary as she'd been promised in 2008. The clown car of republican candidates was crazy but it was at least an open system. The democrats need to remember they're not so much smarter than all of us that they need to rig the system to give us who they know is the best candidate. That gave us probably the only person on the planet DJT could have beaten.
4
At the congressional level and the local level there is room for a range of view points, especially within the Democratic Party. Ocasio-Cortez's congratulatory message to Davids shows that the party can be kind within its ranks despite different messages or backing different candidates. It is fascinating that Davids won, but not unsurprising given that the 3rd District is in the KC area, where liberal voters exist. The reality is that she has very little chance in the general election. Only a moderate candidate can beat a Repub anywhere in Kansas, even liberal Lawrence.
4
I would love to see a massively Democratic majority that had a conservative and progressive wing. They would work out the compromises necessary to run the country, through a debate that insisted on civility and intellectual honesty while inviting a very small and mainly powerless Republican minority to participate as colleagues in running the legislative branch as a co-equal to the Executive and Judicial Branch. So the elimination of ICE, for example, or Medicare For All could be hashed out into reasonable, workable solutions.
If the Republican Party that remained consisted of single-issue (abortion, more guns,anti-immigration, climate change-denial) representatives along with dead-ender Trumpists, they would remain powerless and marginalized.
If however, the GOP denounced racism and big money (Koch brothers, et. al.) , while insisting on fiscal responsibility, ending government waste, exposing corruption, ending gerrymandering, and increasing voter participation—they would rebuild themselves into a viable option.
Let the Know -Nothing Trumpists form their own third-party, and watch the remaining principled, intellectually honest and incorruptible GOP grow—since it’s inevitable that parties in power make mistakes (see Obam scare website crash) have their own scandals , (see Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner. ).
2
Still not getting it. State legislatures are the key, not Congress. The Democrats are still chasing banners instead of getting down to meat and potato politics. Most Federal institutions have no power over people's daily lives. All they do is throw money around. As long as the GOP controls the statehouses, they will be able to do whatever they want.
6
Our nation is facing an existential danger by the current occupant of the White House and his enablers in the Republican Party, voting for a democrat is not a choice at this point but a self preservation necessity. I say that as a resident of NJ who is significantly conflicted about wether or not to vote for Senator Menendez?. We talked about it a lot within our family and concluded that keeping every senate seat in democrats hands is essential for the ongoing resistance and we have no choice but to vote for someone that should have never been supported by the democratic establishment in NJ and nationally. We feel like hypocrites by doing that but our judgement is that the greater good of the country outweigh the harm caused by re electing one individual.
8
Interesting how the left-leaning mainstream media has spun the recent primaries in which Republican prevailed over their Democrat opponents, as in Ohio and Kansas. I am especially heartened by the fact that the candidates endorsed by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez lost, demonstrating that most Americans do not agree with her message of democratic socialism. Her message may appeal to the 20% in her urban district who turned out to vote, but for the majority of American voters, it falls on deaf ears. Her promise of a free ride is unrealistic because ultimately someone has to pay and the American taxpayer knows that they will be the ones who pay for the socialist's pie-in-the-sky utopian dream. Thank you.
8
Political parties are supposed to represent the people, and as such, to promote solutions to the problems the people face. These days, those problems include massive income inequality, outrageous healthcare costs, debilitating college debt, rising inflation, and longer term, ecological concerns. These are all "kitchen table" issues faced by Americans wherever they live, whatever their faith, and regardless of their demographic profile. The path to victory for either party is to address these issues. Democrats who understand this are winning. Those chasing massive changes in social attitudes and behaviors are not. The formula for a return to power is as simple as that.
6
In 2006, the democrats ran a bunch of centrist candidates for Congress and won big. They expanded in 2008 with more centrists. Then they forced them to walk the plank with a left-wing agenda, which included Obamacare ("You've got to pass it to see what's in it.") The inevitable backlash sent them into the wilderness for a decade.
Should they gain a majority and then force their pragmatists to walk the plank again, they will guarantee control of statehouses for redistricting in 2002, consigning themselves to another decade in the wilderness.
4
What all of these winning candidates do right is to avoid the use of "left-right labels" and address the issues of most concern to the voters. That is the recipe for success. They should talk about how best to provide affordable medical care for all, increases in the minimal wage , paid family leave and retirement benefits, better schools that train our young people for living in today's world etc.
6
I do not understand a lot of these labels? Pragmatic, Radical, Moderate....
What is radical about workers getting living wages, buying their own food and healthcare?
What is radical about people wanting affordable healthcare, affordable education?
What is radical about wanting a functioning infrastructure with good roads and clean water?
It seems that Pragmatic, Moderate Democrats are willing to sell out to the GOP on every one of these things, because Moderate means to compromise with the GOP that wants absolutely none of these things. Moderate means finding the middle between what works in this world and sheer right wing fantasy. If that is Moderate, Practical, then call me a Radical.
5
This i exciting news indeed.
Now if Politico and CNN would look at the reality of what ordinary people want to happen in Congress, stop inferring that these candidates are at best not to be taken seriously, it might be helpful.
These candidates understand what is needed, and urgently so, by ordinary Americans. CNN and Politico did not get it when they kept forecasting that Trump would never get the nomination and then they went further afield predicting that Trump could not possibly win against Clinton.
They should speak to ordinary citizens instead of quoting polls
I think it is called listening to the real voters, not the pundits or the polls. As most people know, the polls are not accurate and 2016 proved that.
1
I don't think the author knows the meaning of "Pragmatic."
That is most certainly not the term I'd use to describe Bernie Sanders style of politician.
12
The wealth of our economy, and its accumulated potential, to which we all have and will continue to contribute .... is not the spoils for the top percentiles of the 'food chain'; the current imbalance is ridiculously out of whack; and, what's worse is that these top-feeders feel entitled and are, especially under the Trump administration, favored by a form of corporate "socialism".
When a form of democratic-socialism is put on the table then that's scary, then that's not what we ( who is 'we' is a significant question) should want in this land of personal responsibility - a term misrepresented, overused and abused; and, in fact, is used by the status quo power structure to avoid responsibility.
Trump espouses that " this stuff happens all the time", "this is the way it's done", reference the behind the scenes (barely it seems) gymnastics the favored classes in the political and business world frolic. The most very recent example, Sec. of Commerce Ross, insider trading investigation.... This 'stuff' does happen all the time, it seems, in the current administration. Why, Trump and his ilk are indignant that people are even sticking their noses in the business of the elite.
Reminds me of a very crooked Milwaukee in the early 1900's... until a string of socialists mayors got elected and cleaned that swamp up.
I like Michelle's point of view on all this; we need to keep this flame alive and let it be a candle for a brighter future!
204
Good point. Corporations are by definition a form of socialism. You're looking at a collective community forming a shared enterprise thereby reducing the risk to any one individual. The community, in this case shareholders, directs the actions of the enterprise. That's the definition of socialism.
The odd thing about corporations though is shareholders want to keep the personal and legal advantages to themselves. You're only in the club if you're in the club so to speak. Republicans are oligopic socialists under the guise of capitalism. How fascinating.
1
@Jack
" When a form of democratic-socialism is put on the table then that's scary, then that's not what we ( who is 'we' is a significant question) should want in this land of personal responsibility - a term misrepresented, overused and abused; and, in fact, is used by the status quo power structure to avoid responsibility."
Canada is. place, and Glass-Steagall was the law of the land until 2000.
There was a financial transactions tax in the USA until the early 1960s.
@Jack
Obama was the one in bed with facebook, google,GE and all the others that had favored government status. Bow to Barry and all you tax issues went away. Don't, and not so much.
I am thankful that Ms. Goldberg has taken the time to shine a light on the 'pragmatic Democrats.'
It has been painfully true that the Democratic party has had a difficult time finding their voice and platform for many years now. But now is the time to turn that weakness inro our greatest strength. The democrats need to continue their effort to nominate the right candidate for the districts they represent. They should feel no need to try and force all of their candidates and constituants to march in lock step as the Republicans have done for decades. While that tactic has worked for Republicans up to this point, it has also hollowed out their party and quite possibly hammered the last nail into its coffin.
The Democrats need to embrace their holistic view of government in order to prevail over the coming months and years, as well as to do the jobs they are running for. The word is Representative. They must represent their districts, counties, states, and country. The Democratic party is currently the only choice where the candidates are willing and able to support candidates that are willing to do just that.
They will assuredly be accused of disagreeing, infighting, and failing to achieve the legislation and goals they have campaigned on. The reality is, that is exactly what happens when you have a representative government. They are supposed to disagree and then work together to find the best solution for everyone they represent.
4
This Democrat doesn't see an easy road for Ocasio-Cortez in November. Though she won her primary against Joe Crowley - whose name will be on the ballot as the candidate of the Working Families Party - a whopping 27,700 or so people - about 13% of registered Democrats -(mostly her base) voted in the primary.
Think the insurgent is a lock? Stay tuned.
2
More and more Americans are realizing that America’s dog-eat-dog capitalism is the cause of its social injustice and cultural decadence. They are becoming aware that the only possible solution to their country’s woes is some kind of socialism.
3
" . . . With 98 percent of precincts reporting as of Wednesday, the State Board of Elections shows 27,826 registered Democrats cast votes in Tuesday’s primary in New York’s 14th District. With 235,745 registered Democrats as of April, according to the BOE, this comes out to a turnout of around 11.8 percent . . . "
" . . . she won handily, by a margin of 57.5 percent to 42.5 percent.
http://www.gothamgazette.com/state/7774-a-closer-look-at-voter-turnout-i...
While not out-of-line with prior elections, the numbers do not show any depth of support for this clown's positions.
"Democrats in disarray” . Hardly. (I hope)
I have no idea if Democratic centrists or Democratic progressives will over perform in November. And I don't care.
I'm probably closer to economic centrists than Democratic Socialists, but if the progressive wing beats Republicans or pulls the conversation to the Left, fine by me. Go get 'em.
I'd rather watch a Conor Lamb and an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez argue over the details on health insurance coverage expansion than the Koch purchased Republicans battle the Zombie Trumpists over the best way to dismantle the safety net while Justice Kavamaugh uses the Divine Right of Kings to justify Trumps immunity to .... everything.
Protest votes or 3rd party votes or staying home is acceptance of the Republican agenda. Vote (D) and sweat the details when the party can actually bring a bll to the floor.
12
I think Ocasio-Cortez should spend more time in NY 14 before her constituents there tire of her rock status and vote for Crowley, who is on the Family Workers Party ballot line.
6
The take home message from the Michigan democratic primary was that while the eventual winner, Gretchen Whitmer, did not tick off all the “perfect” candidate boxes championed by democratic socialists, but that Abdul El-Sayed during his concession speech immediately told his supporters not to leave with an “Abdul or bust” attitude. He told them it was time to work together as Democrats. And he immediately pledged to work with Ms. Whitmer to achieve a success in November.
6
America: please, please don’t be tempted by a third-party candidate in November. They rarely win but often put a dangerous Republican in positions of enormous power. Nader gave us Bush, Stein gave us Trump, Cutler gave us Lepage—three disasters. Vote your party!!!
7
PL,
No, the 7 million Dems that voted for Trump gave you the loss. Not the 1 million Stein voters. Of which not all were or are Dems.
No, the 308,000 Dems in Fla. that voted Bush gave you the loss. Not the 97,000 Nader voters, of which only 1/3 polled as Dem.
Maybe if Democratic's stopped hippie punching and repeating lies, more people would believe them and their staid candidates.
By the by, you want us to vote our party...?
Ind. are the largest and fastest growing party. Want to rethink that? Hmm...I wonder why Ind. are growing and the duopoly is shrinking. Gee...why is that?
2
Hope springs eternal but, no, the Democrats are very much in disarray. When your leading candidates are raging socialists who think Venezuela is something to emulate, you already know you have a losing candidate. The Democrat Party has not been this far in the wilderness in roughly a century given how few statehouses and governor's mansions that they control. Oh yes, the Democrats will gain some seats in November - it usually happens.
Keep pitching 50% tax rates, 'free' college for all and so forth. Most of the red precincts in 2016 will remain red. The real pragmatism resides with people who work for a living.
3
"But I have yet to see any evidence that the Green Party’s habit of running doomed third-party campaigns has ever done anything to further its ostensible values."
Whoa...what? Sorry Michelle, but you will need to take that back. Jill Stein told her followers to vote for Trump. And in case you haven't noticed, Trump is president. So, my take-away is that Trump does represent Green party values...such as they are.
So, what does the Green Party stand for? That the moon is actually made of green cheese? Someone ask Manchik...being descended from space aliens, he should know. And if you're not going to win any actual elections, at least send a message...and the Green Party does...that sanity is not all it's "cracked up" to be.
In the current political climate, this country needs all the adults it can find. They are, unfortunately, in short supply. Most voters simply want to return to their childhood. Ah, nostalgia for a place that where one could fantasize to one's heart's content...while adults did all the dirty work.
Good to hear that the Democratic party is attracting adults to run for office. Whether conservative, liberal, or progressive, they all offer something this country sorely needs...leaders who actually believe in democracy and not Russian fascism tied to voter suppression.
VOTE OUT ALL REPUBLICANS
6
There is one unifying message: to stop and to rid the country of Trump and the likes of McConnell, Ryan, Nunes, the criminal Cabinet and gain the majority in both the Senate and Congress. When they're gone the lunatics at the rallies will crawl back under their rocks.
1
Reading the article gives zero evidence that anything has changed for the better if one calls themselves a Dem.
2
"Pragmatic Left", not bad, a plus for the headline writer, becomes in Swedish "Social Democracy", That is what the Democrats are moving toward providing a 21st Century America.
Would that American environmental groups could become the "Pragmatic Green" instead of the "terminally flaky Green Party".
Case in point. In 2010 Elisabeth Rosenthal reported from Denmark on the success of the renewable energy system that heats Swedish and Danish cities, hypermodern solid-waste incineration. She was wondering why there were no such in America. A Columbia engineering professor told her: American environmental groups are so ill informed (he used a stronger metaphor) that they have made it impossible for New York to try such systems. They continue to succeed to judge from Andrew Cuomo's killing the latest proposal.
My city, Linköping 160,000 inhabitants, is heated almost entirely by solid-waste incineration at the most advanced plant in the world, two great glass houses on E4, 5 km from my home. Designed by Babcock & Wilcox, Denmark. Solid household waste arrives there spotted with green bags containing food waste. They are optically separated from the solid waste to become biogas running city buses.
Never in America? Almost with the exception of West Palm Beach FL with new B & W incinerator, providing electricity equal to consumption by 48,000 homes.
How about it Bill McKibben (in the NYT yesterday), have 350.org tell America.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
6
A 20 trillion dollar economy centrally managed by the likes of people detailed in this article? People will be lined up at Wal-Mart to get their toilet paper allocation. I'm sorry not Walmart. I mean the local People's Revolutionary Distribution Center.
3
"Her primary victory was thrilling and hard-earned...??"
These pundits really do have too much free time on their hands.
The turn-out was around 12% of registered Democrats and she was running against someone who didn't bother campaigning.
LOL!!!!!!
7
Will Rogers when asked if he belonged to any organized political party said, "no, I am a Democrat." Being disorganized is a hallmark of the Democrats. What is bringing Democrats together is a common disdain for Donald Trump and the Republican party.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Republicans are very adept at wordsmithing. The Republicans call America's social safety net "socialism." Yet they refuse to call their racist and authoritarian views "fascism."
5
We shouldn't get all wound up about what the media has to say what happened to the left wing of the Dems on any given Tuesday election. Ocasio-Cortez is a great addition to the party, as is Rashida Tlaib, as is Wesley Bell, as is Gretchen Whitmer, as is...., as is....
The Democrats are firing on all cylinders right now. We have candidates from the middle to far left. That's great, because they match up well with their constituents.
Just keep up the pace and the House will swing back to the Democrats and maybe the Senate.
2
A BRIBE scenario explains Trump’s unprecedented attacks on the free press (250 tweets), the F.B.I (investigates federal bribes) , the U. S. Department of Justice (prosecutes federal corruption) and the C.I.A. (charged with protecting us from foreign threats). It also explains his desire for a one on one meeting with Putin. Trump has been unable to lift the sanctions on Russia and needed a secret meeting to try to re-negotiate the BRIBE. He failed and needs to meet Putin again. See trumpbribe.com
Reagan made The Left ashamed to be The Left. So for years The Left moved Right to prove it could be just as Macho as The Right. Now under Trump The Right has shown they lack any Machismo and that all of their past was Fake Bravodo.Trump has given The True Left a chance to really stop being ashamed of being called Liberal.
2
Hooray!! Lets keep it going!
2
Right, just like Hillary Clinton won by 90%.
1
Voting democratic could be our only salvation:
Please consider watching Bill Maher discussing the Koch brothers and their Brett Kavanaugh agenda with Duke University history professor Nancy MacLean. I was scared before...and now, I'm terrified. Watch out America...we are being distracted by trump's tweets while the Koch's hidden agenda is about to ruin us.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bill+maher+interview+nancy+...
6
@Nancie: I saw that discussion & it chilled me to the bone. I have just ordered Professor MacLean's book, "Democracy in Chains". The Dems have got to quit labeling each other (I'm talking to YOU, too, Ms. Goldberg), get together for our historically progressive values and win seats (instead of infighting)...particularly Senatorial seats or we will no longer have the choice to vote for senators (they will be chosen) and we will eventually have 12 dictatorial conservative supreme court justices.
Ms. Goldberg -
Have you found or been able to speak with Tom Perez recently? Is he part of any of this, or just trying to figure out where the Dems are heading so that DNC can hop to the fore and pretend to lead?
2
The Democrats ARE in disarray no matter what Goldberg and her ilk keep insisting because most of them have not figured out the winning formula yet:
Pragmatism == Progressivism == Losing Strategy
Innovation == Democratic Socialism == Huge Victory
In football terms, pragmatists are content to grind out 3 yards at a time eating up the clock. Innovators want to throw the ball down field gaining 20 yards at at time only taking a few seconds off of the clock each time we pass.
Pragmatists do not realize it is the 4th quarter, that time is running out and that our backs are against our own goal line. Innovators know the situation is dire but we want to keep pushing the ball down field because we need to score quickly and often.
Pragmatists are good sports who do not really want to win because they consider losing a moral victory. Innovators want to win because losing hurts and we are tired of losing.
Pragmatists are afraid to call themselves liberals because to them liberalism is a scary word so they are content to call themselves progressives. Innovators do not call themselves liberals because liberalism is weak tea compared to full-strength democratic socialism.
Think about it:
Progressivism == Teddy Roosevelt
Democratic Socialism == Franklin D Roosevelt
They say a picture says a 1,000 words, here are 2,000 words:
Pragmatic:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DeDBEI-UQAAb2g-.jpg
Innovative:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdD-GoHU8AAQFft.jpg
I for one am tired of losing.
1
Isn’t ‘pragmatic left’ an oxymoron?
2
the last time i witnessed cherry picking on this scale was when the editorial board wrote recently of how bad the economy is.
2
Ms. Goldberg, you seem to be the lone voice in this paper who sees the current raging left. Everyone else, Frank Bruni for example, are still timorous quislings for the Third Way. I don't know how the editor's "wishes" percolate down to the op-ed staff, but it's clear that the powers that be at the Times are still rooting for the crippled "incrementalism" that gave us candidate Clinton. The supposedly liberal, but class-conscious publishers are as cozy with their wealthy cronies as the anyone in the GOP and so blinded by their desire to hold on to every dime, I think their delusional polling still has Clinton at about 65% for 2016!
Right now, I'd love to be a fly on the wall in Schumer's or Pelosi's office as their phones rings off the hook and they assure mega-donors their money is still safe with the Democrats.
3
Hey Michelle,
How is destroying the ecosystem on which life depends "pragmatic"?
1
Elections are what make America the great country of diversity it is. The Democrats are leaderless and have no real message.
Time will tell, who will win the House, going to be interesting and fun
1
"Pragmatic Left" is an oxymoron that is unintentionally rather humorous.
1
"So it was strange to see headlines in the following days arguing that the left wing of the Democratic Party had hit a wall."
Strange, and sad, that The Paper of Record was among those news outlets blaring such headlines.
4
As long as the number of "never ___-Socialist" voters in the country is high (I'm guessing that it's over 40% of the voters in most general elections), it seems frankly idiotic for any politicians to associate themselves with that term, especially since democratic socialists *don't* generally want to nationalize industries (except possibly healthcare).
1
An historic Blue Wave that retakes Congress is our civic & moral responsibility. We must awaken independents, & Dems across the spectrum to vote Blue.
Mr. Emoluments has franchised grifting internationally. Collins, Kobach, Nunes, Manafort, Price, & the former Republican party are the parts of his many racketeer influenced corrupt organizations (RICO).
Nunes, in secret recording, admits to donors that the purpose of keeping Republicans in power is to shut down the Russian investigations. Republican plea to the base: Elect more grifters & racketeers to Congress. MAGA?
2
The so-called Pragmatic Left or Democratic Socialists foretell the continued decline of Democratic Liberties. For one, the Left's intolerance of the other opinions. For the other, their drive to legalize cannabis is a plan to convert the people to lotus eaters with neither a backbone, nor free will, who will daydreamingly follow the dictates of the Left.
I feel like a fellow passenger destined to be ejected on the next turn. The lefter wing is leaving moderates behind and poses an interesting strategy of devision by diversion.
1
The MSM, driven by the Establishment in both parties are desperate to slow the momentum triggered by Sanders and carried forward by Ocasio-Cortez and others. They seek to pigeonhole them into "lefty loonies" so they can be dismissed, but the funny thing is, instead of being dismissed, they're multiplying!
And it's not these individual candidates who are fueling the fire, they're just the beneficiaries of the long-smoldering dissatisfaction with the Status Quo that has erupted into open flame. Each of the winners noted here, and others who have come close in losing, have different platforms and agendas - it's almost a smorgasbord of ideas from many different spectrums - but what they share in common is that they are listening and responding to their supporters. Unlike the DNC who seem only to listen to the donor class. These candidates and their voters can't be pigeonholed, nor dismissed, and that's going to fuel a sea change. the People WILL be heard, one way or another.
1
This article and this author are part of the problem. There should be no talk of winning between Democrats. The party should have a single goal: defeating Trump.
Once that goal is achieved, we can argue about everything else. Until then, the party is utterly and completely powerless. Discussion of other issues is a waste of time, pure and simple.
1
There's nothing pragmatic about using the word "socialism" in 2018, even if you put the word "Democratic" in front of it. The word carries too much baggage. It's time to resign it to academia. "Progressive" is fast being dragged down along with it. Time for a revolution in left-wing language. Otherwise, it's just too easy to stereotype and vilify the party of ideas.
@Mford
Yes it's the word that is the problem, not the policy.
Call it Puppies and Rainbows.
2
Granted there is an increase in progressives, especially women, in the 2018 elections, but I have seen scant or no mention of Pramila Jayapal, Seattle's (7th WA Dist.) rep, elected ion 2016 as perhaps an ultra-progressive. She just garnered over 50% of the vote in out top-two type primary.
I am a Canadian and we have three parties that may be asked to form a government. We have a conservative party, we have a liberal party and we have a democratic socialist party. Our conservatives have a left center and right. Our liberals have a left center and right and our democratic socialists have a left center and right yet somehow our government functions.
You have one functioning political party the Democrats and a cult that smaller government and low taxes is the cure for all political, economic and social problems.
Government works only when problems are open to discussion and debate.
I am sure there are millions of Americans like myself who believe that higher taxes and more government oversight can solve many of America's problems.
There is nobody to talk to whether you believe a strong social safety net to reach the point the cost benefits exceed the initial cost. Until the cult of one size fits all reaches the point where it no longer dominates the political discourse America will never again be great and it might indeed disappear. It is time for Americans who still think change or destroy a party that has lost its reason. Good government is not reflexive it is listening and considering.
1
Funny how the article fails to mention the singular reason for the surge in actual left-wing politics: the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders. Without Bernie’s incredible run lefties like myself would have gone on thinking hat we were alone, that we were fringe, that the US would never even listen to our ideas. Of course, in reality this was just propaganda promoted by the elite and their establishment mouthpieces.
After Bernie’s campaign gained momentum, however, and we started filling stadiums across the country it became clear just how many fellow travellers we had. The feeling was, and remains, downright intoxicating. The Political Revolution is ongoing. It was never just about the presidency....it was about changing the political and cultural landscape of America.
I hope you’re ready!
See today's WaPo for a review of Ms. Cortez' recent statements. Full of lies. The others mentioned in this editorial do not bode well for mainstream Dems either.
Elevating identity politics does not help this country in November.
2
Financial insecurity is the dominant concern of the majority of American voters today. The Republicans have staked out a position that appeals to a certain segment of white voters. It claims that the root causes of financial insecurity are (1) the government hurting the economy by spending, taxing, and regulating and (2) minorities, immigrants, and foreigners taking (with the aid of the government) jobs and money from "hard-working" Americans.
The Democrats have long had no opposing view to this Republican view. Instead, they've tried to adopt the Republican lower tax, lower spending position and just soften its rough and racist or xenophobic edges. Essentially, they've been saying the Republicans are right, just too extreme.
Now, finally, the more left-leaning Democrats are waking up to the fact that there is a counter argument to the Republican position—and one that is both compelling and sensible. The solution to Americans' financial insecurity is a more progressive tax system that transfers more wealth from the rich to the poor and middle class through a well-designed and comprehensive social safety net. Some Democrats are terrified of this idea, thinking the GOP low tax position is still more popular. However, as Democratic Socialists start to win more, we are learning that the idea of a strong social safety net has fairly broad appeal. The Democrats, long followers of the GOP trend setters, now have the opportunity to become leaders. Let's hope they seize it.
273
@617to416 I agree with most of what you are saying, especially your comments about the Democrats being perceived as Republican lite. However, I think that most people would agree with me that the best way to solve our problems is for the economy to thrive. In my view, the biggest problem we have is crony capitalism. The economy is rigged for those already rich and the corporations already there. Any first year economics student knows that capitalism works best when no participant has undue market power. The most important role of the government should be to ensure that competition thrives. No player should be able to control outcomes. We used to understand that. Back in the early twentieth century the government took more steps to promote fairness and competition. This is not to say that we should not have a strong safety net. But it is the entrenched interests that are so powerfully aligned against this and pretty much all forms of social justice that threaten their influence. Without a strong economy nothing else is possible. We need to focus on the lack of fairness and show that this is the real impediment to growth and equitable outcomes.
1
@617to416 Please read the op-ed in today's WSJ by Phil Gramm and a co-author, who report that the US tax code is more progressive than the tax system in the UK, Australia, Japan, Canada, France and Germany. If the data is correct, the call by this commenter that the US needs a more progressive tax system perpetuates a myth that is a common refrain of those on the left.
@617to416
Democratic socialist are losing in nearly every primary and election that wasn't already 99% Democrat.
“Free” is not a winning word, nor is it good governance.
3
One of the greatest movies ever "The Best Years of our Lives" depicts three veterans from the same town; a bank VP, a disabled young man, and a soda jerk in a drugstore. The differences between the three are largely social, not economic. Even the bank VP lives in a modest home and shared hardships bring the three men together. Such a movie could not be made today. A bank VP would never go to war but would make millions from it; a disabled vet would be cast aside, and a working man would live in poverty. Welcome to 2018 and the final death of the "American Century"
This column was even more invigorating than the news earlier today of Chris Collins's having to face the reality that the law DOES apply to him.
More and more it becomes clear that because - literally - millions of Americans have decided to become active in elective politics for the first time in their lives, 11-6-18 WILL be a day of jubilation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB6r86CoFbc
1
And let's not forget Sarah Smith, in Washington's 9th District, who as of this writing seems to be on the ballot in November! Like AOC she's fought against overwhelming Establishment pressure to get this far.
Be realistic. Demand the impossible.
1
Ms. Goldberg...
Your case that the progressive wing of the party is successful is spin in itself.
Whether you like the Clintons or not--they were right: all politics is local....please put Conor Lamb and Doug Jones in this space.
Ms. Cortes and Ms Talib will win because they are in districts that support their positions.
All the things that the party supports will not mean a thing unless we take back the majority---it is simple as that. Policy without power is no policy at all.
I worked for McCarthy and McGovern and got Nixon, Reagan and two Bushes. Our party wins when we run from the middle....the Clintons and Obama knew it and acted on it....I hope our party embraces it going forward.
3
“Democrats in disarray” is a take that writes itself, but not every disagreement is a war.
Thank you for this. The need for some political pundits to manufacture drama is perverse and usually self-serving (garners eyeballs, clicks, and attention). It is nice to see a sane assessment of what is happening on the ground.
It's shaping up to be a great fall for Democrats.
But not so much for the Republican Party:
1. Russian conspiracy woes
2. Trump conspiracy, obstruction, and tax fraud woes
3. Legal woes of Trump Jr, Cohen, Collins, etc., etc., etc.
4. Looming end to Paul Ryan's dismal Speakership
5. MASSIVE DEFEATS AT THE POLLS
Oh, how glad I am that I'm not a Republican. Then again, I never could be. I have a conscience....
8
Don't show sympathy to the voters who say they've been forgotten. It's a ruse. When you're done reading the NYT today, look at some of the alt-right (yes, there still is an alt-right) web sites, their YouTube videos, and their comments. Several months ago the far right became crazy about business dealings between the NRA and Yeti, a manufacturer of expensive coolers. They posted videos of themselves shooting holes through their $400 coolers, swearing to never buy another Yeti product. Exactly how "forgotten" are they if they're buying $400 coolers? Yes, there are far to many Americans who are suffering, but they are not the people creating the narratives that are so popular in the non-MSM media outlets. It only takes a small amount of research to discover this, and Democrats should challenge these narratives with the concrete examples that the far right has inadvertently provided to the public.
2
Yes! Democratic Socialism will be a big big winner in the midwest and Swing States that decide elections. Dems need to go all in on this important issue. Let us know how to help and where we can contribute!
Sincerely, the GOP
2
The author mentions the Green Party. Let us not forget that liberal votes siphoned off by the Green Party elected both George W Bush and Donald Trump.
3
So socialism is now pragmatic?
The mid terms are going to be a disaster.
2
How would you like to be a Democratic Party candidate that could
win?
"Hillary lost Arizona by only about 3%..."
There are die-hard Democratic leaders who insist on throwing limited campaign funds into races in places like Kansas, Georgia and Arizona, apparently for the symbolic value of a respectable showing. How about devoting limited financial resources to races in OTHER states -- you know, where the Democratic candidate actually could win?
2
"...Tlaib’s victory doubles the D.S.A.’s likely representation in Congress". This cheerful blather is why math and science classes should be required even for English majors. Going from one out of 535 to two out of 535 might be 'doubling', but is more like going from almost nothing to nearly almost nothing.
1
"Likely representation of Democratic Socialists in congress will double". From what? one to two? Come on.
and another thing. Drop the name unless you really want to nationalize Apple and Amazon. It's always been known as social democracy. Socialism is completely different.
2
Nomenclature counts. Words count.
Just as Conservatives branded "Liberal" as a synonym for "flake" or even "unpatriotic," "un-American," Conservatives have turned the term "Left" into a pejorative. "Lefty" is their dismissive slang for socialist pig or commie (quite ironic given their leader's obsequiousness to Putin).
The term "Left" has also been misused in public and political discourse as meaning"too far to the left," "out of the mainstream," "out in left field" (which carries its own negative connotations).
So ask yourself, What does "Left" really mean, what does it stand for?
The answer is The People. "Left" is a term that describes sociopolitical beliefs and policies which support The People. Leaning left is putting more value on the needs of The People. Identifying as "Left" is to value The People's welfare over corporate "people's" profits, to value the pursuit of happiness by The People over the pursuit of power by political parties, organizations, or personalities.
So, Bernie Sanders is a strong voice of The People, a People-ist, as is Ocasio-Cortez and a growing number of others.
Who are The People? Living, breathing Americans. An inclusive family made up of diverse individuals, E Pluribus Unum.
And what do The People want? The American dream. A flat playing field which provides a fair opportunity for ALL Americans. A government that values and puts The People ahead of individual privilege and profiteering.
Leaning Left is leaning towards The People.
4
Media outlets made AOC into a powerful star out to change the entire political landscape and now need to chop their creation down to size. Typical of them. The Democratic Party is doing fine - in fact, since the corrupt Trump regime took power more people than ever are energized to throw the bums out.
Let's hope the "pragmatic" "left" doesn't do its traditional thing and veer off into Rockefeller Republicanism at the first flash of bankers' money, which has been the Democratic Party's practice in the last 40 years.
The planet warms to untenable levels. We suffer. We all suffer. And, it will get much worse.
The Republicans are criminals to keep denying this and keeping us from addressing it as best we can.
The people move into a deeper plutocracy, a new plantation, with the old monied pirates and the new tech/financial billionaires. Hedge funds, private equity, high frequency trading: this game is rigged. The stock market is the playground of the top 10%, the rest of us, just puppets.
And so, 'pragmatic'. I like Goldberg, she's so much more truthful and realistic than most columnists. We need more like her. But, we are much sicker than this column lets on.
November comes soon. Our madman, narcissistic, greedy, lying, name-calling, petty, draft-dodging, wife-cheating, traitorous, spoiled child President tweets on. He's on fire. But the fire is actually burning him down. Think, McCarthy at the end. This President is flaming-out. Hallelujah.
Democrats, we have no time to rejoice: far too many real things to deal with. Help the hungry, the homeless, the ghetto. Help those without, and yes, tax those with so much. We need a wealth tax; for the billionaires have taken advantage of US and all we've done through the centuries, including all the wars and all the work. Don't kid yourselves; we require the 'more perfect union'. We deserve that. That is why we're here. Not for money or property or advantage: we are here for each other.
2
Democrats generally are not flaming radicals so of course they have a quieter vision of political thought which does not scream stridently and fan the flames for anything. If Trump has not increased the public appetite for sanity,coolness and considered thought, nothing will.
2
"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."
--Will Rogers.
6
I like the phrase "pragmatic left". Pragmatic is a word the left needs to embody more than in the past if America is to clime out from under the horror of Trumpism. The presidency of this deranged conman presents a clear and present danger to the nation and the planet. This is an emergency situation for the survival of democracy, and the very survival of the human species itself.
3
From the castle keeps in which they look out upon and survey their lands, those who would lord over us may see a great vista while being unable to see those who gather one-by-one in ever increasing numbers around the moats.
We are sharpening our pitchforks. We are lighting our torches. We are coming for you and will pick you off as you raise the portcullises and venture out into the world you believe you own.
It is the people no one imagines anything of who can do what no one can imagine.
4
What a strawmen parade.
It is infuriating that someone is always being slick and dishonest so that when Trump talks about fake news he has plenty of ammunition.
Water finds its own level.
1
Democrats are intent upon snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in November.
Republicans have successfully made “Liberal” the word which must not be spoken.
Now the Ultraliberals think that they are being pragmatic by calling themselves “Socialists”? This is the kiss of death in America.
As a life long FDR/JFK I Democrat I am convinced that a strongly regulated capitalist economic system will bring the greatest good for the greatest number.
Bernie was right to focus on the economic inequalities of Wall Street Reaganomics and to stay away from extreme social issues like gun control and BLM.
Bernie would be President today if he had not identified as a socialist in his early political life.
1
Michelle, in November the voters of the left coast state of Oregon will decide whether to continue with their sanctuary state status. If the liberal position loses, then it will be time to rethink the whole open borders approach to immigration. I am a Democrat. However, I am getting tired of being nailed to the cross for the sake of causes that lack the support of the majority of Americans.
You need our permission. "Permisos!" "Permisos!" Can't you see how this issue is tearing our country apart?
"Pragmatic left?" What, exactly, does that mean?
Does one emphasize "pragmatic" and think of Conor Lamb, or does one emphasize "left" and think of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes? Or does one simply throw up his hands and confess that he has no clue what this apparent oxymoron actually means?
1
What Democrats want is so very simple.
We want the House and hopefully the Senate.
And we want good people in both.
Which means we want Republicans out.
I hope that soon they will be as obsolete as they are corrupt.
Right now, that's everything.
We can fine tune later, and I'm sure we will.
8
Sorry Michelle but Bernie is not a democrat . The so called DSA didn't exactly lose but they didn't exactly win either . Comparing them to the Green party which has always been the choice of disgruntled Democrats (and the fact they never win anything ) that serve to insure Republicans win when they vote green . Saw Ocasio-Cortez amateurish speech while stumping for the losees , jumping up and down like a teenage girl to stress her point .The DSA will keep existing like the greenies and split votes insuring the Republicans win . Don't think the DSA has exactly caught fire the way they need to .
4
Glad you think so Michelle.
As a 40 year voting democrat i, for the first time,
Will be voting 3rd party or write in if Dems put up
Bernie, Warren or anyone of that stripe.
I am not alone in that regard
2
When there's nothing left but straws, you grab them.
The establishment, Hillary and her various backers, and the DNC, destroyed the party. Those of us who abstained or voted elsewhere were far more than enough to have overwhelmed Trump, but we could not honestly vote for the dishonest.
Bernie Sanders and Warren's sellout to the dishonest and hysterical in the hopes of promoting their own political game has tainted them even as their candidates have won the few wins on which you think the world will change. That is not "pragmatism".
Yes, a Democrat majority in the House would slow the neofascist machine, but the DNC is still controlled by Hillary's Republicanized Establishment. They're in it for the money and in DC money rules. Their "special" interest, billionaire backers have poured vast sums into their pockets
For all our hate-Trump and his crowd feelings we still do not have a party that sees beyond domestic issues like health care and wages. It's as though the CA firemen were still busy just polishing the red trucks at the wildfire scene. Deep State, in all its glory, has set the world to burning over the last 30 years and everyone in the White House and the cabinets has been an accomplice since then.
There is no "longer game" as someone suggests below. There's just a drizzle from the hoses in the face of raging fires.
2
Pragmatic anything, Democrat or Republican, is a welcome development. It’s a shame there appears to be no algorithm for pragmatic in the digisphere (whatever that is).
How long do have to listen to this writer advocate for progressives? I’m a Democrat but when I see the bias of her writings I understand what the Republicans face every day.
2
The GOP generally unites around a few motivating positions, the main one being greed. Add white supremacy and religious bigotry, and we have the majority of the GOP. What motivates Democrats? It must be a commitment to comprehensive justice, economic, social, and human.
2
The only message I hear from Dems is that Trump is a Traitor, All Republicans are evil, Socialism is good, and to expect (and love) a 50%+ tax rate.
IOW: Crazytown
1
No matter how a progressive idea turns out to be right in the long run, it doesn't matter in the short run until you have the people on your side.
A majority of Americans do not want either extreme, ie ego maniac extreme conservative demagogues like Trump (and those are some of his good points, de facto Russian spy, admitted sexual predator on the other side), nor do they want extreme left wing, identity obsessed, socialist, social engineering candidates like Cortez.
One of the greatest examples of this was the difference between abolitionists and Lincoln early in our country.
Abolitionists wanted freedom for the black, even up to total equality of the races immediately. Lincoln only wanted not to have slavery spread to the west, knowing although he was against it, he could do nothing about it, since the country was not there yet.
In the end abolitionists could not end slavery in the 80+ yrs they tried.
When Lincoln saw the country was ready for it, he accomplished it in five yrs.
2
Labels are unhelpful, to say the least. The fact is, as the GOP recognized years ago, the electorate by and large responds to soundbites, and to labels. The GOP effectively turned the term liberal into a slur, having already done the same with the term socialist. Yet poll after poll demonstrates that policies championed by Democrats are overwhelmingly preferred by the voters. The last thing Democrats need to do is apply labels to themselves. Just run on sound policy positions, and make sure the electorate understands them. Either that will deliver the nation from the death grip of dark money, or nothing can.
1
The resurgence of the Democratic Party is real -- in Red States, in gerrymandered congressional districts and deep Blue urban precincts. We are not column of Republicans marching in orderly columns. We shout at injustice, at Republicans and sometimes at each other. We are a mob milling about. Make way, we are the Democrats.
3
I have raised this question for years and would like a strong, decent answer: just what is it the Democrats stand for? They have been pushed into a defensive crouch by years of propaganda about how horrible liberals are and have wandered all over the map like blind men lost in a vast desert.
One core value, an important one, is they actually believe in government, that the federal enterprise can make a positive difference in the lives of almost all citizens. Speak up. Democrats! Don't be so afraid.
When they are out of power, the Republicans use deficit spending to pound the Dems over the head night and day. How in the world do they get away with that when they pass a tax cut of 1.5 trillion dollars, mainly for the rich, at a time when the national debt is gigantic? How do the Republicans work this magic trick of dirty politics?
The last time we had a balanced budget was under a Democrat, Clinton. Obama reduced deficit spending even while guiding the nation out of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Republicans are for "spend and cut taxes on the rich". They favor very expensive government shutdowns and have threatened to default on
America's bills. This is a party that uses irresponsibility as a tool and, in recent years, has been joined by a radical cult (Freedom Caucus) that does not want the national government to survive. Now, Republicans embrace an erratic, untrained amateur in the White House.
Is that enough to run on, Democrats?
3
The "Democrats are in disarray" trope is the 2018 version of "but her emails." Desperate to appear fair and balanced, journalists have to find some angle to show that they aren't favoring one party over the other. This, of course, contributed to the election of You Know Who. Perhaps the media would enjoy a better reputation if it didn't engage in that nonsense.
4
F.D.R. cited four essential freedoms as undergirding human dignity: “freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want.” These four freedoms constituted the core value-objectives of the post-World War II American-led order. America was admired because of its core principle: These four basic human freedoms must be protected by the rule of law.
If the pragmatic left fails to reassert itself and if the GOP further degenerates into Trumpuglicanism, what future awaits us?
Trumpublicans shamelessly denigrate the norms and institutions that embody and promote the rule of law—the rule of law that is essential to the vitality of a democratic republic.
They replace freedom of speech with their leaders’ “freedom” to lie and to lash out at the free press and other critics of their corruption and cruelty.
Freedom of belief is reduced to the “freedom” to assert that one fundamentalist tribal religion is politically superior to all other belief systems.
Freedom from fear is supplanted by the “freedom” to use fear as a demagogic means for promoting discord among diverse social groups and as an excuse for vastly increased military expenditures.
Freedom from want is subverted into the “freedom” to exploit the market place in such a way that the economic disparity between the haves and the have-nots is ever widening.
In the November elections, will we the people allow Trumpugican “freedoms” to go unchecked?
196
@Andrew G. Bjelland, Sr. You really need to own the current chasm that exists in our body politic.
Seriously, folks like to blame all the rancor on Trump...or all the mayhem on Republicans.
In truth, it's physics at work.
IN 2009, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama decided to ram through the biggest tax increase and the largest change in policy change in American history that has literally been destructive to millions upon millions of American families.
This overreach cost 65 'moderate Democrats' their jobs; replaced with 65 Tea Party and Freedom Caucus types. You operate as if Democrats had nothing to do with Mark Meadows, Ted Cruz and others being elected to Congress, when it's directly your fault.
Further, you belabor the inartful language and morality of Donald Trump, but it's you who allowed him to happen. Your media sycophants gave the man over $2 billion worth of free media time...and worse...you put forth a 70 year old Dynasty candidate who reeked of Establishment while defending herself in a FBI criminal investigation. You think we didn't notice? You think you can defy the laws of political physics be denying 75% of the nation who said we were headed in the wrong direction? You couldn't remember 2008 when a no name junior back bencher from Illinois beat her? You thought it wise to recycle her?
So...keep in mind that our current state of affairs is your birth child. It's an ugly beast..but it's what happen when you don't practice safe politics.
@Erica Smythe: I am a progressive independent. When I reluctantly voted “for” the neoliberal, pro-Wall-Street Hillary Clinton, I consciously voted against Trump, the eviler of the two lessers.
Since I am a Utah resident, I always cast a straight Democratic protest vote—with the hope that by doing so I will at least remind a few Utahns that there actually is a major party other than the Utah-Mormon-Republican Party.
How any group of people can continue to vote for a Party whose inept leadership could not strangle the Trump candidacy in its crib defies all reason.
I knew Trump would prove to be a corrupt and cruel promoter of the GOP’s pro-plutocratic agenda—an agenda now become, due to the GOP’s pusillanimous enablers, a fully Trumpuglican kleptocratic agenda.
As a progressive living in reddest-of-red Utah, I deny all responsibility for the nation’s devolution into authoritarian kleptocracy.
@Andrew G. Bjelland, Sr. 40 questions? If the pragmatic left fails to reassert itself and the GOP further degenerates into Trumpuglicanism, no future awaits. 39 questions.
The modern left is anything but Pragmatic. There was a time when I looked to more classic liberals for wisdom or a different take, but not anymore. It’s now my way or the highway with their radical beliefs.
Healthcare is far from perfect, but universal Medicare is not the answer. One of the lefts ultimate platforms is depopulation and controlling healthcare is its center piece. It’s goal won’t be to save or increase quality of life, but rather to ration/decrease quality. Essentially picking who lives & dies.
Just take at look at Obamacare. 30 million, roughly 9% of population, was uninsured. We literally could have increased premiums by 10% for everyone and achieved insurance for all, but that didn’t happen. Instead we got an 11,000 page bill full of 1,000’s of taxes, increased premiums 2X to 3X the normal rate, and the end result was an extra 15 million people got coverage. So essentially healthcare was ruined for all to increase coverage for 5% of the US population. This example alone is why the left should not be in charge of anything.
1
@JOSEPH: The facts and reality are against you. All developed countries have some form of universal health care at at most two thirds of the cost in the USA and better outcomes. Imagine also the increase in productivity if workers do not have to slog through complicated paperwork choosing a health plan every year, and can switch jobs or pursue entrepreneurship without having to worry about losing health insurance? The peace of mind alone you won’t be reduced to bankruptcy due to unforeseen health care costs is worth it.
2
@JOSEPH: Wow. I call myself a progressive, a Liberal. Most of my friends are pretty liberal. None of us want anything you write. Your description is the Fox News version of what nonsense they think Conservatives will buy. And it works.
2
@JOSEPH
if it was that easy, how come the geniuses in the Republican party failed to find an alternative after 10 years with the white house and both chambers of congress in their corner?????
1
The most over-hyped political story of the year by far has been the anointment of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as leader of a movement of some kind. She received 16,000 votes, for God's sake, in a district that has over 300,000 registered voters! The story here was the incumbent was caught napping. Period. To turn this event into some kind of nation-wide wave is absurd. I have nothing against her, and wish her all the best, but c'mon. When was the last time a newcomer who inspired that many votes caused such a sensation? Never, I'm quite sure.
4
John Fetterman won this year’s Democratic primary for Lt Governor of Pennsylvania.
The Mayor of Braddock PA, the State’s most depressed Steel town, he was the first elected official in the country to endorse Bernie Sanders.
He’s sheltered immigrants, defended gay rights, fought for gun control in an NRA stronghold, demanded universal pre-school and proposed a State wide livable min wage.
He did that a decade ago.
He might deserve a mention.
5
I want to be encouraged by these developments and certainly would like to see the Democrats -- of all stripes -- recover the House and Senate this fall. But I'm concerned that we're seeing a false positive here, both in terms of turnout and votes for Democratic candidates, that is a direct result of an anyone-but-a-Trump-candidate sentiment among independent voters. Time will tell, and that means creating a movement that will extend beyond the Trump era. Some independent voters such as myself don't like the Democratic party but almost invariably vote Democrat. But there are many other independents who can go either way in a given election, and very few of them will vote for a socialist in most states and districts. If Dems want to win districts in red and purple states, they need to return to their roots by focusing on economic issues and demonstrate a genuine populism -- that is, policies that benefit the greatest number of people, not the false racist and nativist strain preached by Trump.
3
Points well made, and hats off to all the new progressive candidates. Yes, it’s a marathon, not a sprint.
I’d caution, however, as I did to Frank Bruni’s column on Wednesday, that moral victories are insufficient. Winning real seats is the only metric of success now.
6
By "pragmatic left" you mean right-wing light, of course. That's what we've from Democrats for years and it resulted in their loss of almost every important legislative body. Capitulation to right wing ideology in the name of pragmatism isn't what progressives want, no matter how much the pundit class thinks we ought to want it. We favor universal health care, educational reform and other "un-pragmatic" reforms.
Read the piece. The movement of the paper to the radical left is instructive because it illuminates your naivete about national issues. By taking positions so far off track with my world of small business owners and workers it gives me great hope that the Democrats will doom themselves once again the coming elections.
Keep harping on Global Warming, Please. It is remarkably unpopular or folks are utterly indifferent to it.
3
@Lloyd Graff, Trump's act is beneficial only to billionaires. And there won't be any debate about climate change in 25 years, after another trillion metric tons of fossil fuel CO2 is emitted to the atmosphere.
2
“It’s certainly true that Davids’s campaign put more emphasis on identity and representation, while Welder, a 2016 Sanders delegate, stressed populist economics. The Democratic Party will likely be weighing the precise balance between those progressive priorities for a long time.”
If the left wants to succeed, it will emphasize populist economics. If it wants to self-destruct, it will emphasize identity and representation. My bet is that the Democrats will self-destruct (as usual).
5
The assessment here of the Green Party is spot on.
All they do is take away votes from Democrats.
And without Ralph Nader, we wouldn't have had eight years of George W. Bush.
It's time for them to fade into the night.
7
Joe,
That's Right!
It wasn't the 308,000 Dem's that flipped to Bush, it was those 97,000 Nader voters. Of which 1/3 polled as Dems.
Wait....3:1...and we are blaming Nader? Yeah, sure.
Just like that Stein chick. She got 1 million voters. Trump got 7 million Dumbocrates.
Wait...7:1...and we are blaming the Greens? Yeah sure.
Its always those hippies. Never the backstabbing DINO's. No. Pander to the Right. Punch down and Left.
Got it. The Democratic way. Scapegoat and cast blame 'n shame everywhere else but at your own party.
1
If Danny O'Connor loses by fewer votes than the Green Party candidate Joe Manchik received it should be a wake-up call to Progressives that the Green Party is a valuable ally of Donald Trump. "Green" in name only since they are enabling the destruction of the environment.
30
I consider myself a pragmatic progressive. I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary and Hillary Clinton in the general election. I will vote for Andrew Cuomo in the gubernatorial primary, however, because Nixon has insufficient experience to serve as governor and - key point - could not prevail against a Republican in November.
Pragmatic progressives compromise to make progress. The purists too holy to support Gore or Clinton tipped the scale to Bush and Trump. I agree that a movement is built from the ground up; local and state elections in progressive community can tip City Councils, district attorneys’ offices and state legislatures to the progressive column. School boards are key, as the Republicans figured out a long time ago.
These local and state officials can influence policy while making a real difference for their constituents. Younger people are progressive and many of us baby boomers have not left the fight. The key is to be pragmatic – practical. If your candidate loses in the primary, don’t boycott the general election or vote for a sure loser. Support the Democrat. S/he will not only do the better job, but will be more apt to support progressive policies if you stay vocal and in the mix.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. Supporters of Nader and Stein gave us two disasterous administrations. The WFP and other grassroots parties are shrewder and more effective, but the progressives can only rebuild the party by being pragmatic.
12
RCT,
40yrs of pragmatic promises.
As another generation falls behind the previous losing generation. Pragmatic politicians that wallow and waffle.
And the pragmatic populous that is too scared, too ignorant, too staid, too pragmatic, to make the jump to perfect. Much less attempt such a leap. Always toeing the line. Doing as their told. So many hooks in their lips they accessorizes the sinkers as fashion statements. Bought and sold.
The world burns and our country swirls the bowl, but be should be pragmatic. Sure, that will work, this time.
Look how well it has worked before. Don't try for better, accept mediocrity. Be pragmatic and accept banality. It's only fire.
1
Historically, the GOP's 1994 "Contract with America" has been the vision that has fed the kind of distrust in government and programs that have served citizens of all stripes since the days of FDR.
What the Democratic Party would be well-advised to do is to create a new pragmatic "Contract" that would be acceptable to the majority of voters who are disenchanted with the Trumpist agenda. The "Better Deal" that was unveiled by Schumer last year was too enigmatic and scattershot for most people to support.
Democratic "progressivism" needs to be defined in a cohesive way that it can be understood to have a real impact on the middle classes. Given the overt wage/social inequality that currently exists, the obvious corporate control of the GOP agenda, the impending attacks on social safety net assurances (health care, social security, food stamps), deterioration in environmental conditions, and intentional intensification of divisions between urban and rural populations, it should be relatively easy to create an agenda that proposes to subdue these GOP-led initiatives.
By creating such a platform and allowing Democratic candidates to emphasize the most salient aspects of it on the basis of their regional electorate, there is a chance that the desired "blue wave" could become a tsunami - which is the only way that our fragile democracy can be preserved and strengthened.
Yes, it will take a long time to reverse the damage that has already been done - but it is possible!
1
I consider myself a pragmatic progressive. I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary and Hillary Clinton in the general election. I will vote for Andrew Cuomo in the gubernatorial primary, however, because Nixon has insufficient experience to serve as governor and - key point - could not prevail against a Republican in November.
Pragmatic progressives compromise to make progress. The purists too holy to support Gore or Clinton tipped the scale to Bush and Trump. I agree that a movement is built from the ground up; local and state elections in progressive community tipped the scale of City Council’s, district attorneys’ offices and state legislatures to the progressive column. School boards are key, as the Republicans figured out a long time ago.
These local and state officials can influence policy while making a real difference for their constituents. Younger people are progressive and many of us baby boomers have not left the fight. The key is to be pragmatic – practical. If your candidate loses in the primary, don’t boycott the general election or vote for a sure loser. Support the Democrat. S/he will not only do the better, but will be more apt to support progressive policies if we stay vocal and in the mix.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. Supporters of Nader and Stein gave us two disasterous administrations. The WFP and other grassroots parties are shrewder and more effective, but the progressives can only rebuild the party if they remain pragmatic.
7
The "left" in America is only called the left because that is the label the right picked to scare people about Communism and socialism decades ago. Neither is a threat to who and what we are in America, thanks in large part to the success of policies and programs of Democrats (Social Security, Medicare, NATO, etc.)
Republican politicians dominated American politics using divisive racial and cultural rhetoric, gerrymandering, voter suppression and the support of plutocratic mega-donors.
Meanwhile, the American people maintained their support for programs like Social Security, women's reproductive rights, and healthcare for all. These priorities are a sound foundation for new programs to meet the needs of younger generations in a new age.
Give Republicans credit--as a minority party, they were more strategic and organized in their efforts, leading to their unfortunate dominance of our politics for two generations. But their policies are so at odds with what most Americans want that their scams have to end.
Better those Republican scams be ended by the "pragmatic left" at the ballot box than by other ways.
14
Their policies are at odds with what Americans want? Explain the landslide victory in the Presidential election. Both the “left & right” have stopped listening to their constituents making room for Trump. Right agendas are alive and strong..folks on the coasts refuse to live outside their bubble. There are many Americans who align themselves with conservative beliefs...never underestimate you opponent.
@Paul .... Landslide? What are you talking about.
For longer than I have been alive, and that's a really long time, lefties have proposed taking over the Democratic Party as the Very Latest Thing.
And during the same period, lefties have demanded that every single progressive support the Democratic presidential candidate because "at this particular juncture of history" (quote from a left legend), this year only, the right is so terrible that we have to hold our noses and vote for, eg, LBJ, to prevent war in Vietnam, or Billy, who picked the current fight with Russia.
Until we have a mass independent left party, we shall get nowhere. How do we get it? Who knows? However, what a tad of a sense of history tells one is that no alternative will work.
The main principle of organization is clear. We must unite all the alienated, Blue and Red both. Otherwise, we'll never be a majority.
We need a common denominator that reaches to the underlying source of anger. And that fire of outrage ultimately is kindled and sustained by the grossly skewed income/wealth distribution.
Thus, the only program that can reach the majority, the large majority, Blue and Red both, is for radical ("radical means radical") leveling of income and wealth.
Otherwise, unless you want to front for, eg Hillary, give up politics.
2
@alyosha - Simple answer, change to a multi-party system example Sweden. The leftmost party is called that, "Vänster", a middle party is "Moderaterna", liberals have "Liberal". One exeption the party with Nazi roots can hardly admit that so, irony of ironies it is "Sweden democrat" party.
Only-Never in Sweden.Blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
In 2016 I calculated that Bernie Sanders could not win the general election, so I supported Clinton. I, like so many others, valued her experience and her intelligence, but disliked her "typical politician" behavior. Because of that experience and what has followed since, I will be far more willing to support candidates like Sanders and Cynthia Nixon. Do you really think that Medicare for all, universal child care, and free college tuition are so out of touch with what the mainstream voters value? The choice cannot be more stark. Republicans try to convince the voters over and over their policies will lead to higher incomes for average Americans so they can afford health care, child care, and tuition. But that is not going to happen. Didn't happen back then, won't happen now. So the question then becomes, if the private sector is unwilling to share the profit produced by the workers with those workers, then the government needs to step in. If you don't want that to happen, pay people more money. It's not really all that complicated. And the argument that you can't pay people more and stay "competitive" in the marketplace, is less and less a strong one as the competition is being gobbled up left and right. VOTE.
7
The best takeaway is that individual candidates should have the opportunity to address their (potential) constituents in an authentic manner. It isn't consistent that there is a singular platform or outlook resonating with all Democratic voters nationwide. For instance, Conor Lamb won his PA seat as a conservative Democrat. Likewise with Senator Jon Tester and others. Citizens want an agenda that reflects them.
It's really about speaking the language, and championing the priorities, of the people one would represent.
267
@NM I agree that individual candidates must take on the issues of their constituents and those differ according to district, state, etc. However, a national party needs to stand for national priorities. Just as the Republicans stand for "lower taxes, less regulation", and can be depended on to enact legislation to those ends, Democrats need to stand for something on a national level that can be legislated -- not some warm, fuzzy feel-good verbiage. That should be the umbrella under which each candidate runs and then addresses more regional issues.
3
@NM -- Perhaps Connor Lamb and Jon Tester will drift further left with time; a Republican never will. Far better to elect someone potentially open to new ideas than someone wedded to old toxic ones.
2
In an effort to distance itself from Trump and the GOP, it would appear that the Democrats are making what would appear to be a bold move to the left and throwing the shackles of the old establishment system that has held the party down for decades. All I can say is, it's about time.
8
There was a time when one could have an intellectual discussion with a Republican. We could talk and argue the merits of our views in a civilized manner without having to defend our intelligence, or ancestry.
I came from a liberal family. Those days people would come to our back door offering to work for food, my grandmother always had a sandwich for them. We were taught that people down on their luck were not bad people, just those who had been caught in the Great Depression. And that depression had been mostly the work of the Republicans.
Unions had gained power by fighting workplace injustice. A waitress could be charged the cost of a broken plate, if you worked in an office, you had to bring your own pen and ink. Calling in sick could get you replaced immediately. The 40 hour work week was a dream, there was no medical insurance. Those were the things I saw Democrats fighting to remedy. The company I retired from had medical, dental, defined benefit retirement plans paid for by the company, along with a Christmas ham or turkey, holidays, and company paid days for the day before Christmas to the day after New Year. Our owner built ramps for wheel chairs, walked the floors of the plants looking for people to promote, even send them to school,he was one of the worlds wealthiest men.
This to me was the foundation of a Democratic society, some made higher pay but were were all equal socially.
814
Thank you, @David Underwood, for writing so elegantly and sincerely this anecdote illustrating the best of liberal, democratic values and behavior.
2
@David Underwood
Luckily tens of millions disagree with you. My grandmother lived to 103 and right thru the depression. She and everybody we knew believed in self reliance, high personal responsibility, and high personal freedom. Values in direct contraction to socialism. Needing a hand out was embarrassing. She cleaned rich the homes of rich people into her eighties. Always providing for herself and her family thru simple hard work.
You can spin your romantic story and I can tell you mine. But reality is winning and reality is conservative.
1
@J.
Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
It's always amusing to hear someone's one-off anecdote and their insistence that it be applied to the entire population. There are not enough rich people's houses to clean to employ all those who are out of work. There are just so many pencils to be bought on street corners or windshields to be washed at stoplights.
Your grandmother may have been one of the "lucky" few who were able to secure any kind of employment but what about the rest?
Well, there are always the prisons and workhouses.
Corporate interests and the obscenely wealthy of this country like to define many practical ideas as being left wing socialism.
Universal medicare is a perfect example- recent polls indicate that this is an idea that not only the majority of the American people support, but also a majority of American doctors- which means it is a centrist idea.
What is completely radical is the idea that Americans should be satisfied with a health care system that costs twice as much as what other modern countries pay for similar care that provides for every one of their citizens.
What is radical it that a privatized prison system has strangely coincided with the acceleration of per capita imprisonment in this country to where we have about 7 times higher incarceration rates than when all prisons were government run.
Or that we aren't spending enough on our military when we spend more than twice as much as Russia and China combined.
Or that free college is a crazy idea when a college degree is the equivalent of a high school degree 60 years ago in terms of being needed to find good paying jobs.
What the right wing calls left wing socialism I call common sense and, more often than not, fiscally responsible.
1023
@alan haigh
while most people may favor universal health care benefits, the real question is whether most people are willing to pay for universal health care benefits, and how much?
That is the crux of the matter.
3
@David
Americans already are paying $10,000 per person each year for health care coverage. That's nearly twice what people in most advanced Western democracies with universal health care coverage pay. Yes, in America the cost is paid through a combination of individual, employer, and government contributions, rather than just by the government. But the cost is still paid—and it's still absurdly high compared to the cost paid in countries with universal coverage.
@David, multiple economic analysis show that 95% o people will pay less for health care financing under improved and expanded Medicare for all. Their taxes will go up but total out of pocket costs go down due to traditional Medicare's low overhead compared with private plans. The tremendous administrative savings are responsible for this.
1
I am very encouraged with these developments. The Democratic party isn't moving to the left as much as it is moving toward the people. Hillary's party is viewed by many as being just another flavor of Wall Street sycophants. People don't want that anymore. They don't want to swallow that bitter pill that we need their money in order to win. We can win together.
Branding is important, and I would suggest that the terms socialist and socialism be dropped and replaced with the terms "peopleist and peopleism. We are in favor of policies that prioritize the welfare of people, not corporations and super rich that use and manipulate people for profit. I think a lot of red staters could relate to that.
The whole point of life is living, not slaving away to create a wealth aristocracy like serfs. No one is asking for a free ride. People want and need enriching occupations. They want and need family. How can you experience family if you work 80 hours a week?
I enjoy the weekly services at my temple. Very few young people attend. Why? They have no time. They are either going here or there or working at the office or working at home doing the work they couldn't get done at the office. This is nuts. That's no way to live. Life isn't the drive through at a fast food joint. The whole point of going to temple or church isn't worshiping, but the coming together, the formation of community. That's what we have lost. Community. That's what we should campaign for.
774
@Bruce Rozenblit
I vote for the term "humanist". The political system has focused on the system itself and money more than building a working society of people for far too long.
3
@Bruce Rozenblit
I suggest "progressive," a known word with a rich history and no connections to either utopian socialism or Lenin and Mao.
Marx himself would have been happy with places like Sweden and eagerly awaiting the more complete development of the newest productive forces, automation and robots, that would finally destroy the capitalist relations of production and bring about the age of the schmoo.
11
@sdavidc9: The Shmoo! Thanks.
(I'm not correcting your spelling, which is defensibly the pre-Capp spelling. I'm appreciating the reference.)
Medicare for all to keep Americans healthy. Free college to thrive and innovate in the new century. Strengthen SSI to make sure Americans don't live in the streets after retirement. Rebuild the infrastructure, including a solar grid to try to tame climate change. These things are all pragmatic. This is good, smart government and something that has been lacking for a long time
1126
@Mark
Nothing is FREE, my friend, except bad advice. Once you experience the satisfaction of paying your own way through life I’ll bet you’ll starting singing a different tune.
2
Medicare is for seniors, Medicaid is for the poor. Free college? And as far as free college - how about Democrats making your sure inner city kids get good decent schools and a basic primary education.
2
Yes, BD it isn't free, but Medicare for all would be far less expensive (for most Americans) than private insurance as it would take the thieves out of the equation. There would be a cost to the government that could easily be covered by a progressive tax - or maybe just take the funds allocated for the "Space (cadet) Force" and use it to benefit Americans instead of the military-industrial complex. As far as free college, that would pay itself back in future tax revenue from individuals with the increased earning power a college degree provides. It would also likely reduce the number of Americans, specifically children, who currently live below the poverty line. If you take the LONG view, all of these things will benefit the average American. Yeah, it won't put more money in the 1%-ers pockets in the short term, but government should be about the long term view and the health and well-being of all Americans.
3
If the party is in such disarray why have they won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections. You never heard Republicans in disarray when they got hammered in 2006 and 2008 and 1992. Democrats represent a large swath of people so it is harder to represent all their interests. This has always been a tired media narrative along with attacking progressive candidates like Sanders and Cortez who are really just calling back New Deal Policies which were and are still very popular. Get rid of Social Security-no bigger third rail in American politics. If it weren't Paul Ryan would have gotten rid of it a long time ago.
2
@Gingrich - they may have won the votes you mention, but they are out of power in WH, senate, house, governorships, state houses, etc. - duh.
The Democratic party may not be in disarray, but we do have real problems that are simmering. Every time I hear a fellow liberal castigate, berate or demonize someone who doesn't use the up to the minute gender identity terms or gender or racial language that is deemed insensitive by one judge, I think we play into the hands of the right and alienate otherwise moderate people who are independent or put off by Trump but don't want to be lectured or told they are ignorant and bad for not using terms like cisgender. Liberals need to unite and keep our eye on the ball to achieve our policy goals while also improving the discussion about issues of race, gender and sexual orientation.
8
The Pelosi/Shumer/Clinton/DNC/Wall Street establishment is fighting desperately to hang on to power in the Democratic Party. The headline in question is easily explained by their connections to the current ownership class in the big media. Wall Street is scared to death that there will be a real left sponsored reform movement which will actually limit their ability to gamble with taxpayer money as backup. They were quite satisfied with the phony reforms in Dodd-Frank which fooled the public for a while and let them recover and further enrich themselves under its cover. Of course now, with Republicans who are acknowledged 1% supporters in control, rather than the covert supporters in the DNC, they can even attack those mild reforms.
The biggest problem the US faces is the great transfer of wealth , income , and power from the middle class to the 1% aided and abetted by the bought politicians of both parties. Every other issue from our underemployment, stagnating wages, economic anxiety to our insane, self-defeating wars, to our institutional racism, to our lack of medical care, to the destruction of our environment, to our failing, increasingly privatized schools, prisons, etc can be traced to this control by the super wealthy. That must be the issue that we put front and center, and the left is pushing it there.
33
"The new electoral left — is trying to take over the Democratic Party from the ground up." Really? If that ever happens then run for the hills, the party will implode. Progressives have a role to play in in Berkeley and the Bronx. But it's absurd to think that they have any appeal to mainstream Americans. They don't. They never have in the past thirty years, and are unlikely to make much progress in the future. Progressives have been losing so often, so consistently, that they can't be blamed for seeing any victory as a turning point. But Goldberg needs to dial back the hyperbole a tad. She's acting like we turned Mississippi blue. All we did was notch a few minor primary wins in reliably blue districts. The real question implied but not answered in this column is can moderates and progressives co-exist in the same party. If one honestly looks at the facts the answer is absolutely not. It's going to have to be one or the other. Centrists will win this civil war because the voters we need to Presidency,Congress, The Supreme Court,the majority of governorships & state legislatures are by and large moderates. The Socialist moniker frightens a lot of people. And lets be frank a lot of working class people ....especially in red states have different values. The far left has mocked these people for decades. You are bad for eating factory-farmed meat, owning a rifle, & driving an SUV. There’s no way to bridge the gap. If the far left ever takes over the party we are doomed.
6
Bill Brown,
That's funny.
The world is doomed from staid pragmatic moderates who have governed our country into a 3rd world caricature, and a global melt down.
But those Leftish candidates, scary.
As the world burns around them and their children's future will be worse than the previous worse generation before them.
That's a winning plan. Same old same ol'.
1
@Dobby's sock Win any notable election that matters and I will respect what you're saying. Until then my criticism stands. Most states will not elect a far left candidate. The results speak for themselves.
Spot on, Ms. Goldberg, including your critique of the clueless Green Party. And let's remain open to the notion that different kinds of Democrats are suited to win in different parts of the country. This should be true in any year, but it's especially crucial in 2018, when winning back the House is at stake and the alternative is a dangerously unencumbered Donald Trump.
As Ben Franklin put it, "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."
4
"Greens will sometimes justify these runs as movement-building tools, but they never seem to actually build a movement."
What the Green Party has built is a legacy of gifting Republicans. When just a big enough sliver of the voting public brings their broadest idealism to the ballots, it takes away just enough support from a liberal candidate that close elections go to the most reactionary, cynical candidate.
Once and for all, there is considerably more than a dime's worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans (to borrow from Ralph Nader's absurd charge). Only one party seeks to trash the environment, leave the sick without insurance, discriminate against LBGTQ individuals, control women's bodies, allow workers to get exploited, put guns everywhere, deprive the needy of a safety net, legislate from far right religious ideology...That's not the Democratic Party.
Ideological purity tests for candidates are ultimately helpful only for the party with a distinctly backwards looking platform.
2
We can not simply be the I Hate Trump party. We need to go into states that felt left behind and tell them what we can do for them. It's easy for Trump. He preaches hate, tweets like a jilted 12 year old, and gives the extreme right whatever they want. We need a greater approach and we need to unite our nation again. Trump is doing to the nation what he has been doing to every con project in his career. Throws his name on it, drives it into the ground, declares bankruptcy, and runs off with his 20%. We can not let that happen.
12
I wish I could be as optimistic as you about winning and Democrats not being in disarray, but I simply don't see it. Yes, there was likely a backlash to Ocasio-Cortez’s celebrity as no single person was ever going to be able to step forward and save the country by vanquishing Trump and his Republican enablers, defenders, dissemblers, and propagandists. However, part of the problem is much bigger than Ocasio-Cortez. It's structural. The left is mired in previous grievances, and that isn't getting better. I'm probably closer to the likes of Ocasio-Cortez, especially on economic issues, but I understand what's at stake in the upcoming election, which is everything, because we’re that close to authoritarian rule.
What worries me is that the same conflicts which led to Trump winning in the first place are playing out again. A fine example was the response to the "Down Goes Socialism" Politico headline. It was written by Bill Scher, liberal pundit, Politico editor, and contributor to RealClearPolitics. His larger point was that the election results meant Socialist Democrats had no path to victory in Red states. Socialist Democrats were livid, invoked Bernie Sanders, and were ready to burn Scher at the stake. Mainstream Democrats defended Scher, invoked Hilary Clinton, and insisted her endorsements made the difference on election night.
Deja Vu All Over Again.
If this is "Winning" I need someone to explain what that word actually means; please explain "disarray" and "unity" too.
3
We need to start winning seats. The 46 or so special state legislative elections that have been won are about 4% of what has been lost since 2010. Regaining the House is a minimum requirement for survival at this point. Some of these jerk cabinet appointments need to be called before real oversight committees. We need to hit some home runs in the state legislatures and governorships so as to be able to undo the horrific damage that followed the 2010 election and census. The WSJ was correct in calling HRC the weakest democratic candidate since Dukakis. But the defeats across all levels of government--that wasn't HRCs fault, it was a systemic inability of the Dems to recognize what was going on. It's still the case that the Koch and Mercer families et al are much better organized in the pursuit of their goals.
Whether we are far-left or center-left is no longer of importance. In fact, we are unnecessarily splitting hairs. What does matter is that we are uniting as one force. What we are finding is that at its heart, its core, our aspirations, our needs, our concerns are on the same page. We want the same for all peoples, no matter their race, creed, ethnicity, or gender.
If anything good has happened from this disgrace of a past election and this utterly amoral president and his GOP Congress, it is that it has united us. We have together seen not only the eroding of our democratic rights but also behavior bordering on betrayal of all that is good and necessary for this nation.
This November, let us stay focused on our diverse candidates along with our common goals. I do not care if the person is purple-skinned with antennas, just as long as s/he saves us from this trajectory toward the River Styx that this horrible man in Our House has us on.
8
Michelle Goldberg lost me early on, when she referred to Ocasio-Cortez as "charismatic and a rousing spokesperson for her values. "
Seriously?
No.
If you've heard or watched her speak, she is clearly, most definitely, lacking as a spokesperson.
Perhaps if she spent less time spanning the country and believing ridiculous accolades such as "wunderkind" and "rock star", and spent more time acquainting herself with American history and contemporary political thinking she'd come across in a more intelligent, informed manner.
Listen to Sharice Davids speak (the woman opposed by Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez/Justice Democrats) alongside Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, and the difference is clear.
As long as Sanders and his crew pull stunts like decrying money from PACS, while omitting the fact that Justice Democrats is a PAC itself, they maintain the same level of privilege and hypocrisy that they displayed during the primary.
9
This undoubtedly will be the most consequential midterm election of my 80-year lifetime.
The choice is either 2 more years of Trumpuglican mendacity, corruption and cruelty or a return to some semblance of civility and sanity.
If we the people care to preserve our democratic republic, its institutions, its norms and the rule of law, the choice should be obvious: vote for each and every opponent of the used-to-be-GOP candidates.
If we the people fail ourselves and our republic, what further appalling horror and embarrassing buffoonery will the future hold?
3
The ascendancy of Barak Obama was a result of the train wreck of the Bush II administration. I believe the same political forces are energized now as a result of the Trump junta. (The term "administration" just does not apply.)
It seems that we need a Republican step backward to sling-shot us two steps forward. Or perhaps another metaphor; Republicans make the mess and Democrats clean it up.
If all Democrats and left-leaning independents would get to the polls for every election, perhaps this tiresome pattern of fits and starts might smooth out, hopefully before it all crumbles down around us.
7
@Ralph Averill - i will agree the T is 180 degree image of Obama in more ways than one. probably in all ways. he's probably gonna damage the R's just as much as Obama did to the D's.
how nice to read an article where at the end i am not angry. this is all great news. the younger voters in america with a sharing economy are catching on rapidly. they are delaying having babies because the true futility of life is swimming with all the others. i am about to receive my first SS check in a couple months. the young think about these checks as entitlements because that is the word bantered about the last 15 years. i hope for them they realize how short life is and will enjoy themselves without onerous college debt. QUIT supporting the rich.
1
One of the important things Ms. Goldberg points out here is that individual losses do not mean the "Blue Wave" is dead. One of the things that I love about the unexpected candidates in this election cycle is that they are not running on a unified party identity. That is what is killing us under this administration. PARTY line politics.
The candidates that are winning, like Ocasio-Cortez in NY and Beto Cortez in TX, is that they are listening and speaking to the needs of their constituents. Local politics have long been neglected, and we are paying for it now. The PEOPLE want to be represented, not a party-line.
What I believe the Democrats have as a strength is that they are showing that you CAN chew gum and walk at the same time. Single issue politics will not keep us a united and strong nation. But improving lives will, and I believe that is the message that will prevail. After all, any wave holds more than one species of fish and other marine life. The "Blue Wave" is showing INclusion vs. EXclusion. I hope we are not too late.
VOTE!.
5
Democrats may not be in disarray, but if recent history is any indicator they sure seem to have an affinity for missing the main chance.
1
Thank you, Michelle Goldberg. I've been watching the midterm primaries and special elections with great interest, pleased with the energy and passion of the new candidates.
What I like most is their focus on issues--every district is different, so their message seemed honed to their locale, but inclusive of overall Democratic values.
I love it when candidates can state the obvious without naming names--all they have to do is point out some of the ways their future constituents are impacted by policies put in place by this "corrupt and cruel" administration.
Even incombents in my own state--my representative is Katherine Clark--are simply showing what they and their peers are doing to combat the opioid crisis in this state, something forgotten after some sort of "event" promising to fix this, without stating how.
My only concern is an over-analysis by pundits and an anxiety-inducing fear about the outcome of the midterms.
While the Dems seem to be coalescing around a specific messages about healthcare, immigration, and the economic needs of the working class, I just hope they can stay focused and ignore the noise surrounding the importance of this election.
8
It's refreshing to see these forces at work. The Democratic Party, fat, slow and boring, needs an infusion of energy and new ideas. Much of the New Deal was inspired by Socialists like Eugene Debs. FDR simply absorbed many good ideas and new approaches from Socialists and may well have saved this country when it badly needed a savior. The moment I saw Ms. Pelosi reject any consideration of Medicare for all, I realized that my party's leaders were living in another political universe.
May these new voices continue to shake things up by refusing to toe the line.
10
We have to be careful not to take as fact what pundits or the headlines on opiniions (especially) decry. Writing opinion on either side does not make it so. I am happy to read this one in refutation of the conventional line about Democrats disarray. And I hope the progressive appeal gets positive results.
I have a feeling that democratic socialist's positions while being oppositional to Trump's apparent agenda fills an unmet need in the electorate, giving a better way forward. One would think this should get a big positive response. The more it gets around that this kind of change for the better is actually possible if we vote it so. It may even snowball and be as surprising as to the numbers. Trump's appeal is bound to wane; it does not feel good to hate and wreck.
11
The progressive wing of the Democratic Party articulates an inspirational vision, its sense of mission, and through unambiguous statements of political beliefs. Small wonder that Bernie Sanders’ primary bid caught the attention of young voters. They offer a positive alternative. Progressives seem passionate about public education, gun control, fair and open immigration policies, environmental policy and the need to reign in the disproportionate influence of lobbyists.
In contrast, so-called mainstream Democratic leaders lean upon a tired formula by which the Old Guard devotes itself to fundraising, controlling nomination processes, oppositional politics, and a conspicuous absence of core beliefs. Pelosi and Schumer are classic political operatives who mastered the rules of yesteryears game in which power meant everything. Shame on the DNC for its unabashed efforts to game the 2016 presidential primaries, thereby contributing to low voter turnout.
Younger Democrats running for office are discovering a need to connect with the concerns of their local constituents, and campaign accordingly. This was how Patrick Lamb won the House seat vacated by Tim Murphy in a district cobbled together by Republicans as a bastion designed to remain in their control forever. Just as Republicans built their support over many years at the grass roots level, so too must the Democrats.
32
I thank Bernie Sanders for making it acceptable to be a liberal once again. You can argue about the terminology, liberal or progressive or something else, but Sanders' campaign brought ideas that have a lot of appeal these difficult days out of the shadows.
That being said, I don't think Sanders should be the face of the Democratic party. He's not even a Democrat for heaven's sake.
The fact that young women are stepping up to advocate for policies that we all need is encouraging. I hope the news media avoid trying to create a "narrative" that hurts the movement.
19
@Betsy S
I object to the tribalism that rejects Sanders as a Democrat. He did more for the Democrats than they did for themselves. I find it offensive that this anti-Sanders "stuff" is still going on. There also is some truth to what Sanders says about Democrats having left him. He is a Democrat in the FDR tradition, no question.
7
I wouldn't get too carried away with the primaries. But I would like to see a new conception of moderate Democrat that includes people like Elizabeth Warren. Regulating Wall Street and large banks is not "progressive," it's basic democratic governance. The problem has been how do you look out for the average citizen without losing the campaign contributions of the wealthy interests that often exploit them? The Clintons tried to have it both ways.
19
Just as many of those who voted for Trump were just voting for change and didn't really care about specific issues, the liberal "socialists," who are now winning, may be the beneficiaries of a reaction against the Trump administration and are supported by many who are just interested in change. I suppose the definition of "socialist" is also important. I, for example, don't consider Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as socialists policies. Many conservatives do. I suspect that most Democrats are centrists in their political thinking, but there are some on the far left and some conservatives. May we all live in harmony.
4
OK. There are true Socialists. There are Democratic Socialists who don't believe in government ownership of industry. They focus on the programs that improve the quality of life for not just the individual, but the community - they are perhaps closer to the New Deal heritage of the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party appears to have morphed into a group of elites who act and think more like Republicans, thinking that is the only way to win elections. They are so concerned about the national party, that they ignored the collapse of the state and local parties after Obama's election.I
At present, the Left, which isn't very left at all, is rising is influence because they are listening to the needs of the typical American. What they always have gotten criticized for is the cost of their policies. But, to the average person, who has seen squat from Trump's huge tax cut, an argument that says - the Trump administration has just increased the debt by 3 trillion dollars to give tax cuts to the wealthy, well what could we have done if we could have spent that money on things that would help out real Americans.
Americans understand that the economy is good but that many of them have to hold two or three jobs, they can't afford medical insurance, they can't afford high college tuition for their children and few have $400 on hand if they have an emergency. Life might be better than right after the financial crisis, but are American living high on the hog? I think not.
39
Ms Goldberg misses the mark (again). As others have noted, DSA-type candidates can win in already-progressive districts; but notice Ms Goldberg said nothing about Cori Bush (in Missouri), someone for whom Ms Cortez campaigned. Ms Bush was demolished; so until the DSA can start winning in places like Missouri and Nebraska, they will do nothing to expand the reach of the Democratic Party, and will even hurt us by advocating for such imbecilities as abolishing ICE.
8
I am from Michigan and thrilled that Tliab won and voted for Whitmer. But as someone who grew up in a blue-collar family where my parents idolized FDR, I don't want to see the Dems go as far left as the Rs have gone far right. Please learn a lesson from the ugliness that the GOP is now fighting. Fight for working class families, public education, climate science, fair taxation, full equality, but don't get caught up in purity tests that exclude moderate, reasoned voices. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
47
So long as the pragmatists don't turn around and empower the ideologues, they will continue to win.
The question is how much people who want to vote for Democrats will trust that the party to stay pragmatic and focus on kitchen table issues for the American working and middle class.
At the national level, there is little evidence Democrats have learned that they need to refocus on the citizens they were always elected to represent. The ideologues are still simply too deafening.
6
Yes and no. They're winning in left-leaning areas. Whether they can win in the heartland is undetermined.
6
The fuel of the modern left is not socialist thought, it is democracy. It is outrage at the hubris and cupidity of the monied class who have sought to unravel all American progress. All of it.
Name your cause—women’s equality, civil rights, union organizing, environmental protection, gun safety—and you will find a billionaire-backed group opposing it. And not just opposition but unhinged notions of government intrusion into women’s bodies, support for lethal force by police as a first response, requiring binding arbitration in labor disputes, denial of the science about climate change, and actually calling for the arming of school teachers. That's just the starter set. The mind reels.
No wonder pragmatists are winning elections. Whether one agrees with them or not, their arguments are founded in the real world. You can actually have a conversation with them. We elected the fantasists to the White House and Congress, and look at the early results. It’s time for the adults to take charge.
143
@David Potenziano - you nailed it!
This is not so difficult and it does not take new ideas, just return to simple ideas. It is the GOP who has become unhinged with anti-science, anti-minority, anti-woman, anti-justice, anti-democracy policies. Democrats need to simply call out these unpopular policies and run against them and a return to our best values.
3
Having read some of the very cogent comments on the need to tailor the candidate to the needs of the electorate I wish to weigh in with the thought that is just what the Democrats did to get FDR and the New Deal into office. Their genius was making a party that represented poor farmers and out of work middle class people. The Democrats have to become the party that represents, and cares for, all parts of the population, perhaps excluding billionaires.
56
@Jack That may work but with Trump at the helm out of work middle class people are very rare.
It's that same old question of whether we learned from the loss in Vietnam. Or from McGovern's loss in '68. Or HRC's loss. The winning-the-hearts-and-minds thing only works if your ideas resonate with people where they are at. No matter how right we are, if the Dems don't connect to everyday, middle America- insisting on their superior ideology & arguments, instead of learning from the Vietnam of Trump- we're doomed.
The more stressed people are (Future Shock is real), the more they need to be met in the fear. The more they need to be assured that you really get them, rather than insisting that they get you. If people trust you, they follow you, even if they don't understand you.
When times are stressful and change rapid, people will contract & withdraw- tragically- into tribal identities. The 'other' is perceived as a threat. It's possible for individuals to overcome that impulse- it's one benefit of a liberal education, but large-scale collective change in a time of stress, requires patient, empathetic leadership. The expansiveness required goes against the urge to contract.
Every human being needs to have a sense of safe borders. In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, social values are secondary to survival. If ending ICE is a Dem demand, they'll lose in the general election. If it's a call for a fairer, more humane ICE, Dems will win in Nov.
I know it's hard to be patient when the earth is burning, but if Dems want to win this Nov, they need to respect human nature, too.
64
Very wise comment.
Pragmatism in politics involves fitting candidates to discrete districts. I think it's wonderful that Ocasio-Cortez speaks well for the Bronx and Tlaib is a good fit for Detroit, but imagine either of them running in Ohio's 12th District, where the most active voters are rich enough to have a reason to like the recent tax cut, instead of Danny O'Connor, who fits the bill for the non-rich, often non-voting majority of residents. Were a Democratic Socialist to run in that district there would clearly be no need for a recount because Troy Balderson would have won in a landslide and therefore given Trump something else to crow about, as if... Doesn't it make more sense to run a candidate in districts like this who appeals more to working families and small business owners than neo-socialism? Isn't it a risk to choose shiny new left-wingers as ambassadors of the party and then introduce them in areas where they are curiosities who can't help the local candidates? Sometimes progressive theoreticians forget that each time the Democrats win, the Republicans lose. Maybe we should be pragmatic in what we call pragmatism.
24
Democrats should not fall into the trap of demanding ideological purity that has completely derailed the GOP. I believe, and hope, that the democrats will do great in 2018 and will defeat Trump in 2020. While it is easy to get together in opposition to the worst president in recent history, the building of a long last coalition will require the center and the left working together. I hope that a next generation of leaders will rise that can articulate a common set of principals that all Democrats can rally around even though we may all occupy different points along the ideological spectrum.
16
The Progressives both within and outside the Democratic Party are tired of getting nothing but lip service from the Corporate Democrats that have been running the joint since just after the Mondale campaign loss to Reagan back in the 1980s. We have been served a steady diet of almost Republicans and told to take one for the team for decades now and watched supposed "Liberals" bargain away the social safety net, consumer protections, anti-trust provisions and all the rest and got nothing in return.
We were always told we had to do it for the Supreme Court, yet watched it march steadily to the extreme right and become the least representative body of government. The Supreme Court is entirely made up of grads of a handful of schools and exactly two religious faiths in a large diverse country- and this includes Democratic nominees.
Well we got tired of being told to sit in the corner by the money changers in the political temple. We are not going to support anyone just because they have a D next to their name on the ballot and they had better have concrete evidence that they have been fighting the good fight if they expect to get re-elected.
The path the corporate Democrats are on leads to decline and fading to irrelevance. America does not need two Republican Parties- one Crazy Right and the other Center Right, but that is what we have at the top of the food chain at the DLC.
34
The GOP governs to benefit only two constituencies today: the uber wealthy (for their money) and fearful, lower economic class whites (for their votes and passion). The party has stopped even pretending they care about the rest of the people. All of its captive media (Fox, Sinclair) and talking point deliverers focus all of their messaging on these two groups.
The Democrats need to focus on winning, not intraparty squabbling. It is not about who can outflank the other to the left. It is all about voter turnout and demographics. The uber wealthy have a lot of money, but few votes. The lower economic class whites, as a group, are demographically shrinking. So voter turnout is the entire story. You don’t get to govern if you don’t win. You can fight about how left you go, or not, later.
This is what it means, to use Ms. Goldberg’s term, to be pragmatic. If the Democrats can stay organized and focused, they will take the House. If not, it will be another two years of Devin Nunes, Mark Meadows and Donald Trump setting policy.
23
Fragmentation of the Democratic Party would be a Republican dream come true. In this critical time when we are fighting for the restoration of decency, fairness and justice in our government, when we are fighting against a corrupted electoral system engineered by the GOP, Democratic Party unity is essential. After Trump and the one-party Republican state has been removed by concerted voter action, the Democrats can begin again to fight amongst themselves.
8
There's nothing pragmatic about keeping Pelosi as a standard bearer. She's been unjustly vilified, but facts are facts and politics is politics: she should announce her retirement tomorrow and let the party move on.
52
@Mford Now that they have won the war on Christmas they are going after Pelosi. McConnell should retire first.
What's powerful about elections for things like local prosecutor is that the Democrats are focusing serious efforts on winning.
There is a huge lack of farm team Democratic candidates that starts with local elections and move up. Those thousand state elected positions we lost feed bigger positions, more experience, and more visibility.
We're focused on the midterms, sure. But creating a group of elected officials across the country, in positions large and small, is the longer game.
We're off to a great start.
22
"Abolish ICE" means what?
If it is to be taken literally, meaning no immigration or customs enforcement at all, then "progressives" mouthing it are arguably as disconnected from reality as those who claim ancestry from space aliens.
One can infer that Ms. O-C does not really mean it, because her platform also said "more welcoming" immigration policy ... meaning that some immigration policy would still exist, and so require enforcement.
Presuming she wins in November (a safe bet in her district) she will then enter congress, and be forced to either work toward some changes in immigration and enforcement that could pass -- or achieve nothing.
"Progressivism" will be measured by what it achieves. Remember Phil Ochs great line "they won all the battles ... but we won all the songs!"
8
ICE is a rogue agency. It was created in the wake of 9/11 with very little oversight and accountability. It's power structure is lacking legal expertise, so they have a tendency to violate the law. The militant culture within the agency is one that you might find in the armed services, but should not be present in an ostensibly civilian agency. Their power structure is not beholden to the president (or at least a president they don't like), as was proved by their defiance of Obama's policy directives during his tenure.
ICE needs to go; it's responsibilities should be brought back under the umbrella of the CBP to make a new INS, hopefully without the failings of the old INS and the current ICE
4
@Lee Harrison Don’t worry Lee. Any of these leftist/socialist fools calling for the end to ICE have dug themselves a grave at the polls. There are millions of Americans who experienced September 11 and lost loved ones, especially here in NYC. My firefighter brother searched for survivors and remains immediately after and for weeks later. Thank you to ICE. I wish they had existed before September 11.
Lee Harrison,
ICE is just one segment of our border security.
To abolish, or re-make the dept. wouldn't come close to leaving our borders unprotected.
This simple link provides some easy answers.
No, no one is calling for open borders. That is a Russian meme pushed on twitter and picked up by Rightwing trolls.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/29/17518176/democrats-to-...
2
The left, right, or center discussion is counterproductive. The path to Democratic Psrty victories lies in sticking to the fundamentals of campaigning, and having a message that resonates with voters.
That Ocasio-Cortez is a Democratic Socialist is less important than her energy, work ethic, charisma, and the simple clarity of her message. “I am like you, and we deserve a seat at the table.” is a message that speaks directly to her constituency’s need to be seen and heard. It’s a message voters throughout the nation are waiting to hear.
48
@Mark Hale Wrong, the majority of Americans don’t want increased taxes to pay for those who won’t do for thenselves. Socialism has worked so well in Venezuela and Cuba. Hmmm.
What the left needs is political organizations that are like the left-wing parties in days of yore: Running candidates but not as the sole or even main focus of their activities. They can organize people in lots of other ways to do many things. The left historically had trouble with elections, but to the question, work within the government or outside it?, the only answer is: yes. The DSA is the organization that is now best positioned in this regard. They are both a faction of the Democratic Party and a separate entity that does not depend on it. This also enables getting around somewhat the absence of a multiparty system guaranteeing minor parties representation.
Any left worth its name will not take existing debates among politicians and mainstream media as setting the agenda. Liberal Democrats do that, and this ties them to less important matters as they market themselves as nothing more than the anti-Republicans. The Democratic Party lots its dependence on a formerly left-of-center labor movement, and it chose to embrace both cultural issues appealing to rich urban liberals and identity politics, making itself in theory the coalition of all the disadvantaged groups. But this is corporate liberalism: inclusion and bans on insults. This politics failed.
The left must be inventive as well as pragmatic, and it should draw freely on political thought in Europe and elsewhere. If "there is no alternative," as Thatcher said, we must construct one.
3
How many parties, left or right, are represented on the ballot in a primary election matters only to the individuals running, their families, close friends and staffs.
What matters is the general election and the weeks of campaigning which lead up to the first Tuesday in November.
If self-identified liberals, socialists, centrists and whatever plan to caucus in Congress with the Democrats, their differences in focus harm no candidate and no movement – as long as the differences do not deteriorate into personal insults or the questioning of motives.
Democrats are not in disarray, but it might come in handy to keep the Republicans thinking that.
2
If progressive values are not allowed to infiltrate the Democratic Party and form the basis of a new foundation of liberalism, then in the long term Democrats will remain in minorities everywhere because there really will not be any substantive differences with Republicans.
As much as I like President Obama, in retrospect, how much did his centrist agenda really do for middle class and lower middle class workers? Not much at all and that is one reason Trump is in the White House. His focus was really on ensuring that the financiers and big business had their ways. The one initiative that he and Tom Perez put together was to raise the minimum amount a salaried worker could be paid. It was estimated that would have given significant raises to 4 million low salaried, essentially abused workers in America. What did they do? They sat on it forever and Obama finally signed it right before the election, it was challenged in court and instead of a Hillary Clinton administration fighting the challenge and winning, Trump became President and 4 million workers were denied their more than justifiable raises.
If we do not stand for a $15 minimum wage, a guaranteed federal job for all, healthcare as a right for everyone, aggressive environmental protections, a sustainable green economy, social justice, equal pay for women and criminal justice reform, then what truly is the difference between a Republican and a Democrat? Not much at all.
30
@Rich D Trump is in the White House because he spoke to people who have been maligned and neglected for being white, so -called privileged people, many of whom are poor in Appalachia, middle America, the South and inner cities and all over this country. He caught their ear and they won’t let go. He has my ear as well. Trump will win in 2020. Brace yourself. He also decreased the black unemployment rate. Winning.
1
@Rich D. Are you seriously claiming that there's no "substantive differences" between the executive branch during the Obama years and what we have now? Obama gave the middle class many things, especially the start of national health care, which Democrats had been trying to do since WWII. Now, because too many leftists like you threw away their votes on third parties (or didn't bother voting at all) Trump is slowly taking that all away.
I've said this before but I think Bret really lets himself down when he uses the terms "left" and "leftist". I'm of the left but I largely agree with him on this issue - and on others. How on Earth is this possible? Why suggest politics is like following one team or another in a two team league?
I'm inclined to think Bret is better than that, but just barely, perhaps I'm wrong. Personally I get great satisfaction from intellectually "cutting off at the knees" those both too far to my right AND to my left. I love pointing out to the latter that they are so close to the former they could kiss.
It hardly seems wise to me for Bret to represent himself as siding with all on the right against all on the left. Surely he rather sides with those respectfully close to him, whether to his right, or more likely, to his left on the right AND the left?
I don't know Bret, but he seems to me to be someone who, in becoming himself, looked around for 'the right people" and adopted their thinking as "right thinking" and his own. I think he's recently discovered that many of them are "empty suits","hollow men", with "headpiece[s] filled with straw".
A day is swiftly coming when everything that melted into air will be solid again and human beings having realised what they are "with sober senses", will participate willingly in their own civilisation, seeking to become what they may become.
I can imagine Bret rehearsing for that day: "I'm of the right, sure, but I was never that far right".
1
I agree that the image of 28-year-old Ocasio-Cortez as social democratic king-maker is entertaining. This is obviously a bright person, she worked hard to take the primary nomination from Joe Crowley, and she clearly has a future in Democratic politics; but let’s put her own win in perspective. She’s a young, striking Hispanic liberal Democratic woman who was running for a congressional seat in a district (NY’s 14th) that has become overwhelmingly Hispanic and she was running against an old-time Irish pol whom some suggested had phoned-in his re-election efforts. She simply happened to be the person of whom it could be said “it was time”. Her social democratic messages resonate with her prospective constituencies in The Bronx and Queens, but far less so to most venues that saw Democratic primaries last Tuesday; and even more questionably to most of America.
If indeed the pragmatic left is winning over them, then that’s good news for Democrats and not good news for Republicans, who still may not have gotten the message that America would prefer a vast center represented in Congress rather than two extremes that can’t work together. I’ve been egging Dems on to do this for YEARS. If it’s finally happening, then I regard it as healthy.
Don’t expect to see a lot of social democrats actually elected in November. Marginal voters will look at them, consider their messages, and many will vote Republican when they might have voted Democratic with a more moderate candidate.
9
@Richard Luettgen: RL has no doubt, just as he has no doubt about reading Trump's secret mind. Way to go, Republicans!
10
@Richard Luettgen She is not bright. She cannot answer complex questions about anything. In one of her latest interviews she used the word, “like” seven times in less than 90 seconds. You know, like, a high school kid or you know like an uneducated person or you know, like something or other. Like, you know.
I always feel that, in a callow way, Michelle lets her hopes and values dominate what should be better reporting, better assessment. What she argues might be true, but it is way too early to state as fact.
6
She's a columnist, not a reporter.
Leftists/Socialists will lose. The majority of the country is moderate on both sides, with the remainder being more conservative than liberal.
16
@Olivia: Your wish is apparent.
5
@Olivia - Labels are a poor excuse for thinking. The majority of the country agrees with most of the Liberal platform including cutting the Pentagon, more money for education, higher taxes on unearned income, single payer medicare for all. Those ideas are considered moderate.
4
@Olivia, you might be right. But clearly, the dems cannot assume that occupying the mushy middle will work. Something new is in order, something that will bring in new voters and energize the young. After all, the average Trump supporter is white and over 60.
The 2006 House election was defined by a willingness to elect Blue Dog Dems in districts where that was the best option. 2018 is marked by a willingness to nominate and elect genuine liberals to districts where the electorate leans that way, and to contemplate that suburban and rural districts might actually be open to the idea of true universal healthcare and a better deal for wage workers.
14
I wish this article were true
A searing memory of the 2016 election was the left most part of the Democratic party saying there was no difference between Hillary and Trump
They then stayed home or voted for Stein. Consequence: we now will have an activist conservative Supreme Court for a generation.
They voted for Nader: consequence untold thousands died in Bush’s war
And sadly I fear they will find fault with the Democratic nominee because it wont be Bernie.
Consequence: four more years of Trump.
119
@Blue: You are wrong. Some people did say that and still do. They were not the left-most Democrats, just the least observant "left" Democrats. Remember, for instance, that Bernie campaigned for Hillary.
8
@Thomas Zaslavsky; I remember him campaigning -- in a lukewarm sorta way -- for Hillary. And his fans being absolutely furious and most of them either staying home or straying off to third parties in protest. What I remember most about that crew was their insistence on ideological purity and fury if anyone strayed.
1
2016 doesn't count because Russia attacked our elections massively. And please look forward, not back. The situation's way too critical to gripe.
1
There are not enough space alien votes for the Green Party to make that a political contest. That is not where politics is, it is just a distraction. That is not what the left is either, it is just misdirection.
Yes, Democrats are still in disarray. Their right wing, calling themselves centrist from out to the right of Nixon, are still there and still shaping our the Democratic Party into something well to the right of Rockefeller Republicans.
In Michigan, we have a Democratic Party apparatchik running for Governor, against Darth Vader.
There ought to be real concerns about Democratic turnout, because the 51% of the Democratic vote she got was sharply divided from the 49% she did not get, that had Bernie and Alexandria campaigning here in rallies.
It could still be saved. Although she was a Hillary supporter in a state Hillary lost twice, first to Bernie and then to Trump, she could still pull it out if she does not go full Hillary.
But can she do outreach to the rest of the Democrats? Will she? Or will Darth Trump win again here by another default coming from Democratic disarray?
The defeated Team Hillary has not gone away. It has a lot to answer for, before and now again. How long will we have "Democrats" to the right of Nixon and Rockefeller?
15
@Mark Thomason: Probably not as long as we'll have Republicans to the right of Franco and Mussolini.
19
@Mark Thomason
Make up your mind. If Democrats are to appeal to more white, working class voters, as we've been told over and over and over and over, don't they need conservative candidates to appeal to these voters?
Try to remember these are primaries and don't waste your time applying general election strategies and principles to them.
There can be "disarray" in a primary. In the general there is only ONE party candidate so disarray is impossible.
As for Michigan Democratic primaries, let's see:
1972 George Wallace
1988 Jesse Jackson
1992 Hillary's husband
2016 Bernie Sanders
Not exactly a good barometer of party sentiment.
7
@Paul: One objection: No, they do not need "conservative" candidates, they need to run on truly Democratic policies. Like FDR, to name an excellent role model. Not doing that has put them into the minority.
1
I wish that Alexandria, like Bernie before her, could articulate how her ideas would be financed.
13
@GC - Bernie Sanders at his website had a perfectly clarified set of viable financing prospects. Yes, voters will expect no less from Alexandria nor from her opponent.
16
How about the 3 trillion dollars the Republicans handed to the rich and corporations with that tax cut? And the billions of dollars they want to send to rich by inflation indexing capital gains?
It should not be that the Republicans make the rich richer and the Democrats spend everyone's money frivolously. But honestly, the Republicans are going to use the high debt and the legacy of it, higher and higher interest payments on the debt as rates rise, as an excuse to go after the social welfare net. Too many people who are Trump supporters prefer to block the idea out, even though Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Disability and Unemployment insurance are extremely important to them.
The Democratic Socialist are perfectly right that we need to be spending on our future - which means better education and training for both children and adults, a better medical care system so that we can have a more productive workface, and giving people a hand up not merely a handout. And we can afford it as a country, we just need to make our future and our people the priority.
5
Hmmm... maybe start with the overinflated military budget?
For the midterms none of this matters. What matters is that Trump is on the ballot-if not literally- and Clinton is not. Huge advantage for the Dems
5
That was then. This is now:
"In the 20th century, prominent socialists and labor leaders ... opposed to the US absorbing large numbers of immigrants ... As recently as 2015, Bernie Sanders was asked about policies approximating open borders, which he dismissed as a 'Koch brother idea.'"
4
@MyThreeCents\
A source for the qute "In the 20th century, prominent socialists and labor leaders ... opposed to the US absorbing large numbers of immigrants ..." would be nice. The 20th century did last from 1900 to 2000, so that quote covers a lot of time and history. And given that a good number of the socialists and labor leaders in the first decades were immigrants or children of immigrants, it makes little sense as a 100 statement.
10
@MyThreeCents
Oops, sorry, wrong spot to ask for the quote as you were quoting a quote!
Right! I keep reading about divisions within the Dems. Fake news! We look to be forming not just a pragmatic, but grass-roots led pragmatic party. Unlike what we had with the elite-in-front disaster in 2016. Plus a loyal far-left wing designed to keep the rest honest. The temptation of the center to cosy up to the moneyed interests will be enormous. It will be up to the likes of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez to keep that from happening. What could be better?
Identity politics! Embrace the label! Teachers, nurses, working class people, and yes, minority groups of all stripes. A diverse group of people from various backgrounds and perspectives, working towards the same end. Let Soros and Spielberg spend their money supporting our worthy non-profits. Some giant donations to Planned Parenthood would be greatly appreciated. And to many other needy causes. Let the politics be local.
28
Either the pragmatic left will become thoroughly pragmatic and win or we will stay the course:
GOP “representatives” of the people will continue to use short-term economic efficiency as the justification for all socio-economic programs and policies irrespective of the consequences for persons. Short term capital accumulation and profits will remain the be all and end all of "social interactions." “Human" relations will become increasingly transactional and fungible. Whatever is legal will be deemed moral and honorable. The inevitable outcomes of unfettered "free"-market, casino-capitalist exchanges will be celebrated as the embodiment of justice. Freedom will be viewed as the opportunity to expend one's time, talent and resources in any way one deems conducive to the pursuit of one's private and subjective self-interest—no matter what further degeneration of communal life results.
“Realists” will enjoin us to abandon all ideals and ignore the fact that the “invisible hand” of the market is attached to a very strong plutocratic arm.
Communal bonds and institutions that actually conserve civil society will further unravel and democracy will be consigned to the dustbin of history.
6
Conspicuously left out of Michelle Goldberg's piece is any mention of immigration policy.
In the 20th century, prominent socialists and labor leaders like Norman Thomas, Samuel Gompers and Eugene V. Debs were vehemently opposed to the US absorbing large numbers of immigrants, on the grounds that doing so would drive down wages and benefit only the capitalist class at the expense of workers.
As recently as 2015, Bernie Sanders was asked about policies approximating open borders, which he dismissed as a "Koch brother idea." Sanders' position was consistent with that of of most pro-labor politicians and leaders for the past 100+ years.
The "Democratic Socialists" cited in this piece, with the possible exception of 2018 Bernie Sanders, are 180 degrees from what would have defined a socialist in most of the years I can count leading up to the 2016 election. Those candidates who wish to appeal to independents, rust belt voters and voters who were raised as democrats but no longer see themselves represented by the party need to seriously re-examine their stance on immigration policy unless they plan on handing the 2020 election to Trump.
31
@Middleman MD
The history of labor unions in the early 20th century is much more complex than your assertion. Immigrants played a big role in the fights for wages, etc., in the early 20th century. Of course, sometimes the companies brought in immigrants to be scabs; sometimes those would be scabs revolted as well, sometimes not. But the bosses loved playing the various groups against each other and used this as a excuse to cut wages.
Another issue of that time were the severe boom and busts of the 19th and 20th centuries which those leaders lived through (Gompers as a child of immigrant cigar makers from the UK and an immigrant himself). He was also no socialist.
Perhaps had the rulers of the US economy NOT used immigrants and the threat of immigrants as a way to cut wages at every downturn in the economy (or whenever they felt like it), those leaders might not have seen immigration as a threat. Perhaps we should look to the rulers to see the source of that as a wedge issue.
10
@Middleman MD
Immigration to the US should be orderly and lawful. Undocumented immigrants coming over the borders is neither.
Immigration policy also needs to be thoughtful and humane.
Right now we have the worst of all worlds with immigration that is not orderly nor lawful nor humane. Democrats need to recognize those shortcomings and make clear proposals for betterment.
2
@Middleman MD
Socialists were never against immigration. That's a fake fact.
2
If the pragmatic left wins, perhaps the majority of of American citizens will endorse the following:
Democratic republics are founded on certain fundamental principles, similar to those set out in the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights. These principles are now accepted and recognized in all mature democracies. They limit and control the effect of any decisions made by government officials. The rule of law requires courts to uphold these principles and to protect the rights they articulate. In a rights-based constitutional democracy, checks and balances are in place to guarantee that no person is sovereign and no decision or action is above the rule of law.
Democratic institutions are designed to protect individuals against the dangers inherent to both dictatorial authoritarianism and majoritarian "populism": bias against and scapegoating of religious, racial and ethnic minorities; neglect of the vulnerable; rank political opportunism; consolidation of anti-democratic power; restrictions on and control over the free press; xenophobia; jingoism; abuse of power by governmental and economic elites; and conflicts of interest on the part of elected officials.
Is there still a “market” for such an ideal?
28
Would it not be trilling to have a Congress were more than two polar philosophies were represented? Where a diversity of views were aired and debates were discussions?
A spread of Democratic ideas would still be united against the mindless conformity of the Republican automatons and yet still be able to innovate policy and to let Americas govern again.
11
Well I digressed more than I expected to do. I have been a small contractor, worked asa contract employee, belonged to several unions, even had a conservative streak engendered by four years in the AF during the cold war, when propaganda had us all believing the Russians were going to attack us at any time.
But in all my working life, I can not remember when the Republicans were our friends. Everything we gained they have been trying to destroy since 1932. Any progressive action is derided as Socialistic and costs money. No matter how rich they are, they can not bring themselves to let the working people enjoy a better life, their argument is, if they make more it will trickle down to the rest of us, that it is good for them to become richer than any historical potentate.
We now have an administration that seeks to give our public lands to profiteers, to allow pollution of our land,water, and air to save money for their insatiable friends who think profits are more important than our rights to enjoy those things unpolluted.
To accomplish their ends, they are working to deny many of the right to vote, to take away the power of unions to get better wages and working conditions, to create a society of Lords and Serfs. We as Democrats have to hang together,or as it was said, we will all hang separately. (sic Ben Franklin).
Some of you may not like the choice of candidates, HRC was seen as unacceptable by certain parties, that got us W and possibly Donald the Mad.
285
Great comment, David Underwood!
I’ll believe it when I see it.
Conspicuous self-discipline and any dominant spirit of shared-sacrifice aren’t noteworthy personality traits in the professional ranks of either mainstream political party. Most political leaders are cynical, amoral, self-aggrandizing, self-seeking careerists. But for Democrats to win in 2018 and 2020 the hoary Old Guard of the House and Senate needs, at a minimum, to retire from view, if not retire from Congress and disappear.
And Harris and Booker need to “curb their enthusiasm” for the American presidency because it will ruin the Party’s chances. Some of the American nation might seem to be receptive but most of it simply isn’t ready for them.
5
@Steve Singer,
“And Harris and Booker need to “curb their enthusiasm” for the American presidency because it will ruin the Party’s chances.”
Why? Because they’re black?
It's to the ever-lasting credit, honor and political courage of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that they endorse and campaign for somewhat long shot candidates, like Abdul El-Sayed and Brent Welder.
Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez endorse based on whether their candidate embodies the values they believe in, not whether their candidate is most likely to win. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez aren't concerned about endangering their reputations or expending their political capital on currently less favored candidates. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are all about supporting people who want what they want, win or lose.
Slowly but surely, Sanders' and Ocasio-Cortez's selfless commitments to values, rather than chalking up winnings, will pay off in creating a better Democratic Party. Even in losing, El-Sayed and Welder have become prominent Democrats, and the issues they ran on have become more important.
It is immensely reassuring to have politicians like Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez who, win or lose, are more concerned about promoting their values than they are about attaining self-glory by always winning.
74
@Steve C
I am afraid that Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez will appear to stand for open-borders, and that just won't work well in red state Arizona. Hillary lost Arizona by only about 3%, but I think Sanders would have lost by much more.
10
@Tucson Geologist Appear? The Democratic Party is a clarion call for open borders, even if they think we are too stupid to notice merely because they don't use those two words.
@Steve C Are you on their publicity team? (And I'm amused by your view of Sanders not being interested in "attaining self-glory).
2
The apparent differences Among democrats is more a matter of emphasis than substance. We all fight for adequate health care for all, the right for everyone to vote, fair treatment for the poor and struggling and a system that honors everyone justly.
But it is often the media which thrives on differences and the opposition that paints democrats as radical free spenders that shape the conversation. Democrats though spanning a wide spectrum of ideas really represent the needs of the majority and this is always what we as democrats need to emphasize.
92
@just Robert Trump is president because the young Democrats had ideals but no pragmatism. When the could not have Bernie as the Democratic candidate they either refused to vote Democrat or just refused to vote.
From my personal contacts, they have not changed. If they don't get a far left candidate they refuse to vote.
1
"The new generation of left-wing activists, by contrast, is good at self-multiplication."
So are viruses.
"It’s true that several candidates endorsed by Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders lost on Tuesday, including Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan’s gubernatorial primary and Brent Welder in a congressional primary in Kansas. But it’s testament to how far left the Democratic Party’s center of gravity has moved that the winners in those two races — Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan and Sharice Davids in Kansas — could be considered establishment."
That might seem like a good thing to you Ms. Goldberg, but it will also turn many Democrats to Republicans, supporters of independents or just stay at home on election day former voters.
If Mr. Trump wins again, and it is not impossible, the new Democratic party will have much responsibility.
12
@Thomas Zaslavsky Sir, you are the blind one. Trump will win in 2020.
@Thomas Zaslavsky
Prof. Zaslavsky, might you relate to the arguments instead of attacking me ad hominem. It is not worthy of a scholar of your stature.
It's time to stop arguing. At this point in the history of our nation any Democrat is a better candidate for elected office than any Republican. That includes the half dozen GOPoliticos who are actually decent people but who are as fully invested in Trump's presidency as are the sewer rats like Mark Meadows, Ted Cruz and Steve King. We need to cast our votes for whoever wins the Democratic primaries for the House and Senate and THEN register our disapproval over the PAC money they may have turned a blind eye to or their refusal to sign off on the abolishment of ICE.
210
@stu freeman "At this point in the history of our nation any Democrat is a better candidate for elected office than any Republican." At this point? How about for the past 35+ years? Over which time the more-Mao-than-thou types have always found some excuse for failing to support the Democratic ticket. No reason to think they won't find still another.
1
@stu freeman
Yes, Stu. The house is ON FIRE. Put out the fire, NOW.
THEN let's squabble over the kitchen renovations.
Common sense must prevail in order to save the country.
Vote for any and every Democrat you can find and don't go bananas and toss your vote in the trash on some hopeless third party crank.
3
@stu freeman
Remarkably, even such folk as George Will of the conservative columns seems to agree with you: "...any Democrat is a better candidate for elected office than any Republican."
The ancient Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times" is upon us. These really are *interesting times.*
It's a shame that the Green Party was the most ineffectual faction on the Left. Their issues today are the most important in history. We are looking directly at runaway climate change, as our media shrugs and putative Leftists tend to regress to the identity politics of the extreme right wing of the Republican Party.
Yes, we need a higher minimum wage, gender equality, and respect for minorities. All of that will seem trivial if we continue to spiral toward a horrific future, beset by dessicated ecosystems and climate induced mass starvation:
http://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf
Republicans, paid handsomely by the oil companies, claim this is fake science, while Democrats are somehow intimidated, rarely mentioning it in their campaigns. Our descendants will ask where we were hiding, as their world disintegrates.
The Democrats are not being pragmatic. They are being opportunistic. What they really need is to become courageous, and fight the dark forces that are presiding over climate catastrophe.
You are on top of everything else, Michelle. Study the climate issue in depth, and reward us and the world with much better coverage- and determination.
53
@Mike Roddy - The Greens behave as if they are fully supported and financed by the GOP and I am beginning to think that they actually are .
15
@Mike Roddy.Thanks a million, not least for the www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf reference.
The July 2015 US DoD Report on Security Implications of Climate Change has stark warnings. The department of Defence 'sees climate change as a present security threat, not strictly a long term risk......We are already observing the impacts of climate change in shocks and stresses to vulnerable nations and communities, including the United States, and in the Arctic, Middle East, Africa, Asia and South America.'
Case studies have demonstrated measureable impacts on areas vulnerable to impacts of climate change and in specific cases significant interaction between conflict dynamics & sensitivity to climate changes.'
3
@Mike Roddy
The problem is with the actual impact of the Green Party. Their strategy of running fringe candidates has effectively helped Republicans win in several notable elections. If anything, the Green Party helped bring the climate catastrophe closer by facilitating the election of Bush in 2000 and Trump in 2016.
"Opportunistic" Democrats are the best chance for sound environmental policies. "Pure" will get you Trump and Scott Pruitt at the EPA.
4
Ranked choice voting would resolve these issues. That's what all dems across the spectrum should be clamoring for.
36
@Law Feminist: Yes. In Ireland, we call it the transferable vote. It's more time-consuming, but a lot fairer. When someone wins a primary with less than 40% of the vote, that's not democratic. It's also divisive. And counting the ballots is also a lot of fun.
11
@Law Feminist You are right that a change in the voting system is what would resolve the issue. However, ranked choice voting is not the change that would bring about the effect you want. RCV would solidify the two-party system with the need for each party to have the primary war that is endemic today, as it has done in Australia and Ireland.
What would have the effect is pairwise rated voting. In that system, voters rate each candidate and each candidate us compared head-to-head against all other candidates with the winner being the candidate who defeated all other candidates in such a matchup. That would allow both wings to run in the general election without disadvantaging each other. That would guarantee that whoever is strongest against the right will be in the general election.
3
It's hard enough to get Americans to vote when they just have to check a box next to a name. The system you are advocating would reduce voting turnout to the single digits.
The USA is a large highly politically diverse nation.
If the Democratic Party is to regain politic power and govern America it must itself reflect that political diversity.
It seems unlikely that the Democratic Party will once regain political national power and govern America from the far left of the political spectrum in America.
The real opportunity that the Democratic Party now has is to regain political power and govern as a centrist common sense consensual Party, not a Party of the left.
A Party of the left governing America seems as remote now as it always been, despite a lot of wishful thinking.
14
@David
Were FDR and LBJ the "far left" of the Democratic Party? Probably. FDR got 4 terms. FDR didn't worry about where he was on the political spectrum. He worried about who needed help and how to help. Those needing help weren't the corporations and the rich that centrist Democrats pledge allegiance to. Ditto for LBJ, who would have won re-election if not for his misguided Vietnam policies.
49
@David
In today's politcal spectrum, FDR, LBJ, even Ike and to some extent Nixon, would be considered "far left". At the time, FDR's New Deal was what you would have called a "centrist common sense" response to the disastrous consequences of raw capitalism run amok, and it remained the mainstream national consensus through administrations of both parties until Reagan came along to undermine it. The fresh crop of Democrats from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Doug Jones to Conor Lamb, however they describe themselves, share common progressive values.
The moment the corporate-minded DLC came along was when the Democratic Party's image of defending middle class and working people started to look ambiguous. "Far left"? Absolutely, positively not even close; more like Republican-lite.
20
It sounds like David is so far to the right that he will never vote for a Democrat for anything. That's what calling it "the far left of the political spectrum in America" says to me.
10
The Democratic Party is becoming itself again. At its most successful it was a coalition of a moderate-to-progressive spectrum of interests. Its decline set in when the party's brass followed the Democratic Leadership Council's pressure to shed the more progressive parts of its agenda. OK, it did elect a couple of Democratic presidents, but meanwhile it has lost federal and state offices in the thousands and seen many competitive states and districts turn bright red.
The national party hasn't quite abandoned its habit of dictating what candidate should run where, but it's being increasingly ignored.
80
@mancuroc
The Democratic Party was quite dominant in governing at a national level when it contained liberal, moderate and conservative elements, and liberals had real power.
The Democratic Party lost its national mandate when it shed its moderate and conservative elements, and became increasingly a minority Party out of power nationally.
Liberals lost national power when moderate and conservative elements dropped out of the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party now has an opportunity to regain its national power to govern from the center, not from the left.
The idea of America being governed from the left seems as unlikely now as it always has been.
5
@David: "Shed its moderate and conservative elements" -- but more corporate-friendly. Explain that.
Huh? I'm confused by your comment. Clinton triangulation a is not leftist. Obama capitulation to congress and abandoning the public option. Democrats take tons of corporate money from the same sources as republicans. Left wingers like sanders and occasio Cortez take no corporate money! This is the change.
Michelle Goldberg may believe that all progressives support so-called identity politics issues as much as economic progressivism--but this one does not. And I am not alone. People like Ms. Goldberg perhaps should consider which is more essential at the present juncture, and which is more likely to win elections.
16
@Vivid Hugh: Then again, Michelle Goldberg may not believe that all progressives support so-called identity politics as much as economic progressivism. I don't believe she expresses a view on that here, and her point is that progressives are being pragmatic. She's writing about candidates who are deciding for themselves how to run. So far they've done pretty well. I agree with the people like Ms. Goldberg who find that encouraging.
34
@Stan Sutton - Vivid Hugh's point, that avid support for identity politics discourages many otherwise democrats from participating enthusiastically (or at all) in elections, is a valid one. Trump won, remember?
@Vivid Hugh
Yes. This life long FDR Democrat/liberal hates this identity politics of the illiberal left. Goddess only knows how many votes HRC lost to those who were just plain tired of division by every conceivable variable. In fact, in gender politics, divisions UNconceivable by only a few years.
This partially explains the rise of Jordan Peterson. I am a big fan of him, as is my similar liberal ex-fiance'.
I object to the implication, (much disputed), that Ralph Nader helped elect George Bush. It's well known that much of his 5% was not destined for Gore, and with the complications of the Electoral College it's an irresponsible analysis.
My counter to that argument would be this: Hillary Clinton helped elect Trump, and was a spoiler to the favorite, who could have won: Bernie Sanders.
17
Then why didn’t he win the majority of delegates ? Even allowing for his outsized capture of those from caucus contests - which are basically a test of which candidate’s supporters have the most free time on their hands.
15
@Sera- It never fails to amaze me how much Sanders supporters continue to gloat about Clinton losing.Wish they cared more about the country than their self-centered egos.
11
@Sera
No. I definitely think Nader cost Gore the election. I was one of the stupid ones who voted for him as a protest against the status quo. Never again.
George Bush was not at all the moderate I thought he was. I didn't realize Cheney would be running the show. I read Rise of the Vulcans too late.
I would say that we all need to vote, but most readers here will vote. I have my primary ballot to fill out and mail back. Mostly it's trying to decide what candidates are best at the state and local levels. That takes some work to decide. I suspect most people don't want to do this work, and many couldn't care less. These are the same people who readily complain about national politics but don't understand that many of the problems we see there have their roots at the state and local levels.
You can vote for your party straight down the ballot, or you can take time to think about who the best candidates really are and then vote accordingly. It takes time to do the research, think things through, and then to act, but it is time well spent. Promulgating that idea is the best thing we can do for everyone. You still wind up voting for your party all the way down? No problem, at least you took time to carefully weigh the options.
Consider knocking on doors and making phone calls from your local party office. Let's face it: your vote doesn't count for much. But multiplying yourself through others makes a world of difference. Ralph Nader and Michelle Goldberg have that right.
15
At the national level, for the U.S. House and Senate, I would vote Democratic as an essential check on Trump.
2
We have a democracy problem! Until we join the rest of the developed world in making our vote-counting process transparent there is no way to know if election results are legitimate.
Some people are wondering if the vote count in Brent Welder’s race was manipulated. Welder, a progressive, received 52% of the vote in rural counties that make up 25% of the district. We are told that rural voters do not support progressive policies. Hmm.
In Johnson County (75% of the district), Welder received only 28% of the vote. It’s easier to manipulate votes in large districts. Johnson County has new voting machines but it took hours to announce the final count. Hmm. Supposedly there were “glitches” with the new machines. Hmm. There were other anomalies.
Election Theft in the 21st Century with Jonathan Simon https://tinyurl.com/ydz3jcvj
“[Optical scan ballots are] off limits to inspection and investigation. If they were footballs we would be impounding them and checking the air pressure. But this is our electoral system and, unlike apparently football, it’s not important enough to apply that level of scrutiny that would be necessary to be able to observe the process or audit the process or know that it was done honestly and accurately.”
Fearful of Hacking, Dutch Will Count Ballots by Hand https://tinyurl.com/gmyfnaw
“Election results are the heart of our democracy. You cannot risk any of this. Even if the vulnerabilities were small, you do not want to take any chances.”
105
Jonathan Simon: Vote Counts and Polls: An Insidious Feedback Loop https://tinyurl.com/y7jawyrb
“The Likely Voter Cutoff Model – which disproportionately eliminates members of the Democratic constituency [by asking them a series of questions] – ‘should get honestly tabulated elections consistently wrong.’ It should over-predict the Republican vote and under-predict the Democratic vote – by just about enough to cover the margins in the kind of tight races that determine the control of Congress and key state legislatures.
“Instead it performs ‘brilliantly’ and has therefore been universally adopted by pollsters, no questions asked, setting expectations not just for individual electoral outcomes, but for broad political trends.”
Exit polling has also been skewed to the right to be more in line with election results. Despite that there are still large discrepancies between exit polls and the machine counts.
Politico: Experts [Say] Broward's Election Chief Broke Law Destroying Ballots https://tinyurl.com/
Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes “destroyed the ballots” during a pending litigation brought forth to obtain access to them, and before a federal law that they be kept for 22 months. Candidate Tim Canova filed the lawsuit a year ago after he and election integrity advocates made repeated public-records requests to inspect the ballots. Analysis of the primary showed that only 19 of the 211 precincts had vote totals that matched the number of voters who signed the poll books.
11
@RLS
This fight can be won by doing it state by state. In every state's Secretary of State make requiring secure paper ballots the main issue. Especially when Democrats get elected Secretary of State, lobby them heavily to move to auditable systems (since it appears Republicans are more likely to not mind unverifiable systems).
Constitutionally, it maybe impossible to have a Federal solution, but the same thing can be achieved state by state.
7
@RLS
You do us a great service by reiterating how we voters have lost control over the integrity of our voting results. Thank you.
8
Michelle, you very well show Democrats are not in disarray - it's merely a media meme promulgated by the same crowd who created the monster now known as Pres. Very Stable Genius 45*.
Progressives will constantly be labeled by the media as "socialists" or "lib'ruls" by various outlets and talking heads whose bread is buttered by creating conflict, which we now know is cleverly leveraged by foreign interests intent on taking apart Western Democracy as we've come to know it.
The vote in Missouri rejecting the right-to-work measure is the way forward.
With politics in this country being regional, the platforms and interests of one region will not always easily translate to another region, just as the interests of urban and rural areas sometimes diverge. Local Progressives should run on basic Progressive issues, with the local translation of Progressive values obviously then looking different in different regions of the country.
But Progressives have to be relentless when it comes to national elections and making sure each and every vote for POTUS goes to a Progressive who can actually win your state - Progressives are not evenly dispersed enough around the country for any of us to indulge in the luxury of 'protest votes', or letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Our most powerful weapon is our vote, and the polls are a war zone.
Else, why would GOP'ers try so hard to keep us from voting, or make our votes not count ?
302
@R. Law: I disagree about their butter. Their butter is not creating conflict so much as creating the appearance of disarray and incompetence among those who threaten the established large pocketbooks.
4
@R. Law If voting had any real effect they wouldn't let us do it.
Notice that the so-called "Moderates" cited by Ms. Goldberg have come back to Democratic values, modern ones, not 1950's ones, and are no longer "Republican Lite" (remember Susan Nunn's and Alison Grimes' bumbled and lost campaigns--running as GOP-Lite).
Each district and race needs to be responsive to what Democrats and Dem-Adjacent voters want--like Conner Lamb and Doug Jones, or Ocasio-Cortez.
Yet ALL of them are either avoiding or denying support for the moribund Dem "Leadership" of Pelosi, Schumer, Tom Perez, the DNC, the DSCC and the DCCC.
And Republicans FEEL the tidal wave coming, like it happened for them in 2010.
Remember: The old "rules" that the Dem leaders go by hasn't won the House in 10 years, and lost in 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004, then again in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016.
New Rules seems to be working and Dem "Leaders" need to figure this out, and accept it. And, if you look at the most conservative, like Doug Jones, to the DSA Dems, their policy goals and plans and hopes aren't really very different. And THAT is the new strength of the Democratic Party.
63
@Dadof2
It is truly sad to realize that the idea of listening to a constituency's issues, and then campaigning on the promise to go to the capitol and represent that constituency and those issues, is now seen as novel and innovative.
3
@Dadof2 Good points. I totally agree that that Nancy Pelosi, etc. need to exit their roles for the good of the Democratic Party. Their time has come...and gone. Nancy Pelosi especially. She is toxic to many, many voters. For the good of the Democratic Party please make a graceful exit. Now. ASAP. Well before the midterms!
1
"'Democrats in disarray' is a take that writes itself, but not every disagreement is a war."
Well said. There is hardly any significant policy disagreement I can discern among Democrats and, even, Democratic-leaning Independents. One would be hard pressed to identify what constitutes a "moderate Democratic" agenda, unless it be the same Democratic agenda as Progressives with the public urgency tamped down to avoid motivating Republican voters or with cautions that pie in the sky must be translated into actual legislation before anyone can eat any of it. None of that is a bad thing. Most remarkably, well to do, educated Democrats are less ashamed of being Democrats than anytime I can remember since I was a child and Kennedy was President. Democrats are united in understanding we can do better than Trump and better than the Democratic party past that brought us to this impasse.
128
The Greens may be well intended
Their sabotage here, ill defended,
When the race was so close
Their run makes me morose
Our cause they have in effect rended.
Nader gave us George Bush, recall,
The Iraq War hardly was small,
So do some deep thinking
Our climate is sinking,
Don't Trump and his minions appall?
171
@Larry Eisenberg Ahhhh, it's our poet laureate again. Thanks Larry.
1
Idealism is terrific, but is dangerous when it keeps idealists from voting. In a major referendum election about a well-publicized environmental issue here ten years ago, only a few of the Pacific Greens voted. What were they waiting for?
In fact, even now, only some 40-60% of registered voters in the US vote in major elections, and far fewer in midterms. What are they waiting for? It appears they really don't care about our democracy.
70
Maybe they are waiting for an issue to vote for such as Medicare for All.
18
@Zejee
Maybe we shouldn't wait for an issue. Maybe we should just always vote in all elections. Maybe we should consider voting as our civic duty. Maybe we should start voting like citizens instead of like consumers.
2
@dlb
Well said. I think it's shortsighted to abstain from voting because one's key issue is not being addressed. There are plenty of other parts of candidates' platforms that should be considered, both in terms of voting for and of voting against.
1
We are winning with women. Progressive women who get things done. The ones that do the work and get the results. We also voted for one in 2016 and she won too.
306
Yeah...the participation trophy. Democratic Party establishment feminists did a really great job in ‘16, didn’t they. We should listen to them again.
2
@Suzanne Perkins Never forget that 53% of White women voted for Trump. if you want to focus on identity politics, there's and identity for you to keep in mind.
2
@Suzanne Perkins Pro-female gender bias didn't serve the Democrats, and the nation and world, well in 2016.
1
What is happening on the ground in ALL districts, is that the Progressive candidates are being unequivocal in promoting policies that are indeed ''practical'',
Things like human rights, and a women's sole dominion over their own bodies, peace, a living wage, Progressive taxes and the like are no longer ''fringe'' or ''radical'', (no matter how hard the extreme right likes to portray them as such)
The results are showing up in primaries and special elections. (even in bright red districts that have been that way since the civil war)
The blue wave is coming to wash away the republican swamp.
380
@FunkyIrishman
I certainly hope so—sans identity politics.
4
@FunkyIrishman
Will the Dems clean out their own swamp first is the real issue for them. Or will they let the voters do it for them. We'll have to wait and see.
4
How is it that the far right is able to portray progressives as radical extremists, when it is they who are more accurately described by this phrase -- white supremacists; children in cages; colossal transfers of wealth to the super rich from everyone else; violent, fanatical, would-be christians trying to impose a theocracy on American society in direct violation of the constitution. Who are are radical extremists?
33