My father fought in Germany during WWII, then came home and went to college on the GI bill. Both my parents received federal assistance for a loan on their first house. Later, during retirement, they were taken care of by Medicare and given an income by Social Security. They worked hard, kept their values, lived modestly, and voted for Democrats. Apparently, they were wild-eyed, leftist-socialist radicals, and I never knew it.
18
The findings that AOC did best in gentrifying areas with large numbers of young white voters, while Crowley ran strongest in working class Latino and African-American neighborhoods, gives lie to the charge that the Democratic Party has become obsessed with race and gender. It should make people question exactly which party is that really practices identity politics.
2
Why do Political Commentators and Analysts
keep operating under the delusion that people
vote their skin colour ?
People vote their economic interests.
I am all in favour of National Health Care
Letting Immigrants who have not committed a crime
stay and become citizens.
But I am also in favour of stricter Border Control
as I feel our duty is to the poor citizens of America.
Send Economic aid to poorer countries, help them
establish just governments.
As for Ocasio-Cortez, she is aiming too high and
has too many lies about her past to go much higher.
8
The Democratic party was shoved to the right with Bill Clinton's Third Way ideology that made its focus the same wealthy donor class as the Republicans, while breaking promises to its former base, the middle and working class. This led to the unchecked capitalism that produced the Crash of '08, and the subsequent bail out to Wall St. The powers running the DNC - all Third Way disciples, like Hilary - refused to take up any of these "socialist" causes because their wealthy donors didn't want to have their escalating wealth diminished. Meanwhile these Democrats In Republican Clothing were banking on continued support from those they had abandoned. And they got it for years...until now.
Now, finally, we're getting candidates who represent those abandoned, and who are refusing to hew to the poobah's Third Way agenda. But the Old Guard is trying to retain their power by labeling these candidates as "socialists", and "far left". Well, if that's true, then FDR was a "socialist" too. Funny though how all those "socialists" who voted for FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ enjoyed such capitalistic benefits like good paying jobs, benefits, home ownership, good education, and the fruits of Big Guv'mint like the Interstate Highway system, electricity, schools, the Space Program and all the benefits that produced. It was only when we turned our backs on that success and relied on unchecked capitalism that most of America began their slide backwards.
We need to go left to go forward.
11
This is the difference between R & D's. OAC may get her support from well-to-do, educated whites, but her platform focuses on those left behind. Even her green revolution will provide jobs for those less well off. R's, on the other hand, vote only for candidates that further their selfish interests.
7
"...as millennials and minorities become an ever-larger proportion of the party, it will have a natural constituency..."
I would counter that as they start to actually pay taxes then the millennials will adopt the standard liberal plaint, 'raise the taxes on everybody except me'
9
"What pundits today decry as a radical turn in Democratic policy and politics actually finds its antecedents in 1944."
This quote in the article should have been the lede. Instead, it appears 66 paragraphs into the article.
What is now being called "left" used to be called "center."
It used to be called the values and the core of the Democratic party.
8
All this fuss over a bright young person who stopped complaining and ran for office. She has a platform. Time will tell how effective she will be. Right now, she's connecting to those young and old who believe we can do better.
If you had a choice who would you rather share a beer with?A Trump supporter who has no interest beyond building an ineffective wall or an Ocasio-Cortez supporter, full of ideas, some fanciful, some interesting but most off all energy and light versus fear and hate?
7
Since 1980, the US has veered sharply to the Right. A course correction is long overdue.
11
Ocasio-Cortez and the rest haven't been in Congress a month.
Get back to me when anyone of them even gets a bill passed naming a Post Office.
Until the, maybe you ought to learn your jobs?
9
Why didn't you mention climate change as an issue? This issue dwarfs all others.
3
AOC behaves like a sanctimonious know-it-all teenager....entertaining for about 5 minutes, then just plain annoying and tiresome. Does not bode well for the Democratic Party,...
8
One frightening takeaway from this is that today's debased political climate is such that it can be considered radical (by otherwise level headed main stream commentators) to vehemently oppose bigotry and racism.
4
Ocasio Cortez was the lone Democrat to vote against leadership backed bills to re open government.
News not conjecture
Just saying...
3
Here’s my thing- though I’m a deeply liberal person who shares a lot of political beliefs with Ocasio-Cortez, I’m am not the least bit interested in her.
Why? Because she’s one representative of a district all the way across the country from where I live. I care about about my newly flipped district in Sherman Oaks. I care about my solidly Democratic district in Santa Rosa.
Just because one charismatic representative from Brooklyn has a good Twitter feed doesn’t mean that I have to care or that she deserves a highly-placed role on an important committee. She’s a freshman. Let her learn. And then, go ahead and tell me she deserves a seat.
5
The further the Democrats go Left with all the cultural politics including white people bashing and calling Men toxic, the further I am heading towards the right. I personally can’t stand what the Democratic Party has turned into. We’ll see who wins in 2020. I think a lot of people forget what happens in mid term elections. People vote for change and then, after seeing what they wrought, switch back.
7
If it looks like the Democrats are moving strongly to the left, it's because they have stopped chasing the GOP over the cliff in a vain effort to meet them in some mythical middle. That's why the gap is widening; Republicans have not slowed in their headlong rush to disaster.
In truth it is the Republican Party and its messaging machine that has been doing its best to drag America to the extreme right by controlling the narrative and broadcasting talking points picked up and amplified by the Mainstream Media.
The Mainstream Media has its own issues. Increasingly consolidated under corporate ownership into fewer and fewer hands, it has developed a reflex aversion to anything that looks too 'left' and a suspicion of anything that looks progressive.
The desperate battle for eyeballs in a fragmenting market has also taken a toll; deep journalism or reporting that risks alienating any part of the shrinking audience for traditional news is anathema to the bean counters who have financialized everything. Deliberate intimidation by the right has also taken a toll.
Republicans have no answers; Democrats do - and that's the gist of it. The real challenge is to prevail against a party that has embraced disinformation, the politics of resentment and destruction - and the Mainstream Media that has failed to call them out on it.
6
Edall's final point that thsese are Democrats returning to Democratic roots and not a wave of radicalism. I along with a lot of other older voters was infected with a kind of gradualism.
I voted for Hilary, much now to my dismay. AOC among others is stating what she, and what many of us want. The old Democratic party was a mirror image of Republicans, with taking the same money, voting for the same wars, and within it all a kind of shame,liberal as a kind of curse, where
we were afraid to make our own agenda, make our own plan for America. taking the burden, in health care, college education, immigration, is an investment in the future
5
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the perfect foil to the Trump twitter fest we've been subjected to for the past 2 years. However, enough of the tit for tat -- I would still like to see the freshman representative put forth some legislation for a vote.
6
I'm already tired of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and I'm a liberal and Hispanic...its constant overkill, everybody falling over her, total overexposure. The news media has found their darling for the moment. Let's see what she accomplishes, what bills she proposes and passes that is the work to be done not being in the news 24/7.
12
The AOC movement and all the Democrats announcing their bid for POTUS in 2020 reminds me of the game “Pin the Tail of the Donkey” , spinning blindly then trying to win a prize.
2
That’ll solve everything. Keep the doors of Congress locked.
Please everyone, get this straight in your heads: America makes its money off of war.
Unfortunately, most of that money goes to the wealthy upper percent and gives the middle class and poor just nothing.
We are indentured servants.
3
Is it true? have we finally become the party of borderline socialist Democratic radicals that Republicans have been accusing us of being for all this time?? Does this mean that the time to seize the means of production is finally upon us?!?
2
Until AOC starts to achieve some actual LEGISTATIVE VICTORIES, I'm not prepared to follow her ANYWHERE. I'm willing to listen to what she has to say, some of which I agree with and some I question. I lean Left on most issues but I'm not a fanatic, and fanatics exist on BOTH sides of the political spectrum. I believe that one must PROVE themselves before being beatified. In substance, I'm open to the "new wing" of the Democratic party which I am, officially, a member of. Let me add that I will NEVER cast a vote for anyone calling themselves a Republican because that very label is forever tainted in my book. But I don't much care for the 'tit for tat' Tweeting from AOC either, writing about Joe Lieberman (whom I do not like) "who dat"? What is "dat", Miss AOC?
5
A.O.C.
Alexandria "Overexposure" Cortez.
This young woman is talented but should pace herself a bit.
It's not a marathon but it's not a sprint either. Let's call it "middle distance" in track terms.
You need to save some breath for when it's really needed.
Pace for long term influence on policy.
Or be a "one hit wonder".
5
The problem is AOC doesn't really know anything. Not everyone feels comfortable saying it, but it's pretty hard to miss.
7
@AACNY
She knows we don't have time to muck about with platitudes and incrementalism and weak tea. The status quo has to be upset if we are to do what we need to do for the future of our country and the world. I'm aligned with every one of her priorities for this country, so I guess that makes me a know-nothing too.
Democrats should have been talking for years about the same things AOC and Bernie Sanders have been talking about. You need to convince people and put your ideas into the public conscience. Republicans have been doing that for decades, while Democrats have been asleep at the wheel, which is why Republicans now control the narrative on taxes and deregulation and health care and unions and trade and the list goes on.
Now we've gone so far to the right that even Democrats think that policies that would have been considered normal in the past are "crazy". We need to get back on track and you need to buckle your seat belt.
3
By and large, the majority of 2600+ counties that Trump carried are not economically well off. However, they are socially very traditional.
Do the Democrats have a message that will resonate with millions of these traditional white middle/lower middle class voters in the hinterland?
5
@Zor
The answer is no. Remember Schumer saying that for every urban vote Democrats lost by running Hillary, they would gain 2 suburban votes. It didn't turn out that way. The centrist, corporatist Democrats (including Hillary and Biden) have no clue how to reach the working class of any race. The working class focus of AOC is the Democratic Party's best chance at a future. But of course the establishment, centrist, corporatist Democrats are still focused on helping their big money donors.
Here's another question: Just how are establishment, centrist, corporatist Democrats different from Republicans?
5
It is wonderful to see that progressive ideas are coming to the fore in the Democratic party. The future of America belongs to the young, those not bogged down by the worn out failed ideas and practices that have dominated political thinking for far too long. There should be no efforts to pander to people who are stuck with outmoded thinking. Instead, every effort should be made to educate them to the new reality. These newly elected representatives may be ahead of their times but they must hold fast and work for what they believe. It is up to others to catch up.
2
It's all good but important to expand the focus on the entirety of the Democrats in Congress - and the amazing age range and gender mix. The opportunities are vast - an intergenerational government of forward thinking, principled women and men. Please media pundits - avoid focus on only 1 or 2. There are brilliant ideas pouring forth - let the ideas from every corner flow! Remember that the intense media focus on Trump, liberal as well as conservative, contributed significantly to what happened in election 2016.
4
Actually, people like AOC or Bernie aren't that far left at all. Internationally, they'd be considered pretty centrist. They're simply seen as "far left" because the Overton window in DC is far to the right. Even domestically, policies like universal healthcare and a living wage enjoy solid majority support, so they're perfectly mainstream
8
This piece misses more than it hits. Where it misses particularly is in it's insistence that the Class interest of working class Democrats pulls the Party right, rather than left, and that the insurgents are mostly young, white gentrifying liberals.
This is not altogether false, but misses that many of the gentrifiers are not middle class themselves, but lower middle class young people with huge college debt who could never dream of living in upper middle class enclaves like most of the opinion writers in the Time for example. So they move into the inner city, make it safe for professionals, and then yes, Brooklyn goes white. Harlem goes white. Berkeley loses its working class majority. Etc.
The big problem for the left of the Democratic Party is not that its mostly young, white and middle class; it is that the very term "liberal" is now widely understood by working class people as meaning "establishment." And they are against the "establishment". As it happens, so are the young insurgents.
This then is the task for the left of the Democrats; to unite the culturally conservative working class with the emerging multi-racial, multi-ethnic youth vote to take down both the reactionary Right and the Liberal establishment.
And the only reason such a sentiment seems crazy is that the New York Times, far from being a bastion of the resistance to Trump is actually a bulwark of that Liberal Establishment.
Stats are stats but the future is unwritten.
4
Maybe it’s worth considering that a lot of those spooky millennials, the stuff of campfire scare stories, themselves grew up in the suburbs. They are the children of privilege who have matured into a world that is far less secure and promising than that of their swing-voter soccer moms. Health care, student debt, secure retirement, and the ability to support a family are serious concerns for them. And don’t even get me started on climate change and the fossil fuel world’s stranglehold on our polity.
6
The compact version of what is going on is the liberals elected to Congress reflect the hopes and attitudes of those who voted for them. These shifts occurred in response to Trumpism, the new GOP platform of ideas. The grassroots campaigning focused on core issues like health care, immigration, voting rights and decency stand opposed to nativism, xenophobia, misogyny, racism, showering the rich with favors and fear over hope.
The choices made during the midterms suggest the GOP needs a complete engine overhaul or voting patterns unlikely to swing in their favor.
3
Is AOC donating back into the federal government coffers 70% of her salary which is nearly triple the median income of most households in the US?
4
@MDCooks8, if AOC can help get anything done to restore progressive tax rates and otherwise address the problem of the ever widening gap between the rich and the struggling, she will be strengthening our nation so much more than we are paying her in salary.
https://inequality.org/facts/income-inequality/
1
AOC is a phenomenon unto itself. Obama & Oprah also have been so. You can't mix AOC with Rashida Tlaib.
Nevertheless, It's difficult to predict how she will fare in the long run. So far she has displayed an uncanny maturity. Will she become reckless as Hillary Clinton had, for her to lose in 2016, and even in 2008 Primary, which was an unfortunate Ali-Frazier-1971 contest; 2016 was Ali-Spinks-1978.
In any case the progressive measures of "Medicare for All, free [public] college, a universal jobs guarantee, a $15 minimum wage, an expansion of the EITC to the entire bottom half..." AOC, et al advocates are great indeed. It may take time for them materialize. But it's important not to take our eyes off this ball.
During the past several years I have been trying to write a book, about finished, "Vastly Discordant Remunerations: Case for a Fairer Progressive Taxation, to Ease Inequality" I thought a top rate of 70% on over about $25Million, 50% on over about $10 million. Now I feel the 70% may not fly because some 6 yrs ago, Robert Reich proposed 70% on >$15 ML. Few liberals came to his defense & he was laughed at by conservatives. But when AOC said 70% over $10ML, few dared to oppose - that's the impact of her personality. Reagan had that strength to cut the top rate of 70% on less than $1ML to a top rate of 28% in 1986 on over about $64K both inflation adjusted. The populace at large yielded to his will. And Trump is a mini-Reagan.
3
I doubt few if any wealthy progressive people will publicly denounce AOC’s 70% tax proposal in fear of the progressive media trolls.
1
Just keep in mind that what the author deems "radical" ideas are considered mainstream in the rest of the developed world. We are an extreme outlier in lacking some form of universal health care, for example.
Also, while the NYT clearly saw Bernie's 2016 campaign as shockingly radical, the very people Edsall says we must court were wild about Bernie. His message about income inequality resonates with anyone living paycheck to paycheck and the only thing "radical" about it is that he said the truth out loud about the effects of unbridled capitalism.
The neoliberal types that the NYT embraces are the milquetoast people who attract a rather small group of voters, so, I am not too eager to accept his analysis. I fully expect the Times to back Gillibrand and Biden, maybe even that other corporatist, Booker. They don't scare the moneyed class.
7
AOC is actually just kinda mainstream, all things considered.
She is unsophisticated in one area, and that is taxing the rich to fix the insane economic imbalance.
Perhaps the government (us) become the ultimate investors. Yeah, we'll invest, but we will also be equity. It should have features of the next gen economy, and will not treat other investors unfairly.
Until I see well-crafted legislation that is initiated by her that will help improve the lives of many she's just another politician with sound bite platitudes. She doesn't even have a district office in the Bronx yet to the chagrin of many of the constituents.
4
Has AOC or any other liberal offered any feasible policy to improve the lives of the people they claim to help?
Just take a good hard look at NYC where AOC is from which for many years the Public Housing Authority cannot even provide adequate heat in the building the city owns.
So while AOC dreams of taxing the wealthy 70% perhaps she needs to slow down and catch up to reality to realize what she offers is only building towards another Venezuela.
6
And because Sweden is not charged with the military spending necessary to be the world’s policeman.
2
What does left mean? The Silicon Valley Congressional district has the second highest income in the nation. Senator Harris speaks to and for it with Medicare for all and a huge tax cut for the poor at a time of a huge deficit. No compensating tax increases on the wealthy like the Silicon Valley voters.
Sure, that is their real program!?! You have to be kidding. It is a total fraud. This is the same California Democratic Party that has had 6 school superintendents in 10 years in LA because of mistreatment of Latinos.
They hate Trump because he is to the left of them economically and wants to end 19 years of war from which the Silicon Valley military-industrial complex profits.
What you are seeing is the beginning of the disintegration of the SD parties in Europe. Let us hope that the consequences are not too awful.
1
There are 12 leaders of the Progressive caucus. 11 come from districts that are overwhelmingly Democrat. And most of these 11 districts were gerrymandered to maximize the number of Republican Congressmen elected in the states involved.
As we all know, Republicans have used geography to gain the upper hand in creating gerrymandered districts. Age and gender were not nearly as important. And the success of Republican gerrymandering has been substantial.
Representatives from heavily Democratic districts fashioned by Republicans are the stronghold of the Progressive movement and were designed to promote a Republican Congress. Following progressive policies fashioned in gerrymandered districts is pretty much the definition of bad strategy.
2
Don't write off the rural areas, which have seen the greatest suffering from the attack on our health care by the enemies of working people. Nor the industrial heartland, which will benefit tremendously from the progressive 'green new deal'.
These dire warnings against 'radicalism' are just so much excuse-making by Hillaryites. 'Radical' Democrats are real Democrats, whose ideas just happen to make sense to educated folks who know their history.
3
The Democrats' move to the left will more likely succeed to the extent that it is coherent, measured, and based on stated principles. These are the elements that are missing in our political landscape, and are crucial to restoring credibility to our dialog.
You wish to abolish ICE? What is the problem that such an action would address--and on what principle is the action based?
You wish to assure the right to housing for all? What is the accepted principle on which that is based--or what new principle will we be adopting if none exists now? And what does a society commit to, and agree to extend to all, when it agrees that housing is a right?
Similarly, the right to health care; the right to free education: On what principle are these rights to be extended, and what obligation do we, and our self-governance, incur in agreeing to them?
Effective and powerful rhetoric is essential for successful political candidacy, both for parties and individual candidates. The Democrats will be successful only if their rhetoric is based on clearly stated and widely appealing principles of governance.
2
I agree almost entirely with the left-wing agenda, but I also know if the left pushes too hard, too fast, it will end up with nothing. The Democrats will be consigned once gain to the political wilderness. And those who put us there will have to be satisfied with comments in The Times to vent their moral outrage.
The Democrats can win the Electoral College in 2020 only by replicating the big tent approach of 2018, where successful Democrats tailored their campaigns to the needs of their constituents.
To win (and keep) both houses of Congress and the White House, The Democratic Party needs to be a party of pragmatism, not ideology.
Any attempt to stage an "intraparty coup" and impose standards of thought and policy, will surely backfire, as we see now happening to the Republican Party.
2
Dems really need to listen to the candidates who flipped Republican districts. And a "return to normalcy" after the tumult of Trump will have great appeal for many swing voters. There is still a deep distrust of the government's ability to manage things. I do NOT think we should adopt single-payer health care, abolishing all current insurance plans and disrupting the existing system. France and Germany have multi-payer health care that have good outcomes, universal coverage, and are affordable. Look to those types of models, and reform and improve the Affordable Care Act. Add a public option.
3
Doesn't the rise of a significant-sized left within the Democratic Party realm provide an opportunity for eventually achieving beneficial policies (and ones that won't be quickly reversed)? Many so-called moderate Dems want similar progressive outcomes, though preferring slower pursuit. Other moderate Dems are closer to opportunistic blank slates, who could see which way the wind is blowing and support progressive policies.
Until recently I thought a progressive third party was the best hope for pushing good and potentially popular policies forward in public debate, for future legislative achievement. But now I am willing to give the Dems a chance for a while at least. Remember too that Bernie was fairly popular in white working class areas; I found the same among some non-doctrinaire Republican voters I know.
2
For the 70% maximum tax rate, two suggestions:
1) Bring back income averaging over a period of years, which was an option when the maximum was 70% previously.
2) Index the highest rate, as well as all other tax rates, to inflation.
Emphasizing fairness, rather than confiscatory policies, just might swing enough votes to get this through.
2
I love Mr. Edsall's analysis; in this case, however, it's hard to distinguish between those who are strongly committed to specific policies and those who view themselves as anti-Trump. Just as many conservatives now claim to favor a "border wall," when asked about specific consequences of walls - and in some cases, even more policed borders - the support crumbles. However, they see support for the wall as required of those who support a Republican president.
Many of these surveys may have tried to parse the difference between those who respond to surveys based on what is anti-Trump or pro-liberal, and individual attitues on specific policies, but this article doesn't even acknowledge the distinction.
I applaude AOC. I am 72 white male. I have been waiting for someone like AOC to emerge. I wish her the best and will work for her positions and re-elections and ultimate ambitions. She is a great leader, teacher, learner, whip smart, and should not be taken likely.
Go for it AOC! Realize your full potential.
8
About time, too. For the past twenty years or so, the entire political spectrum has been moved to the right.
The leftward shift will re-balance it.
4
The country may be in a need of a more social agenda, but this agenda must perceptible help the depressed white rural folk first. Nothing will work what make those, who are already falling behind feel like a "basket of deplorables".
I hope AOC will find a way not just to become a poster star of the progressive urban left, but also understand the ailing of the depressed rural right.
5
One of the most important things to untangle for democrats and the public is what exactly moving to the left means. It is a disservice to the public to conflate all nominally "liberal" issues as equally supported among the "left".
There are some issues labelled as "left" which can realistically and logically be called centrist. Specifically, Medicare for All/ universal health care is broadly supported by the public including large swaths of otherwise republican voters. That is not reflected in either party establishment. Based on popularity shown by polls, it should be the law of the land. Similarly, strengthening Social Security rather than threatening it is virtually universally approved. Increased wages and guaranteed work opportunities or, absent that, a universal basic income is seeming practical and logical as people are tired of constantly increasing financial insecurity.
The identity political issues associated with left are less broadly supported and to some degree are the polarizing social issues where the ones above are unifying issues. It is important to bear in mind the role of the media in promoting polarization around identity groups on the right and the left. The vilification of the other is rampant in both directions but could legitimately said to be far more so from the right. But it is important to recognize also...who owns the media and who maintains power by this polarization of the public. The answer, of course, is the financial elite.
3
If Hillary were President, there would never have been a shutdown.
That is the lesson that Mrs. Pelosi, AOC and Democrats should carry forward to 2020.
39
@A. Stanton
Since 1990, there have been funding gaps, shutdowns or serious threats of shutdowns almost every year. The have become routine tactics in the effort of each party to drive a hard bargain.
5
@A. Stanton
Well, she's not the president (thankfully) and you can't predict hindsight only speculate.
5
@A. Stanton
Don't make anything about Hillary.
That ship has sailed.
8
I have a friend who lives on the West Coast and is constantly posting on social media about "white privilege" and how we all need to embrace far left policies to "even the playing field" for minorities.
I always bristle at this, not because I don't support these policies, but because this person chooses to live in a city with actually very few minorities. She also lives in a state that's thriving, with new jobs, new residents and skyrocketing real estate values.
I, by contrast, live in a state that's declining....steadily losing jobs, businesses and residents....leaving many people feeling uneasy and afraid. I also live in a city with a VERY high minority crime rate, which also makes people uneasy and afraid.
Coastal liberals like my friend will instantly consider anyone who mentions this a racist, and hypocritically suggest that our (assumed) racism is what's driving our politics. But when I look around here and see so many Trump supporters (myself NOT included), I don't see racists desperately trying to retain their white privilege in a changing world. I see human beings living in a time and place of great uncertainty and they're scared!
If Dems fail to notice this, and fail to create an inclusive message that addresses the fears of EVERYBODY in the working/middle class, regardless of their skin color, they do so at their own peril. Especially in parts of the country like mine that hold the key to regaining the WH. Preaching as my friend does is exactly how to lose.
118
@shstl
Right on!
10
@shstl
I agree and as a moderate Democrat, I already feel like an outsider, so imagine what independents are thinking.
AOC stated that she wants to primary Hakeem Jeffries, who is a moderate. With statements like these, made before spending a day in congress, who needs the GOP to tear apart the Democratic party?
Sanders didn't even win the primary and his supporters claim the primary was stolen. We lost the house and senate all by ourselves.
I already have AOC fatigue and my rejoice for the blue wave is still there but fading.
11
Best comment in some time. I work and live too much in the'big flat'. I am a very hard core Chicago Democratic Liberal from birth, but the distressed towns and small cities are facing extinction.
then what?
15
Why is the media lionizing this ignorant, undisciplined child? She should shut up, sit down, learn how to listen and learn from her elders in government. She is acting like a college student, who has no one to hold her accountable for her reckless, stupid behavior. Why does the media seem to be enamored of her?????
11
Keep on keepin' on, AOC. Be the leader you (and we) know you are.
36
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, you must now support Speaker Pelosi with her stance of no State of the Union address until the government is reopened and the Wall stipulation is removed. It is time to know the "would be king" off his imaginary throne and land him butt first in the dirt of reality. It won't be pretty, but it will be worth getting dirty. The sunshine of a positive and moral stance for all people, not just rich and not just white, will help kill the bacteria of corruption and the infection of deceit. By the way, I'm white.
2
We are looking at a future Speaker of the House.
Watch out Republicans, this woman is not afraid of you white, stodgy, misogynistic and racist haters.
Your party, once a viable and caring party, is dead.
6
Above all, Democrats need to adopt policies -- and present candidates that live up to promises that will (and do) attract votes.
What -- and who (profile-wise) -- won in 2018 will not necessarily be what or who wins in 2020 or beyond. Dems should play politics at a local level as strongly and fervently as they have tried to play at the national level.
Voters, even if they don't see their favored policies enacted at a national level because of the loyal oppsition's success in resisting, want to see their favored polices promoted and pursued by their local (Congressional) representation. And that's as it should be.
But, again, and above all, Dems must pull in the votes...progressiveness isn't worth a damn if it doesn't get the votes at large and on the floor of the Congress. A political party being all position (liberal or otherwise) and no votes is the same as being, as the saying goes, "All hat and no cow..."
1
If "progressives" are truly returning to their roots as some suggest then watch out below. The Great Society was an exercise in public service experts incredible hubris that accomplished far too little and created far more damage than even Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park could foresee.
2
Ocasio-Cortez represents the success of a progressive in ousting a white liberal in a safely Democratic district. While interesting, that doesn't provide much of a blueprint for winning in 2020 in districts and states that voted for Trump.
As noted elsewhere in this newspaper, of the roughly 60 new Democrats in Congress elected in 2018, two-thirds, were pragmatic moderates that flipped Republican seats. Progressives were notably less successful in flipping Republican seats.
7
Too much attention here to this new cohort of self important attention seekers presenting as civil servants. Not one of them has had any legislative experience in their lives how can they do all they say they want. They have no grasp of policy economics and politics. Are they too good to recall the wise words of Sam Rayburn - "Those who go along get along" or is that too quaint outdated and patriarchal for them? Why dont journalists and other pols call them out. Example, AOC calls for 70% marginal tax rate - saying we had it before, ha ha. Yes but only when defense spending as percent of gdp was 20-40 percent, in the depth of WW2 and the cold war, life and death struggles - it is now 5%, no one has the stomach for those rates now, and no need for them to boot. Free school, free healthcare, viva la stat! yeah ok who will pay for it? Lots of ideas no plans, flash in the pan is what it is, it will die down then settle in for a long winter.
7
The Democratic Party needs to do a very good job of educating an electorate (and possibly some of its own members) that has for more than 30 years drunk the kool-aid of the "lower our taxes," small government, and deregulation gurus.
We have such a predatory capitalism now, with government failing over and over again to reign in huge corporations headed by those who think they should be determining everything from economic to housing to health to foreign policy. Enough already.
Most of the young members of Congress need a lot more experience and more immersion in the nitty gritty of creating legislation before they can take the reins, but they can educate their constituents. And maybe they can convince others that everyone gains through a more level playing field.
5
Can we please, please stop talking about AOC?
Sure, she's young and energetic and is worthy of note, but what has she accomplished?
It's easy to go to a rooftop- or a twitter account- and yell "health care and education for all!'
But please, AOC, tell us how you are going to not only pay for these ideas but actually get them through Congress and the Senate?
It's just noise, until then, and worse, you're creating a great target for the right that will NOT move with you and certainly can label these ideas as leftist nutism- which would be fine, if we weren't trying to get Trump out of office ASAP..
Dreams are great. Ideals are great. But people who can get stuff actually done move the needle...less rhetoric, more actual plans please..
54
@Samuel
Actually, running a campaign and getting elected is a significant accomplishment. Before anyone decides about what bills to promote and means of paying for them, we need a momentum of discourse, and promoting that discourse is another major accomplishment. You and many millions of others, also, have good reasons to be frustrated. Let's just try to actually "work" at talking the talking and walking the walk, and maybe we will--or maybe we won't--arrive some place where we can see some improvement.
19
@Samuel
She's been in office less than a month. You want to shut down the conversation that is finally bringing real hope & passion to average people, & is bringing a new set of goals (& more integrity) to the Democratic Party? Paying for single-payer has been rehashed many times; just look at all the other 'civilized' countries who have it. For once, try putting the savings from ending co-pays, deductibles, & premiums into the equation. Think about the savings from large-group bids, & negotiations for drug prices, & the savings from preventative medicine heading off more expensive advanced treatment. Bernie Sanders has been explaining all this for years now. 'Less rhetoric'? The conversation is (finally) just now getting started! You start by explaining what is possible. When enough people understand it, the needle will start to move. Watch.
26
I understand what you are saying, but please remember- half of this country thinks- rightly or wrongly- that AOC and many of her ideals are unobtainable and socialist.
Whether they are or are not is NOT the point.
We need ideas that are palatable to the mainstream, average American- not just those of us on the liberal wings. And I AM one of those.
Since you bring up Bernie- how well did that work out?
The country isn’t ready for those ideas. And rightly or wrongly, pursuing them at all cost will end up winning Trump the next election.
8
I don't understand the point of quoting "experts" who apparently aren't knowledgeable enough to recognize that the policies they're labeling as too leftist or liberal are only the policies that were taken for granted throughout the 50's, 60's, and 70's. Anyone who has so weak a grasp of history has no business being quoted in the Times. It was post-Civil Rights racism that was harnessed to bring about the Reagan Reaction. Only our civil war over race under Obama and Trump is preparing the ground to restore tax policies stripped by corporate America.
2
AOC is pretty interesting. She's charismatic, fearless....and I'm trying to think of something else. OH, she's personally attractive. If the government gig falls apart she can probably get TV work.
But as an intellectual light or a rational political leader -- she is clearly lacking. OF course that may not matter as the earth will come to an end in 12 years.
Which is even more ludicrous than saying the earth is only 6000 years old.
She is simply spouting far left talking points which are driven by emotion, not rational thought.
And she keeps making unforced errors in her public speaking engagements. She really doesn't appear to understand what she's talking about and can't respond to reasonable questions about her policy positions.
But then, that's not too unlike much of the left. So maybe she's a perfect fit for a fact free faction which is beginning to run the dem party.
4
after her 1st term she'll either be doing traffic/weather or the lottery results.
As the right wing Fox news echo machine and others try to demonize this freshman Congresswoman, I am reminded of the famous Oscar Wilde line, (sorry for male-centric pronoun. It was all Oscar had at the time) "You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies." The fact that Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez drawing the ire of the DC swamp is a good thing.
2
Shifted to the LEFT? After decades of movement to the Right, by the GOP and even assisted by Dems such as the Clintons, etc., this political movement is merely a correction, not a radical shift as your article contends.
6
This rapid shift to the left will in the end deconstruct the Democratic party ; perhaps AOC and her ilk would be best forming their own party . We have seen the results of the 60's baby boomer era . They all became their fathers ; eventually settled down and are the "old" white men the millenials despise , good old capitalists . Youthful exuberance is just that and no replacement for experience ; they should get that before trying to change the world . The old "God grant me the serenity to change the things I can and wisdom to accept the things I can't ."You don't get anywhere by blowing up things ; you get things more broken .
1
Misleading headline :"the Democratic electorate is moving sharply to the left"
True fact (in the body of the article): "The activist (20%) wing of the Democratic party has moved decisively to the left".Sadly, these sentences do not mean the same thing.
And that is what may well result (horrifyingly) in a second term for Trump.
1
I do not believe, as the author states, "They include the determination to oppose all things Trump". They rightfully oppose his bigotry, hatred, anti-immigration, and disrespect for women and minorities. A reminder, this is not radical, this is rational. This is not extreme, this is normal.
4
Democrats have to beware of being labelled "Socialist" or "Liberal". Even "Progessive". The attacks on AOC with cries of "Venezuela" are deafening. Dems have to harp on the "mixed economy" of yore. With true Financial and Anti trust regulation, and a constant drumbeat of increasing the "graduated" income tax. When critics howl about increased government revenue, dems have to counter with the income level that will trigger that marginal additional tax on a dollar. Dems have to plan well, and stop being a dear in the headlights when the Plutocracy attacks. Be ready with snappy, tested rejoinders. Don't get dirty - get smart.
1
This article is half poison pill. By reading it, you learn a lot about Democratic Party voting patterns, but you also have to endure a number of false ideas, the worst of which is Edsall's warning that radical Democrats will foment internal chaos leading to electoral loss.
The fact is, it is the corporate democrats, who in the last 40 years abandoned the base of working, blue collar democrats in favor of their Wall Street overlords. It is the corporate democrats who created the billionaire class by reducing corporate tax rates. It is the corporate Democrats who by reducing marginal tax rates created the plutocracy. It is the corporate democrats who gave *Trillions of Dollars* to Bush and Obama's perpetual wars and $70 Billion more than the defense department asks. This impoverishing the citizenry with debt is their legacy as much as the Republicans.
This shoveling of money to the 1% who abandoned the middle class has been a train ridden by Corporate Democrats. It is the Corporate Democrats who caused all this friction by letting the middle class fall off the edge of the economic cliff -- all the while proclaiming how much they care. They show up on MLK day and read flowing speeches from the podium when what we really need is activism and changes in marginal tax rates, defense spending and the Medical Insurance and care oligopoly.
So now there is revolution brewing in response to the Corporate Democrats' appeasement of the Oligarchy? Good. Bring it on.
5
I saw AOC on the Colbert Show recently and one of her first statements was in regards to wearing red nail polish.
I turned it off.
Enough of the red lipstick as well. Please.
Next she'll discuss large hoop earrings.
9
@jk
Trump talks about his grotesque hair do, the adequacy of his appendage size and seems to think he looks like Ryan Gosling. AOC is a beautiful young lady a lot easier on the eye than Vlad's bosom buddy. The Colbert Show is not Meet the Press and has a light entertainment component.
I see a Trump victory in 2020. Thank you, AOC.
9
@MDB
Brilliant analysis!!! The Kennedy School in Cambridge is looking for a Professor in forecasting elections. I will recommend you if you want.
Look at what's going on in Venezuela! Let's not go this direction.
6
@Stephen
But Venezuela does not represent moderate liberal democracies like for example Norway that provides good social services.
Just as the reader comments from yesterday's opinion piece on the Covington School story by David Brooks reveal rampant confirmation bias, the comments here reveal an equally relevant truth: nobody, but nobody, eats their own like the left. The "Down With Us" culture in full effect.
6
Thomas, this "left" used to be known as the middle. A commitment to housing instead of an acceptance of homelessness. Dignity. A tax system designed to tax wealthy people, not, as we have now, a tax system designed to tax the middle class and poor.
Can we all just take a look at what is being promoted -- look at what AOC is proposing compared to Eisenhower era tax rates. We have lurched right so that event center-right is now considered left.
6
AOC for president.
3
Untile AOC starts to achieve some actual LEGISTATIVE VICTORIES, I'm not prepared to follow her ANYWHERE. I'm willing to listen to what she has to say, some of which I agree with and some I question. I lean Left on most issues but I'm not a fanatic, and fanatics exist on BOTH sides of the political spectrum. I believe that one must PROVE themselves before being beatified. In substance, I'm open to the "new wing" of the Democratic party which I am, officially, a member of. Let me add that I will NEVER cast a vote for anyone calling themselves a Republican because that very label is forever tainted in my book. But I don't much care for the 'tit for tat' Tweeting from AOC either, writing about Joe Lieberman (whom I do not like) "who dat"? What is "dat", Miss AOC?
3
The interesting part of this piece is the statement about politicians moving unwillingly. So some Democratic Congressmen and Congresswomen are allowing their personal beliefs to be compromised for the glory of being elected or re-elected? Sounds like someone I would not care to support.
19
@Jason A.
Representatives should represent their constituents. For example, if most of the voters one represents want Medicare, perhaps that's a sign that one should reconsider their anti-Medicare views. And think about why constituents want Medicare.
8
@Jason A.
I agree with you -100%
2
Democrats just don't like to win presidential elections. Go ahead. Move left. But remember, you are not taking the rest of the country with you. As a NeverTrump Republican, I'll vote for a moderate Democrat in 2020. No lefties. Sorry. Don't give the country a reason to give Trump four more years. Win the electoral college vote instead of complaining about it. The anti-Trump is a moderate.
45
@dudley thompson, if you are one of those elite moderate liberals against the "lefties" concern about college and medical costs, protections for workers and the environment, and progressive taxation, then in the end getting your vote isn't worth sacrificing the votes of all the other people who do care about those things.
Your "moderate" way may calm those swing voters who fear change, and allow them to vote for the Democrat, but it also demoralizes and disappoints the much larger group of potential Democratic voters that craves change.
6
actually, the anti leftist progressive is pro trump.
@dudley thompson
Dear Dudley, please note the following:
The one and only way the United States will eventually improve for a very large and abused group of Americans on the dismal state of wages, ridiculously high health care- and prescription drug costs, exorbitant costs for education, racism/neo-nazizum, more equality, sensible immigration/justice/tax laws, the right of women for equal pay and their right to choose (to name only a few) can and will only be achieved via a leftist government.
For the average American being a socialist or lefty is like being a stupid, bad and unpatriotic person.
The Alexandrias, Ayamas and Rashidas are leading the way.
I hope you will get old enough to enjoy the good things coming and re-read your today's comment at that time.
Kind regards.
3
My tuition was covered by a New Jersey state scholarship, but I paid for my books and fees with part time employment. I had universal health care with Medicare and Mass Health Common Health in Boston, but my steep entry fee was permanent disability caused by a massive stroke and severe brain injury. I always had a full time job with major medical. No one at the hospital asked for my green card when I was admitted as a comatose Jane Doe. My insurance was on file. I was a green card holder until sworn in 4 years after my stroke. Today many Americans would deny those interventions and opportunities to other immigrants.
2
@Maureen Were you here as an illegal immigrant? I don't think so. Most Americans are not against legal immigration; they are against illegal immigration. As a legal immigrant myself, I completely support the Republicans on this policy - illegal immigrants should not be allowed to stay in this country when legal immigrants have to jump through so many hoops to live here.
2
The NYT should consider getting some columnists who reflect the new (FDR? new?) trends in the country and in the Democratic party. The old Clinton/Biden/Edsall Republican lite approach -- all in for Wall Street -- is dying. Good riddens.
BTW I'm a 65 year old electrical engineer.
12
@Eric
Bless you, Sir. We need more 65 year old electrical engineers in this country.
2
"Medicare for All, government-guaranteed jobs and a higher minimum wage"
I have a question to all the "progressive" Democratic voices in Congress - how are you going to pay for such an agenda? Money doesn't just grow on trees. Either you will have to cut funds from another program, or raise taxes. Most of these progressive people favor raising taxes on the wealthy. But what is your definition of "wealthy"? $10 million in annual income? $1 million in annual income? $500k? $200k?
Almost all the proposals I have seen coming from progressives involves increasing tax rates for families making more than $200k, either through higher rates, phased out deductions, or ineligibility for certain programs. A professional couple where both are software engineers could easily surpass this threshold, but they are not rich. They struggle to pay the mortgage, save for the future, pay taxes, and provide for their children. Why should they be forced to pay more in taxes percentage-wise than a family earning $100k or $60k?
It is for these reasons that I as an independent will never support progressive candidates. These candidates lack basic math abilities and a basic notion of fairness. So if the Democratic party starts to embrace some of the policies espoused by these progressives, they are on a path to lose elections in the future.
5
@PK
They are going to pay for it the way all other modern democracies now pay for it. Why don't you ask how are you going to pay for the huge tax cuts for the wealthy who don't need it? America is the odd one out... not the norm. If people are looked after, they are less of an economic burden than if you throw them to the wolves.
BTW running countries is not a matter of the basic maths you speak of. It's a lot more nuanced than that.
1
O'Cortez is a "Fantasy Socialist. She says the stupidest and most outlandish things so the media puts a microphone in front of her face. She hates when folks fact check her because nothing she is saying adds up. O'Cortez has all of the same "spread the wealth" tendencies as the previous president who was much more cunning and clever at hiding his true Socialist self.
9
It's amazing that Trump enjoys >90% support from Republicans, and the D's are sitting here worrying about becoming "too liberal", which translates to "going back to the foundations of the Democratic party that began under FDR."
Unbelievable.
4
Here is a thought I would like to share with the New York Times:
Thomas Edsall's article is excellent. The corollary I draw from it that the paper that projects itself as the voice of the liberals in this county has to understand that it has fallen behind times. If the statistics and commentary accompanying it is a criteria to consider, The Times should move to a more progressive editorial platform. The sooner, the better!
The support given by this paper to Hillary Rodham Clinton over Bernie Sanders in 2016 is unforgivable. The attitude exhibited towards Elizabeth Warren is hardy different. This has to change if you want to keep your relevance unless you believe publishing Edsall's essay is just part of your "diversity" policy.
What the followers of AOC and other progressives are clamoring for are very basic human needs that have been delivered in affluent (and not so affluent) societies all over the globe. No need to name those countries, by now the list is well known.
What do we need delivered: Universal Healthcare, Free Public Education K through College, No Citizens United, Total Campaign Finance Reform, Regulation of Wall Street, Regulation of Pharma, Regulation of Big Tech, Gender Equality, 21st Century Infrastructure. All paid for by cutting the Military and Defense Budget Waste (cf Charlie Grassley, a buddy of Karl Marx) and taxing the top percent at levels AOC cites and Professors Suez and Zucman concur with in their Times OpEd.
6
The newly elected politicians are playing "sound bite" politics, let's say the thing most likely to get me quoted on the news or in a paper or redistributed via social media.
4
Another old white republican lamenting policy changes that would benefit every American, not just white males and the racist white women that enable them. Same as it ever was.
3
Where we are now, few if any people can save enough for retirement, certainly not for nursing home care, should it come to that. Without some form of guaranteed medical care, most people can't afford it. The trend is toward more privatization, more profit making off services, less service for the dollar, more money heading toward Wall Street and away from Main Street. And many of us accept it like sheep. We have caved as though this trend is irreversible.
This old very liberal Democratic curmudgeon is heartened by the party not accepting this trend. My concern, though, is that we might have a presidential race similar to what the GOP had, with way too many candidates, and it might split the party, resulting in a candidate for a splinter group, in effect dividing the party--and giving the GOP another presidential win.
2
I love AOC. Her heart and her mind are in the right place. For any of the people who write in trying to insult her with patronizing descriptions of "little girl". She is a force to be reckoned with. she also graduated cum laude with BA's in economics and international relations.
She is very prepared for working in governance! AOC is much better prepared to tackle these issues than most of the ignorant folks who criticize her for working to make a difference and better our lives.
Keep going AOC! You rock!
All you critics? Your petulance just shows you are foolish and immature. Grow up.
3
Someone as thoroughly imbedded in the establishment as this Op-Ed writer is necessarily going to need to be educated on what the political center of gravity really is.
The Democrats have shifted RIGHT over the past few decades. Under Bill Clinton and Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein and Obama. They are not left, not center-left, not center, but instead center-right. They have pursued a center-right agenda that does not engage with the rigged economy or widening inequality, or inadequate pay, or monopolist abuse of power, or adequate regulation and punishment of corporate crime.
They have enthusiastically embraced our deeply stupid wars of choice, and wasted trillions that could have been put to productive use at home.
The new generation of progressive Democrats seek to move the debate BACK TO THE CENTER or Center-Left if you will. Not the Left or Far-Left. They want to address the issues the current Democrat Establishment have ignored or exacerbated, because they are in essence, the same rarified rich as the lobbyists and donors they mingle with. The issues that affect MOST of us, but not the FEW of them.
The endgame of this shift is that Obama engineered a pseudo-recovery that saw the very rich recover their gains, but the poor become MORE impoverished. Such is the rigged economy, 21st Century style. Things have to change, the old guard have to be neutered. Too much wealth and power is concentrated in too few hands, and it's too detrimental to our pseudo-democracy.
7
There are several issues upon which I and my like-minded moderate family members will cast our votes in 2020:
- Border security and the end to the brazen exploitation of our citizenry by the millions of foreign migrants who illegally, and with an attitude of entitlement, trespass into our sovereign country year after year...costing our taxpayers billions.
- Reckless proposals to increase government benefit programs that aren’t affordable without raising taxes, threatening our already stressed social security safety net.
- The rise of Antisemitism and the mendacious obsession with Israel amongst leftists within Congress, as well as within the ranks of their constituents.
Democrats will need to address these issues to our satisfaction if they want our votes.
5
@Shenoa
With sincere respect I do not think you are moderate though you describe yourself so.
- being critical of Israel does not necessarily equate with those who criticise the Israeli government, the leader of which is under criminal investigation. There are many left wing Jewish people and left wing Israelis
- America has a wonderfully welcoming attitude to immigration. However since you bring anti-Semitism into the argument, expecting Honduran refugees to wait patiently for visas in Tegucigalpa is not essentially different to expecting 1940's German Jewish people to wait patiently at some office in Berlin for permission to leave and for visas
-Reckless proposals to look after people? What is in truth reckless, is raising USA debt by trillions to pay off aspiring American oligarchs with obscene trickle down tax cuts
- Brazen exploitation by immigrants willing to do work the locals don't want to do? I guess that would justify putting children in internment camps and effectively abducting them from their parents.
I respect your opinion and respectfully, and I think logically, disagree with it.
2
@Bob GuthrieI meant to say that being critical of Israel does not necessarily equate with anti- Semitism.
Apologies.
Ms Ocasio Cortez is a partial illustration of Reagan's dictum that "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so".
In the case of AOC she is not only very ignorant but she believes many things that are actually not true.
For her to actually believe that the "world will end in 12 years" and simultaneously believe that, even if true, Congress could change this awful fact is so breathtakingly ignorant one hardly knows where to start.
6
One question lefties don’t like to ask is what happens when millennials grow up, move to the suburbs and tire of paychecks going to high taxes? Let’s not forget the counterculture looked ascendant in 1972. Eight years later we got the Reagan Administration. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s rule as intellectual leader of her party may, mercifully, be short.
2
@Achilles Did you even read the proposition? High rates start at $10M not to mention there are still legal loopholes. After a slow start in job market, few will reach that level but maybe, for a strong safety net and communities these millenials might just consider it a good deal.
1
If Ms. Ocasio-Cortez runs for 2020 she will have me vote.
2
gentrification is bad.
white flight is bad.
so which is it?
6
Vote only for those who renounce corporate money.
The rest are traitors to the American dream.
2
Will someone please forward this comment to the leadership of the Democratic Party:
1) The issues are on our side, i.e. benefit the majority of Americans. Problem is most voters aren't aware of the issues but respond to emotional appeals such as the Republican's fear-mongering.
2) Likability wins elections - calling Joe Biden.
3) The problem with taxes is not rates, but loopholes. Mitt Romney admitted that he only paid 14% in income tax in 2011 and his fellow millionaires and billionaires did likewise. It doesn't matter what the tax rate is, their accountants will always find loopholes.
4) Don't run away from the word socialist. We Americans have already adopted almost the entire socialist agenda in the last 100 years. Remember, Social Security and Medicare are socialist programs. Along with child labor laws, votes for women, the eight-hour day, etc, etc, etc.
JD
1
As one of these "liberals" in my mid 40's I couldn't be more encouraged to see the rise of the of our youth, women and minorities.
For all those amazing men out there your brethren are not doing you any favors and I thank you for standing up. I applaud those of you that see the world for what it is, a kaleidoscope of colors that supports and understands that when we stand together we make a better nation, world. You embrace the vision of the future, you don't run from it because you are afraid it will take something from you. Thank you
I am tired of, in fact I'm appalled to see those that say they represent the nation are nearly all older white men. How could they possibly represent us all? Making policy and decisions about things they will never understand. Trying to cement your narrow views into law before your time is up, vs acting with integrity and an evolving society.
I'm tired of looking at old white men whenever I look at our government and I am thrilled to see our ship changing course. The tide is changing and those in power now won't be forever, careful you might reap what you have sown.
1
All the well educated white suburban women I know are Democrats and not only vote in primaries but volunteer on Democratic campaigns. Their numbers have been increasing tremendously in the past few years and there is no way any of them will be turning to a democrat for the presidency.
1
This is not a sharp shift to the left. The GOP has moved the political spectrum so far to the Right that what we see are moderate Republicans that appear to be Democrats and progressive Democrats that appear as Socialists. However, that also means that right wing Republicans appear as fascists and fascism appears to be the party of Trump.
3
Left, Right. They are such meaningless terms. What makes confronting climate change or creating Medicare for All a 'leftist' or 'far left' policy? What makes bringing back the marginal tax rates of the Eisenhower era a 'leftist' policy? The whole industrial world has a universal health care system and even the most ardent conservatives around the world acknowledge the threat of man made climate change. Even the most brain dead pundit can recognize that 23 people having more money than the bottom half of the nation is a more than a little out of balance. Maybe we should change the labels to 'care', 'don't care'. It would be a much more accurate term. However, labels like leftist and socialist scare and by adding them and pasting them on politicians willy nilly men like Edsall seeks to suggest that somehow these young politicians are bringing the next beer hall putsch or October revolution into America. Ridiculous stuff.
2
Excellent article,unfortunately most of the electorate this article is about,is ill or under informed,and would never take the time to read an article like this.trying to gauge today’s social media,and 30 second sound bite voters is a very tricky business.
1
If superintelligent beings from another solar system came here to survey humans and human progress - what would the questions be?
#1. Do you provide healthcare for all the people?
#2. Have you stopped fighting wars?
1
As a surgeon we have come to understand that you should have the least experienced do your surgery..... Good learning curve if they are smart. Oh yes young surgeons should be arrogant beyond their years of knowledge. Sad but I really don't care-she would not make it in medicine (at least as a youngster).
1
Increasing economic inequality makes America’s form of capitalism less and less attractive to more Americans, especially the young who see their future evaporating. Repubs’ so called populism is a sham and more Americans are realizing this. Trump surrounds himself with right wing billionaires who care nothing for the 99% who try to make their way through our rapacious economic system. We can do so much better and we had better get started before our democracy slips away from us. No more “republican lites” such as Hillary.
2
Please don't join this mad rush of reaction.
There has not been a functioning political left in this country for seventy years.
At the same time Republicans, Conservatives have come to consider hard-core fascism moderate.
Not that it matters. Conservatives have no political perspective other than they want what they want.
Like Scalia and other fraudulent originalists, Conservatives are willing to put any name on anything as long as they can convince their pliant constituents that its American, and it isn't 'Liberal".
As others here point out (as if they need to) we have plenty of socialism running at full bore in the US.
We have heavy handed government intervention in the "free market". We have rock-ribbed Republicans shoving their very heavy thumbs on the scale, rewarding pals, choosing winners and losers, handing out welfare like jellybeans at Easter, all in the name of Godly Capitalism and all to the benefit of the already rich.
These New Democrats haven't even seen liberal. The programs they propose are only good economic sense.
They, like that class traitor Roosevelt family, are taking steps that will ultimately save the rich guys' bacon.
In ten years Conservatives will be thanking AOC and the rest, and in another ten they be trying to take it all back, blaming the communists for wrecking America and desperately searching for a way out that doesn't involve sharing, compassion, or Christian charity.
1
Your position will be tested in 2020, when, once again, you may find the nation as a whole is not as enamored by the ideas of AOC as the coastal thinkers think it is.
3
Yes, because all these pundits got 2016 so right. They are people with their own opinions, just like everyone else, except the punditry has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo that has been so good to them for so long.
Enough already! Times, you're as much to blame as these pundits for 2016!
5
Since they're going to "Pull a train" on someone, and since she "used to be a bartender in NYC and can read guys like a book", I figure some scandal is going to pop up soon and derail her.
2
The problem that the democratic party is going to face in 2020 is this: while its "most active wing" -- the 20% who vote in primaries -- may have "shifted sharply to the left", the other 80% of the party has not.
Please wake me up sometime in 2024, when after 8 years of that nincompoop running the country after soundly beating the Warren-Booker ticker at the polls, the Democratic party realizes that 20% of 50% of the electorate isn't going to win national elections.
1
With all due respect, New Yorkers have made a big big deal about this young, bright woman who is a rookie and was just hired on. And who can work well with Colbert.
I feel that her "dragging to the left" is overblown. She's a new sparkly star and that's great. But she hasn't proven a thing to anyone yet.
Give her time. Anyone could appear to be a lefty radical by Fox News twerks by strongly opposing trump. Even Donna Shalala!
1
The Times finds somebody to warn us all of this horror daily --of not being Age of Reagan Democrat "centrists at All Costs" any more--which leaves the party about as "far left" as Harry Truman. Do you people ever get off of this stuff--or is there any chance you can all retire quietly?
3
More people participated in voting during the mid-terms, and they were informed and concerned participants. That is the shift Edsall is apparently having trouble defining in his not-so-sharp observation of what just happened.
2
Calling these ideas left is a joke. AOC and Bernie Sanders would practically be conservatives in Canada and Europe. What we have are 3 unofficial parties:
1. The party of people with good ideas who aren’t afraid to speak about them because they aren’t beholden to big donors
2. The party of watered down, unpopular ideas that are vetted by 20 pollsters and donors before seeing the light of day
3. The party that gets into office by tapping into people’s primal fears, and avoids policy altogether
Republicans have been moving the goalposts for decades now, how can you even tell left from right anymore?
5
What is so radical about a country taking care of ALL its people as oppose to taking care of just businesses and the wealthy? Free education is a bit lofty, but how about debt-free education? What is so radical about affordable healthcare that doesn't bankrupt people?
4
@Bun Mam
I absolutely agree but the question is how are we going to pay for it? There has to be a fine, nuanced way to do it such as removal of pork from the federal government, taxes that do not slow down our economy by unfairly burdening our innovative entrepreneurs, making global corporations pay their real share of taxes, taxing Wall Street electronic stock trading as an example.
If people go in like a Bull in a China shop, it’s not going to make the people who pay most of the taxes, which happens to be the middle class happy. There is also the question of why they should always be the ones most burdened? People forget that revolutions are started by the middle class.
Democratic voters may have shifted to the left, but have voters as a whole? That's the key question if the party is to regain control of the White House and/or the Senate.
In 2019, many of the Democrats new to the House were elected on moderate platforms, by voters who are not much more liberal than they were before. A strong move to the left--however that may be defined--that loses many of those voters will be self-inflicted wound of major proportions.
2
I was sorry for Claire McCaskill when she lost her Senate seat.
That is until I saw McCaskill clobbering AOC on social media and in recent tv interviews.
It's nasty that this long time Democratic Senator couldn't find it in herself to support this young woman newly elected to Congress and welcome her.
No best wishes there.
McCaskill doesn't get it that the Democratic party has moved on. Claire McCaskill is the past. AOC is the future.
McCaskill doesn't understand why she got beat. She couldn't motivate Democratic voters in Missouri to turn out in great enough numbers to keep her seat - after watching McCaskill in Missouri Democratic politics for over 25 years.
I'm sorry to see MSNBC has hired Claire McCaskill as a contributor.
I now change the channel every time she appears.
2
The new Democratic voters are the young, who need government help to overcome the systematic bias against youth. Today's young people have to fund their own college with debt, while college for people who are retired now was funded largely by government. High home prices again benefit present home owners and make it difficult for young people, in debt to pay for college, to achieve ownership. The growth of the gig economy and the shrinking of benefits also hurts the young.
Much of the current economy's tilt towards the well-off elderly is created by government policies, which have been around long enough that their effects are taken for granted as natural, the way things are. Any tilt towards the well-off is at the same time a tilt towards the elderly, since the elderly have had decades to achieve their position. A tilt back towards youth seems also to include a tilt towards the elderly who have not made it to being well-off, even though this inclusion is not necessary.
A tilt towards greater equality will involve a struggle between the affluent and the not-affluent of all ages, and need not turn into a struggle between generations. The former struggle can be based on a social vision that includes all, but the struggle between generations involves power without a wider, all-inclusive vision.
2
I suspect much of the hullabaloo about AOC is that Democrats (of which I count myself) often seem to want a shinny object to maintain our attention. Let's let her educate herself about how the game works and then be a 'leader' We've seen in Trump what happens when this tail wags this dog.
1
Ah yes, confirmation bias and inductive reasoning. If you read the many quality journals not nicknamed the "Gray Lady", you discover a whole group of outstanding freshman House reps. and current or former governors not on the activist left.
Contrary to the slurs and bias here, most of these battle tested Democrats won in hostile territory and it wasn't doing the radical chic dance step. It is so easy to be "down" with the flavor of the month fevered cause emanating from elite academia's social science wing when one is safely in a deep blue district. Preaching to the choir is hardly breaking a sweat.
Democrats need to win in hostile territory, whether it is taking back the Senate or holding on to the districts won in 2018. Only in the blinkered, and blindingly unrealistic world of the militant left, will these hostile places suddenly awake to the dynamic preaching of Ms. AOC or her cohorts. Truth be told
the self-described socialists would rather break apart the Democratic party which is a very old and discredited tactic. See the HHH/Nixon race of 1968. Try taking down Republicans instead and leave doctrinal purity to theologians and antiquarians studying the Middle Ages.
2
The electorate represented by Ms Ocasio Cortez (the 16% who voted) are quite out of step with the rest of the country. It may be news to many but that is why Mr. Trump beat a candidate who should have won by 30 points.
4
@Bill
It is still yet to be determined how this administration won because all of the facts are not in. They could have garnered help and conspired with foreign powers. (Mueller investigation and others)
What is out of step is thinking that the rich and corporations are more deserving of tax breaks than the poor or middle class.
The United States is a decisively Progressive nation bordering on Socialism. Poll any Progressive idea or policy and they are wildly popular. (even among republicans) For too long though, the radical right has polarized, used wedge issues and divided any group that may implement said policies for all. (and not just for all of one kind - like white christian males)
There is 100,000,000 that sits out any given election. Why is that ? Are they that uninterested and maligned that they think that everyone is the same?
That is changing friend, starting with this Congresswoman and ultimately leading to massive Progressive majorities in the near future.
Watch.
2
@FunkyIrishman
“The United States is a decisively Progressive nation bordering on Socialism.”
What on Earth?! Funky Guinness perhaps?!
“Poll any Progressive idea or policy and they are wildly popular. (even among republicans)”
Polls are vastly overrated and discredited and useful only to social science eggheads
“For too long though, the radical right has polarized, used wedge issues and divided any group that may implement said policies for all. (and not just for all of one kind - like white christian males)”
As if there aren’t always clear losers in any political fight
2
This type of pigeonhole analysis sadly ignores some extremely inconvenient facts: such "liberal"proposals aren't "left", they were also stock in trade for conservative Republican Richard Nixon. The Clean Air Act, Title IX, the EPA, and OSHA; health reforms, strengthening Social Security, a minimum tax on the wealthy and a guaranteed income for the poor- Nixon backed them all.
It's exceptionally misleading to talk about "left, progressive, extreme liberal" stances without first establishing what we're comparing them to. That shorthand makes convenient handholds for pundits and shallow discussions, but they're meaningless when you pull back a bit.
It would be far more accurate and useful to focus instead on the real political divide: between those who (like Republicans Nixon and Teddy Roosevelt) believed government had a decisive and critical role to play, and those who don't. Ironically, many of Nixon's more 'progressive' ideas in the 70's were blocked by Democrats.
Abandoning the false narrative of left vs right will rapidly expose just how many Americans actually agree with each other on things that matter - a reality that only vested partisans and political fundraisers abhor.
3
Good Medicare for all and better funding for a university education (to avoid huge loans for parents and students) and taxing billionaires at a high percentage to pay for it is not leftist. It's what is going to help many middle class folks live a middle class lifestyle in retirement. Some of these billionaires are trying to transform our educational system with money so the upside of taxing them is the people have more say.
What scares so many people of all political parties about far left Democrats is that they think the far left Democrats are going to make people in around the 30% to 89% income brackets pay for their agenda.
Let's hope the far left Democrats get a little more practical about how and who has to pay for everything they want or we'll end up with Trump or someone like him for another four years.
The caucuses start in Iowa so these far left Democrats need to have some practical plans to present to the people that doesn't involve transferring income and savings elsewhere.
Communism and socialism by and large have not worked.
2
Millennials are either unable to get a job that pays more than $12 an hour because they lack the skills and education to succeed in post-industrial America, or they do have the skills and education but are weighted down by the debt of their education and are forced to live like paupers in cramped, overpriced apartments indefinitely.
It's only natural that they would want the kind of active government their grandparents and great-grandparents supported with FDR, when the economic system was similarly broken. Neoliberal, Reagan-Clinton capitalism may have seemed great for baby boomers. For anyone under 40, not so much.
2
@Chris Gray
I’m in total agreement Chris and sadly things are going to get unbelievably worse for everybody because the unstoppable economic trend is automation which is going to exacerbate the social plagues and fanaticism already destroying the nation. Actually America is ceasing to be a nation and regressing towards primitive tribalism and technocratic despotism. We resemble 17th Century Scotland more than 20th Century America.
There really is not a far left in America. You guys have this weird aversion to moderate sensible socialism that -as the saying goes- is only in America. Our conservative government in Australia accepts it as a given the things AOC is fighting for. There is nothing weird about universal health care in modern advanced countries. The conservatives have a magic word in the USA that they us as a bogeyman and the word is socialism. Ironically they don't mind Trump snuggling up to extreme left dictators like Kim and ex KGB Soviet operatives like Don's supervisor Vlad Putin who by definition had to be a card carrying communist to get to his position. But moderate socialism is all over northern Europe, NZ, UK and Australia. You people are oppressed by conservatives playing the "that's socialism" card at every turn. We never ask where does the money come from? here. The money seems to be there in all the countries that take care of the health of their citizens. America is a wonderful country with fantastic people- I love visiting... but to use an Aussie word - crikey I wouldn't want to live there.
5
@Bob Guthrie
We could have a lovely, sensible socialism here if we didn’t take care of most military matters in the world. Military might cost money. The problem is our people are suffering because other Western countries rely on the US to do it for them.
1
If you label every alternative to a broken system as "Socialism", eventually you will get young people asking if this "Socialism" thing is indeed all that bad.
2
Democrats must not shrink from promoting economic policies that are sorely needed by America's middle class and poor. Deindustrialization and advancing technology threaten to displace increasing numbers of workers from productive employment. Drastic inequality already exists, resulting from 35 years of Reaganesque policies and culture. President Obama tried to adhere to the middle ground and ended up losing Congress to the Republicans and crippling his administration for the remainder of his terms. Bold social democratice policies will propel the Democrats into power and are ultimately best for the country, if they can be realized.
One cannot shift to the "right" or "left", when such terms have long since been shredded of their traditional meaning, and when the actual positions taken are anyway so tepid and tokenist that it doesn't much matter which direction they are superficially oriented towards.
3
The author's comment that Democrats moving "left" want, among other things, "greater protection from the vicissitudes of market capitalism," may reflect his own bias rather than reality. I can't speak for everyone, but what I want is less corporate welfare, exemplified by the 2008 bank bailouts and tax cuts for corporations, which have been supported by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress and the White House. Without the bailout, which shifted tax dollars away from ordinary citizens to the banks, Goldman-Sachs and other monopoly capitalists would have gone belly-up. "Free market capitalism" is something that does not really exist, due to the entanglement of government with corporations (e.g., the Obama cabinet being comprised of those with Wall Street connections and the fox-guarding-the-chicken coop members of Trumps' cabinet). Adding insult to injury, the bank bailout was followed by what amounted to interest-free loans in the trillions that were funded by the taxpayers. And, according to a DOD website, the last defense budget approved by Congress was $1.3 trillion -- this in the face of the inability of DOD (according to the NYT and other media sources) to account for literally trillions of dollars in past allocations. This is corporate welfare at its most blatant. What many of us want is a halt to the transfer of wealth from the working poor and middle class to the wealthy that has been facilitated, if not made possible, by "our" government.
3
Socialism in America is something akin to satanism, and it’s a tragedy. The working class have abased and betrayed themselves at least since the germination of the mythical American Dream. Union membership, traditionally a bulwark of leftist social thought, has been seriously eroded by those working stiffs within it unable to spot the deleterious irony of voting conservatively on national and state platforms while baying for employer concessions at the local level. Governments and corporations, thus emboldened, have worked in concert to heavily propagandise against left wing influences (like trade unions) by using the spectre of Soviet and Chinese communism as anathema to the advantages capitalism offers, which is not entirely untrue. However, when capitalism becomes suborned, as did communism, by the vice of greed, not everyone can benefit from it.
Cortes and her colleagues are tasked with exorcising the demons of past right wing perceptions of left wing thought. They are up against a dubious resistance coming from within the ranks of those who should be democrat who voted for whatever Trump is instead. I wish her luck, but I advise her to tread carefully and wisely and to use the examples of honey over vinegar to bring back the shifted base. People need her and her ilk, but youthful enthusiasm and hard ideology might yet snatch a defeat from the jaws of victory.
4
One commenter gave a really insightful look at socialism for corporations and the rich here, otherwise known to most of us as corporate welfare, including subsidies to oil companies, who seem rich enough, but nevertheless, extend their "impoverished" bank accounts for more of our dollars.
Successful corporations, will reward investors, CEO's, hedge fund managers, all those at the top, but the worker, not too much for that drone, who was part of the reason of the success of that corporation.
Socialism has been tainted by countries with autocratic rulers , uneducated masses, and ofttimes, as in Latin America, religious masses. But, Scandinavia, has shown us a socialism to envy. It's confident citizens know that much of what makes life livable has been achieved. Finland rates as one of the happiest countries in the world. Taxes are high, but one isn't bankrupted because of illness, one doesn't lose a home because of a catastrophic illness, education is encouraged, and one doesn't have to pay the debt off for 30 years or more. The infrastructure is a priority,
war is not. It just seems like it's a secure way to live. This is socialism I wish we could duplicate.
Does anyone consider that socialism also includes our police, libraries, fire stations, roads, and so much more?
Used for the good of society, it's a boon for all, rather than unregulated capitalism which enriches the few at the expense of most of us.
4
@Gloria Utopia It works in Sweden because it"s a small country .
3
@sm and because, until recently, it had a very homogenous population. You can see the strains on Scandinavian "utopianism" as more immigrants/refugees enter those countries.
2
@JM
Australia is an exceptionally diverse country. In central Sydney on a working day it's hard to spot a white face- often only one in fifteen. I have observed this personally. Yet it works here. What difference does the complexion of the user make? It looks like you are saying that only whites of European stock will not abuse the system.
There is one big white man in the USA right now who is shredding your systems with the help of his enablers.
1
Could it be that these 54% of Democratic voting respondents who, when asked, want the candidates to be more moderate, think rather of identity politics, and of not raising taxes on the middle class which is a phantasmagora threat that is not a real part of the more liberal agenda, but at the same time see a 70% marginal tax rate, Medicare for All, a minimum wage that is also a living wage, affordable education, affordable child care, affordable anything, consumer and environmental protection, social security secured instead of cracked by the deeply malicious trap of the debt ceiling lunacy enforcing spending cuts, freedom from active shooters with assault weapons, elementary humanity toward refugees, aspiring immigrants and the undocumented, corporations paying a fair share of taxes instead of being provided with impunity with an elaborate web of avoidance and evasion routes etcetera etcetera as very reasonable and moderate, as do many Republican voters? Could it be there is a lot of suggestiveness and faux fear mongering against the ghost of socialism, socialism, socialism going on, in order to prevent moderate politics and so to cement an extremist right-wing agenda of horrid debt financed ultrawealthy welfare (that shoves the financial black holes that these yachting bonuses create to future administrations) sold as prudent conservatism and healthy economics?
Me thinks the winning messaging for moderate and reasonable progressive policies has only just begun to take off.
3
Ed, it's time to retire. If you spent time looking at the actual data, Democratic primary voters, particularly those in overly restrictive closed primary states like New York, are older, wealthier, "socially liberal" and "fiscally conservative." They are what we would have called moderate/Rockefeller Republicans 40 years ago, but they vote Democratic because that's who their parents voted for. Most progressive voters today, the ones who support Medicare for all, investment in public higher education, taxation on wealth (you know, those pesky issues that mainstream Democrats used to support 30-40 years ago) are younger and more likely to be unaffiliated with any political party. This is why Bernie did much better in states with open primaries, and Hillary did better in closed primary states like NY
AOC won in spite of NY's restrictive primary system. She was able to achieve this because many of the older Democratic establishment voters who would have voted for Crowley stayed home, and she was able to motivate enough first-time young voters in her district to register as a Dem and vote for her. (First time voters in NY can register with party 30 days prior to primary election)
Let's be clear though: your premise that Dem primary voters are driving the party's shift to the left couldn't be further from the truth--the progressive shift in the body politic you describe is coming from younger, independent, working class voters and is redefining the American left.
5
This article slices, dices, and repackages American voters along race, gender and income categories in the same way subprime mortgage lenders constructed meaningless risk-ridden investments that crashed our economy and most of the world. Not only is it meaningless, but is is dangerous.
One reason the huckster in the White House won was because he is plain-speaking. These polls assume that college-educated white women voted because they moved right or left on the imaginary bell-curve of political analysts who cannot see the forest for the trees. So naturally they assume that some demented Bill Clinton pretzel act of seeking support from Republicans is required for victory.
The simple fact is the majority of voters recognize that the program put forward by FDR, globally identified as the Marshall Plan, provides people with the baseline of health and security required to adventure further in their capitalist dreams of creating wealth. Like the billionaires at Davos, this writer assumes that people can be manipulated endlessly by hucksters who proclaim the FDR-plan, which requires fair taxation of the Uber-wealthy, would deprive people of all ambitions and motivations for a better life. If Federal workers with reliable jobs cannot survive a loss of one or two paychecks, the bell curve has become non-representative of American lives and common sense.
3
I admire her and respect her a lot, but something tells me that some of this is about another "pretty face" to push in front of the many screens we watch and drive page view or ratings. She is not saying anything new that others haven't argued. So why so much coverage?
@G. Harris
So many within the Democratic party up until now have hedged their bets for too long. What that means is that they take conciliatory tones (deferring to republicans and more tax cuts) at every turn. That is no longer the acceptable status quo.
What the new Congresswoman is doing is being unequivocal for not only a change of the status quo, but a return to Progressive values even before 1970's. The vision includes as well women and minorities, which have been used as props for too long.
A pretty face helps, but people are listening.
3
have you listened to her interviews? she doesn't say much of anything. all political about all these socialist ideas with no means or method of how to get there. and thank goodness she has no clue how to get there
5
So “the something that tells you” is your own bias against a woman with a pretty face. Orchestras world-wide now audition new musicians by listening to them without seeing them so their discernment is not corrupted by bias. One reason women support AOC is that we are not biased against young women who wear red lipstick, we actually listen to what they say.
1
Alexandria is the latest flavor of the month; the latest shining penny with a definite following that doesn't look very durable.
2
@David
I completely disagree.
The United States is a decisively Progressive country that the founding fathers envisioned. However, conservative forces (up until now) have split the many factions in the Democratic party to the point of massive disparity that we have now.
There are no more taxes to cut, and no more expenditures to put off. There is continuous war and ongoing discrimination. The hardships have become too great. People have had enough and are being persuaded to leave a republican party that does not reflect American values anymore.
It is the policies that will last, and those that advocate for them unequivocally. (pretty face or not)
2
Perhaps you, Sir, you are the one who needs to move past the shiny face. Read her resume and listen to what she says. Her economic perspective is well-educated and supported by many economists. She has now been placed on two very important committees: Finance and Oversight. Plus she continues to push for a Green Infrastructure Program. Speaker Pelosi did not place her on those committees because of her shiny face; as always Speaker Pelosi’s decisions are well-founded.
1
It is a measure of how successful and ubiquitous Republican propaganda has been since Ronald Reagan that even today, a column like Edsall's today contains an undertone of unease about the "left" or "liberal" trend of Democratic activists. It's as if these people were bomb-throwing Bolsheviks bent on destruction of America . . .
Medicare for all, OMG! Immigration reform, seriously! Reining in free market capitalism; how dare you!
The experts and academics quoted also offer a note or two of political caution: will these ideas ever take hold in a nation that prides self-help and rugged individualism?
Methinks it is time for a new narrative, one in which progressive or leftist ideas are gaining momentum and a foothold because the dominant centrist to right-wing politics of the past 50 years is no longer offering solutions, but modest, mousy, incremental tweaks to issues of existential importance.
Trump in this narrative becomes the poster boy for reckless, feckless policies intended to make the rich not only richer, but almost completely devoid of regulation, limits on wealth concentration, and regard for social safety nets that keep a third of the population from drowning.
As I say, time for a new narrative.
4
Thanks to Bernie Sanders for his courage in speaking out in his quest for the democratic nomination on the true beliefs of Democrats before they moved to Center Right. Beliefs as Universal Affordable Healthcare, affordable education, decent minimum wage, equal pay for all, childcare etc. Now we are beginning to reap the fruits of his labor. Hopefully they will all come to pass in the not too distant future. Thanks, Bernie!! (And you did it with little or no help from the mainstream media including this paper)
3
@Trini
Yes! And Bernie did it with no help from the Democratic establishment.
1
I worked for McGovern, McCarthy and others in hoping that this country would finally stop voting against its own self interest. What I got was Nixon, Reagan and the two Bushes.
I get it that the demographic shift is happening but two things mitigate against it---it will take three more cycles for it to actually happen and voter suppression will try to stifle it (especially in the South and Midwest).
I canvass for local candidates and stay active.
You politically fight but you also have to be practical.
We are in the middle of a social and economic mess of our own making---because many people in our own party thought Hillary was flawed, they voted against her and did not vote at all. You now see what that has wrought---the whirlwind.
Until the demographic shift is an actual reality this is a center right country. Our party won the House because they picked up suburban seats in Republican leaning districts--- I hope the progressives understand that.
In order to have power you have to be elected first, that is political reality. You also have to retain it. In a political sense, the Republicans do one thing better then we do --- support one another even if we disagree and are not entirely happy with the nominee. Litmus tests are a sure way not to win the election---l know because I have experienced it.
2
Young people are smart to focus on the fact that progressive policies are NOT SOCIALISM. Post high-school and higher education costs which is the path to a middle class life is higher than ever, costs are rising leaving school with high debt is a sure path to poverty. I'm not in agreement with "free" higher education, but efforts can be made to made to reduce the costs for all.
Health care - is expensive: the country spends more than any other country, and too much of the country are still is not covered. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was a start in the right direction, and we need to get rid of anyone who wants to go back to pre ACA days, or not work on improvements to reduce costs, expand availability, and improve heath outcomes for the entire country.
Retirement is out of reach for many as companies nickle and dime salaries/benefits, in order to pay lobbying costs, higher CEO salaries, and higher dividends to the class that lives on Capital.
Progressives are not asking for a free ride - they want an equitable ride where outcomes benefit more, and costs are borne by the millions who really did not "build it themselves".
And lastly, no one has mentioned "abolishing ICE" in a while - but everyone can agree that it can be improved. That this was mentioned as a left rallying cry in this article, was profoundly disappointing.
1
unfortunately Ali, most of these progressive liberal ideas are EXACTLY socialism. they're all about a big govt paying for and providing services to "the people". that is EXACTLY socialism and how does that seem to be working throughout europe?
1
@Ali Just about everything you ask for will cost more money. Unfortunately there aren't enough "rich" people making more than $500,000 to pay for the whole thing. Here's a simple example. A family of 4 with an income of $500,000 will pay $126,000 in Federal taxes assuming the standard deduction. A family of four earning $50,000 claiming the Standard deduction will pay $2,200 in taxes. It will take about 60 families earning $50,000 to pay the same amount of taxes. But they will have 120 kids to educate instead of two. These are simple facts and the way our tax system works. Redistribute the entire $500,000 earnings of the "rich" person to the 60 families making $50,000 and now they are making $58,000 each and paying $720 more in taxes each for a total of around $180,000. That's the problem in a nutshell. There is more money to be gotten from the 60 families than the one family. The middle class always will pay the bulk of taxes because that is where the money is.
Lots of interesting points here, as well as some of the contextualization that opinion pieces generally lack, but I was struck by the assumption that many of the ideas being discussed (universal healthcare, higher minimum wage, &c) are "radical" and will turn off swing voters.
Many of these policies are supported by a majority of Americans (not just Dems). Not donors, or pundits. Just regular people. The ideas are not radical, they're common sense. What's radical is that the stranglehold of markets-first neoliberalism is loosening enough for some common sense to be allowed into the conversation.
1
I hope for all of us (Americans)to seek change from within instead of disproportionately focusing on externalities. By externalities I mean the labels used to lump us in groups expediently. 200 years from now we may be having the same debate: EMPIRICAL (observation or experience rather than theory) Vs RATIONAL: (accordance with reason and logic) Since both Republicans & Democrats represent groups of flawed humans, expect debunking and name changes similar to the WIG Party. Today or in the year 2220, individuals can only create change by simply surrendering. A simple but profound wisdom of yielding to rather than opposing the flow of life. Surrender is not the same thing as resignation. One can surrender to the reality of a situation and still take steps to create a different path. If you find your life situation unsatisfactory or even intolerable, it is only by surrendering first that you can break the unconscious resistance pattern that perpetuates that situation (Stop being judgmental to yourself and others). Accepting what is will not lead to a lack of motivation. We can experience a more effective motivation when we surrender and are continuously aware of our habits and what triggers them. All desired and undesired habits are triggered by five things. Time, location, a preceding event, state of mind and other people. Let us focus on developing processes to help ourselves do a better job of managing ourselves instead of trying to change things we have no control over.
1
Voting is for the most part an emotional function. Yes, we observe the candidate, measure his or her merits. But in the end we vote with our hearts. And the way to get to the heart is by laying it on the line, telling the truth about the state of our union. And let's face it, there are many things that need fixing like climate change, the buildup of weapons throughout the world, especially the nuclear arsenal, dangerous trade wars, racial tensions, political divide etc... But the one most important thing that needs fixing is the decimation of the middle class. And, yes, the truth of it is that there needs to be a redistribution of wealth like there was during the 1960's when for ten years our GDP averaged 5.5% and middle class America grew like a magic pea. Without a burgeoning middle class our democracy will fail and we will head into oblivion. And that's the truth.
2
In past generations high marginal tax rates on the rich, and tax supported state university tuition were not too leftist, but accepted and even centrist. They helped build the US middle class to one of the world's strongest, but now one of the weakest among advanced democracies.
Ocasio Cortez was just on the Steven Colbert show. He had her explain her proposed 70% MARGINAL TAX RATE. Not on the whole income of the rich, but only above a certain high level of their income. The public must understand this to counter her critics' distortions.
She also cited the 90% marginal tax rate on the rich in 1950s during the term of GOP President Eisenhower---hardly ever cited in our media. Not left wing then.
With such policies our elected govt once promoted middle class security and upward mobility. Low cost or free state college was not left wing but acceptable policy. It worked with our capitalist system. It wasn't 'socialism' as we hear today.
The rich were still rich, but the middle class was expanding and strengthening. They had upward mobility with education and with unions, so their higher paying occupations led to more consumer demand, thus expanding business.
Today in the GINI Index comparing countries on economic mobility of citizens, the US lags many capitalist democracies, instead of leading as in our past.
Where is this on prime TV cable news? A perfect election topic for the 2020 Democrats.
1
I'm a liberal Democrat and I remain very skeptical regarding the platforms of these new members of Congress. Youthful exuberance is admirable, but it's not sufficient to address complicated issues related to fairness. Fairness does not always mean equity of wealth. Some people have more because they have worked more, worked longer, or took more risks with their money. Should the nurse who worked three jobs to make $150,000/year be made to sacrifice a significant portion for those who chose to work less? Such an anecdotal question may seem naive, but these are the kinds of questions asked by regular Americans who often value social programs, but also value fairness. The claim that only some tiny fraction of the 1% will bear the cost of new programs and will alone suffer increased taxation is simply untrue, and those who are making this claim know it. This tiny group of wealthy knows how to hide its money off-shore and in other ways, as documented in the Times last year. Everyone knows the low-lying fruit for increased taxation is the upper middle class: Those who work hard and save hard and are nowhere near the top of the wealth pyramid. It's that nurse with the three jobs, or the small business owner who now clears $200,000 a year, or the pair of teachers who, after 25 years of teaching, now bring home $150,000 combined. Those are the targets of the proposed "new" taxes. Don't believe the hype. I'm a liberal, and I know what's up with these people.
7
How the nurse was able to find 3 jobs at once that pay her 150K a year? I guess none of these jobs require full day work and yet pay 50k a year.
@Tintin A nurse working three jobs is probably over stressed & unlikely to perform adequately without endangering patients.
Same is true if two of those jobs are with a fast food outlet.
2
@Tintin -- Keep up the good fight. Those of us who work at jobs to make household incomes like this can't seem to get through to people that we are terrified of being asked for even more. Because of the SALT deduction cap, few of us got any benefit from last year's tax reform (I got an extra $50 a week and then had to give it back because of the lower deductions). We know that we will be expected to bear the brunt of these plans, as well as being taxed for Social Security on 100% of our income. What's the incentive to work hard if you don't get the benefits.
I'm not asking to pay any less. I just don't see why we are constantly being expected to pay more.
3
This article notes that some believe that demanding Medicare for All or a $15 minimum wage is demanding "ideological purity" from politicians. Really? In fact, those demands are just common sense.
We've tried 70+ years of healthcare based primarily on private insurance provided by employers, and it's failed miserably to give us affordable, simple to use, universal health care. We've had Medicare for 50+ years providing affordable, simple to use, successful universal care for all seniors. Common sense tells us we shouldn't continue the 70+ years of failure of private insurances but instead expand Medicare's obvious success to all.
Nobody using common sense thinks $7.25 an hour ($15,000 a year for 40 hours, 52 weeks of work) is a living wage. Neither Obama's $10.10 proposal ($21,000 a year) nor Hillary Clinton's $12 proposal ($25,000 a year) gets you a living wage in most of the country, especially if you have dependents. Yet demanding $15 is supposed to be reaching for "irrational purity" rather than for the obvious.
We have to see that some so called "purity tests," as the political center and right call Medicare for All and $15 minimum wage, are necessities for the poor and working class, not extravagant, ideological indulges.
2
I'm in my 70's and so happy to see all these new women coming in strong. We need new voices who represent people ignored by generations of male politicians. Personally, I'd like to see a government made up of 50% women and 50% men. For a start....
1
how about a govt just made up of the best 100% available. regardless of whether they are men or women?
1
Hillary embraced a moderate left position nationally and narrowly lost. Beto embraced a further left liberal position in a state that is more conservative than the nation, and also narrowly lost. One could argue Beto energizing of the base had a more beneficial effect for his election than Hillary's middle of the road approach did for her election.
3
Justin Smith Morrill was one of the founders of the Republican party and the act that bears his name established the land-grant college program. Texas A&M is one of the land grant schools, as is the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign where I went. The country made an investment in me, and I've repaid it many times over.
Investing in education is radical only if you use that term to mean fundamental, as in "investing in education is fundamental to the long term survival of our society." (see the first definition of radical at dictionary.com)
2
Men rule by force. This has been and until we are awakened will always be the case. If we men don't cease we will continually Raise boys in our likeness who will continue to destroy a world which, odd as it may seem, belongs to women as well.
As our last election indicates, women understand they will get no help from us and are taking the reins of control into their own hands.
For the sake of the world and our children I trust they continue and most importantly, succeed.
November's election is the tip of the iceberg.
1
The Democratic party has only moved left from it's rightward swing under Bill Clinton.
We are returning to our roots in progressive economic and social policy. Hurrah
!
4
A large reason for the significant gains in the 2018 election were because DEMs had the sense to run appropriate candidates in more centrist parts of the country.
The current DEM contingent in Congress represents a broad range of views. In my opinion, this is how it should be. People like Kendra Horn of Oklahoma were elected because they were in touch with the issues that matter to everyone, INCLUDING those that vote GOP.
from CNBC coverage:
“This is a place where everyone used to whisper if they were progressive,” Horn said at a post-election panel hosted by Democratic data firm TargetSmart in Washington. “Then they woke up and realized ‘Oh, we agree on these issues’ and that even included moderate Republicans because the conversation had shifted so much further to the right.”
AOC very much reflects her constituents and Horn hers. This will make the DEMs strong.
By the way, yesterday Pete Buttigieg announced his interest in running as a DEM candidate for the 2020 presidency. I hope the NY Times and its journalists will give people like him equal time, even if he is not among their favorites. We've had plenty of coverage of Harris in the last few days, and a non-stop stream of articles about AOC. Please don't neglect the others who are doing good things too.
1
I find it enthralling and amazing that Republicans and probably some Democrats have made this intelligent, outspoken, newly election Representative such a lightning rod. If anything speaks to shaking up the establishment, she is the one. Donald Trump was supposed to do that but he's such a colossal failure as a leader, deal maker and human being. Her ideas may or may not find traction, she may or may not be at the beginning of a long and storied trajectory but clearly, she has touched a nerve.
I absolutely love it. Best of all, she's up to the challenge. And I'm pretty sure there's a whole generation behind her that sees what a mess is being made of our country and are ready to step into the fray. Of course not all her ideas will be instant hits but she gives us all hope for the future.
To AOC I say, "Wow!"
4
There will be a fine line for Democratic leaders to walk in the coming years about how much deviation from party policy is tolerated. I'm fine with allowing far more than the Republicans do, as having serious debates about the merits of policy produces quality policy, even if it isn't the policy that I would like to see. I have confidence that Pelosi can handle it, and ideally the nominee in 2020 will as well.
1
"...as millennials and minorities become an ever-larger proportion of the party, it will have a natural constituency that supports a new and bolder agenda..."
Oh, well, people get the government they deserve. Perhaps Clemenceau said it better:
"If you don't vote Socialist/Communist before you are twenty, you have no heart - if you do vote Socialist/Communist after you are twenty, you have no head."
1
Note to the NYT and its contributors. Your sycophantic enslavement to promoting Ocasio-Cortez is beginning to fatigue some of your readers.
11
@Orangecat - She has a lot going for her. Unfortunately, the way the Times covers her and a select group of others means other good people are going unnoticed.
Pete Buttigieg announced his candidacy for the DEM presidential nominee of 2020 yesterday. So far the NY Times has studiously ignored the announcement.
"Who is he?", you might ask. My point entirely. As of this morning we should all know. He is the DEM mayor of South Bend, Indiana, a DEM in the heart of the territory where DEMs need to make a strong showing in 2020.
2
@Orangecat
The people obsessed with AOC are the right wing media (eg, Fox News) and their cheer leaders (eg, Scott Walker). Their distortions of her positions truly are fatiguing.
It's an existential problem for the country. Keep going rightward, as we have for several decades, and the country will either fall apart completely or it will become unrecognizable as the country we knew as the United States of America.
Moderate measured change (Obama style, 5%) ain't going to cut it when confronted with the insane, fascist Republican Party of today.
It's time to go hard left.
If not now, when?
The answer to that question looks like, if not now, never, because it will be too damn late.
2
The things that Ocasio-Cortez talks about are nothing new. It's just odd to hear someone talk about doing ALL of them, and saying it fearlessly.
I'd vote for all of those things in a New York minute, and frankly would get a thrill out of slapping the old guard in the face. I'm almost 60, by the way.
4
O.K. good. 70% tax that's good tell her Hollyweird friends, you know Leonardo, DeWeirdo, and Meryl. Of course, they would rather hide their profits inside tax shelters and
"investments." But hey, "California, tumbles into the sea, that'll be the day I go back to Annandale. Tried to warn you about Chino and Daddy Gee, but I can't seem to get to you through the U.S. Mail." Steely Dan - so true, so true. These people are complete, abject fools. Ignore them.
@Chris Young
Its not 70%. Its only 70% of what you earn beyond a certain very high figure. So under that figure it's the same % as everybody else.
1
A Master of Education (M.Ed.) degree at U. of Wyoming, Laramie over 4 summers, completed August, 1968, basically in summer school; Tuition cost= $509.00. Enabled me to support a family of four and buy an FHA home in Casper, Wyoming in 1969. Older daughter later earned an M.A. U. of Iowa, and younger daughter, a D.V.M. at Washington State...................
The way it should be................Mark
3
I am so proud of our youth today. They are the hope. I am a lifetime ashamed of my own demographic: Old white men. We really suck.
95
@Tracy Rupp I am a senior citizen heterosexual white male. I do not apologize for my race, gender, etc. In fact, I am proud of our accomplishments. I do apologize for my personal wrongs, and strive to improve myself.
19
@Tracy Rupp
Don't be so quick to condemn. The really old white men of today defeated Germany and Japan.
Then those same old white men went into Korea and then Vietnam. Ok so maybe you have a point.
6
@John Patt I am an American living in Canada and I call myself an American.
2
The U.S. has been here many times in 243 years of lead, follow or get out of the way high stakes power poker characterized by ego, greed and political myopia. The Democratic Party has been here repeatedly since the mid-1960s at too-high a national fiscal and internecine cost. The GOP has overcome shifts in ruling by smarmy religious coalition since 1980.
Past is prologue. Both parties concurrently have failed and succeeded, limping forward but rarely making peace with mistakes. Each party has held a tenuous hold by pandering to its extremes while losing the scalable job of good governance. No nation gets to this level of extraordinary citizen division, fear and exhaustion without a lot of careless gamesmanship by its arrogant vainglorious politicians, few giving much of a damn about anything but powering up themselves. Since 2008, the millennial selfie gen follows suit. We are in debt up to our eyeballs. Dems forever give the farm away via new unfunded government programs and Pubs forever spend on warrior muscle; both reward Citizens United Wall St. Look where it got us...dead broke, in debt, dumb as a rock, divided by chaos invented by ancient religions Jefferson and Madison warned of, still trumpeting progressive jingoism and regressive war. We need adults able to focus on a hefty dose of fiscal common sense: how to fund - then say no to unwise policy XYZ AND war XYZ, how to get out of debt, how to stabilize population numbers, how not to fiscally destroy the next gen.
The people running the Democratic Party take huge amounts of corporate money. Then there's Wall street. They are beholden to all that money. I'm a 60 plus year old white male and I resent terribly being lumped in with what probably were a fiction, the Bernie Bros. We'll find out soon enough they were a Russian construct. I've never had a democratic candidate to vote for which expressed my Social Democratic interests. Now AOC comes along and will be subject to the same attacks as Bernie. She's too young, Bernie was too old. She's a communist. What the hell? Who said anything about communism? Once again a smokescreen to cover the real truth about Social Democracy. It happens every time. Every time. I'm disgusted with democrats even as I will have to vote for one of their Wall Street shills or worse, a professional prosecutor who didn't care a whit for her poor and under served constituents. There are a whopping 2 of those by the way. Wolves in womens clothing. The population is slowly shifting but the democratic powerful are utterly immune to any whiff of change. Why should they, they're all rich too, bashing AOC with the glee of Republicans. The NYTimes bias in favor of neoliberals is also a cause for concern? Who speaks for true progressives in these pages? I don't see it. Yeah I know, the Neoliberals absconded with the progressive moniker thus I'm sure they're all screaming "I'm a progressive" even as there isn't a real progressive bone in any of them. More of same.
1
I went to college in the early 70's. I paid $690 per year. Since my parents didn't have a lot of money, I had to work plus take out a loan. The loan was paid in full two years after I graduated. My husband and I bought our first home at 26.
What a lot of people forget is, America was at its wealthiest in the 60's and 70's. Its tax marginal rate (at least) in the 1960's was 91%. Even then, only 42% was paid by the upper 1%.
We're spending trillions on wars we shouldn't be in. (The only people who would disagree with that assessment is the military industrial complex.) We need to ask ourselves, what are the priorities of this country?
I think most people feel that we have to go back to investing in our country domestically. This may include education, infrastructure, health care, etc. And of course that takes money!
Let's be honest, our lifestyle started to go downwards when Reagan introduced voodoo economics. Our debt started ro rise and our lifestyles started to decline. H.W. Bush tried to reverse it by raising taxes, but he lost his job as a result. Even Clinton and Gingrich saw the necessity of keeping America in the black. You saw where that got them.
As I see it, we need to go back to a significantly higher marginal rate for the upper 1%. Unfair? I don't think so. Trust me, they'll still have enough money to buy their yachts, personal jets and multiple homes. And while we're at it, we need to get the hell out of these wars.
1
If the leftward turn of the Democratic Party is for universal care for medical insurance and a free college education, choice when it comes to abortion, aggressively fighting climate change and global warming, and reinstating all the environmental regulations Trump has gutted, civil rights for gay and transgender Americans, then I, a lifelong Democrat of 68 years of age am all in.
However, if dissident voices in the Democratic Party support boycotting and demonizing the State of Israel as a vocal minority are doing now they will not only lose my vote but the votes of most of my fellow Jews and without Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio no Democrat will be elected President.
Further, I think it is the height of stupidity to denigrate moderates in the Democratic Party and say that we don't need them. Anyone that believes that the majority of the American people are either progressives or far right is badly mistaken. The majority of the folks in this country are in the middle and if either political party thinks they can become elected and govern solely by appealing to a small percentage of the populace they are living in a fantasy world. We will never take back the White House by telling a significant part of the Democratic Party they are not welcome.
Yes, this is exactly the kind of thing that will get Trump re-elected.
I thought the universe had hit the limits when the Republican Party started having idealogical purges al' la the Soviet Union Communist party. Now we have the Democratic Party turning into exactly what my Uncle who was unwelcome at Thanksgiving used to rail at.
1
I don't think this is as much a "pull" to the left as it is a return. I wonder how our world would work if unions had survived (and not remained corrupted as they were in the 60s). I think most of the things that the young Sanders followers want would have happened as a matter of course had unions remained a powerful answer to the right's, shall we say, less-than-democratic-and-more-plutocratic tendencies.
This younger generation isn't stupid - they see how things work for people their age in Europe and sincerely wish for those "nice things" here.
1
I badly want a viable third party. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party has alienated me, as have the Republicans. I’m tired of holding my nose when I cast my vote.
3
"The Democratic electorate has shifted sharply to the left ..."
I doubt many people have changed their fundamental values. It's just that a large number of Americans hate to see their country destroyed by pervasive incompetence, corruption, and potential treason.
"Progressive" means something. It means aims for better government.
"Conservative" means something too. It means no change; so no change for the better--unless it's a return to the good old days. Good for whom? Robber Barons? Feudalism's Landlords?
Left and Right mean nothing--though author's seem to think it makes them sound profound--in the know.--gnostic.
I came back to read this article again and must say that the photo of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley shows two women of intense thought and commitment.
I thought how proud I'd be if this was a photo of the president and vice president of the U.S.
The political spectrum is circular, not linear....and every day the so-called ‘Progressive Left’ inches a little bit closer to the totalitarian Right on that spectrum....both are sanctimonious and intolerant. Pity the moderates and independents having no one to vote for....
1
As an old Lefty, I love the discussion of new directions and a re-instatement of these social and environmental ideals, but I have heard some pretty dumb stuff that isn't helpful to this cause in the slightest.
The "open-border" stuff is just foolish to the nth degree. It is impossible to argue for. Utterly reforming ICE because they are cruel and ineffective, fine. But the simple call to eliminate border and immigration enforcement threatens failure of the whole new package of Democratic ideals.
Further, Nancy and Chuck haven't handled the messaging against Trump and his wall well at all. They have a crisp sound bite that they befuddle:
"The Wall won't work, nor can it ever be continuous with so much privately held border lands. But other security measures will work more effectively and that's why we won't waste money on a foolish Wall."
Just keep hammering that point. So, at it's start, the new Dem House isn't impressing me at all. They say many good things but these will never get through if the open border talk continues. In fact, it may be too late already.
Good on the new young members, but their strong strain of ID politics further endangers us. The newbies are total rookies.
2
@Nelly
Further, Trump's Wall has an element to it that repulses Republicans: eminent domain and "stealing" private lands for the Government. Without doing so, the wall is totally porous and stupid.
The Dems should be hammering the point home that: "Trump wants to steal you land and there is nothing you can do about it!"
----------------
The rookie Dems are just like baseball rookies: they throw to the wrong base, miss the cut-off man, and wildy strike out when all they have to do is make contact to score a run....
All of these mistakes stem from wanting to be instant heroes.
AOC is a liberal darling who's stated (on 60 Minutes) that unemployment rates are low because everyone is working two jobs; I might add, that has nothing to do with how unemployment rates are figured and come on, "everyone?" And recently she's stated that the world will end in 12 years if we don't do something about climate change. Come on, this is silliness, ignorance and borderline stupidity. If she's the poster child for the Democrats, then she's the gift that will keep on giving to the GOP.
4
For all of his sophistication in analyzing voting trends, Mr. Edsall seems to be ignoring the rising dynamic of Millennial voters who now outnumber the Boomers as the largest voting bloc.
Young, liberal and tech-savvy, these youngsters identify with rising Dem stars like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez far more than they do the old-school Third Way types and their newer New Democrat Coalition clones.
When AOC proposes a 70% tax rate on the $10 million-an-up crowd that's defended by Krugman and high polling numbers, and even FOX's Tucker Carlson starts pushing the income-inequality meme; you know we've reached a sea-change of political thought.
But the rising popularity of European-style Socialist policies--like Free College and $15/hour--championed by AOC and other Dem Progressives has been chiefly driven by the odiousness of President Trump's particular brand of Conservatism.
If '45 hadn't declared his "fake news" war on the NYT, CNN and other MSM outlets, attempting to financially destroy them and drive their revenue base into the welcoming arms of FOX and Breitbart, this cultural shift probably would never have materialized.
Thanks to President Trump, the revolution will indeed be televised.
DJT, and the lead up team, Limbaugh, Fox, Coulter, Gingrich, etc., etc., have polarized our nation to extreme positions. Well, extreme on the right, and in comparison to the nut jobs on the right, what seems like extreme on the left (not really though, democratic ideals like equality for all, healthcare, education, are not extreme in any sense of the word). I'm holding out hope that the right going further and further to extremes will eventually backfire and serious undermine the DJT faithful, at some point they have to see how ridiculous, illogical, bad faith, bigoted, etc. many of their positions are. OMG, a young female politician that dances!! Call in the armed forces for god's sake....
I'm not sure a very liberal candidate can win but just as Trump has tired to undo the things Obama was able to accomplish, it's not difficult to imagine voters wanting to remove all traces of Trump. Not just the polices but the ugliness of it all.
If another Republican can step in and promise very low taxes, I wouldn't count them out. The super wealthy don't care about walls, and they will tolerate anyone who will cut their taxes. They will dontate millions to defeat a candidate who favors a social safety net, because it will be a good investment for them.
Still, the chances for a new, female FDR have never been greater! The economy is due for a reset, and looking at someone like Kamala Harris, what is there that Trump can insult? Race, sex and apperance are all off limits so that leaves being from California.
Thanks to you, and other left wing media, she's become your darling. I urge you to continue with your unadulterated admiration and worship of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. The rest of the country is offended by her socialist views, and by heaping praise on her day after day it will insure the reelection of one Donald Trump.
1
Does anyone actual believe that she is an authority on anything? That she knows what she is talking about?
1
Amazing.
*Finally* we are at a place where even ordinary rank-and-file Republicans recognize that the "lower taxes (on the rich) and a rising tide will lift all boats" and "make government small enough to strangle in a bathtub" mantra of the rapacious right is bad for them. Even real conservatives are questioning the deification of free markets and how they don't serve all human needs. The Reaganomics fever is finally breaking. **Note: Trump - regardless of how he has actually governed - ran on Big Government, and was absolutely anathema to the cult of Reagan. And Republicans ate it up.
So, finally, most of the country is on board with a standard, moderate Democratic, even economically progressive, message. The electorate is out there just waiting to turn the Democratic Party into another mid-20th Century juggernaut.
If only the left wouldn't go out of its way to alienate a good half of the country.
Instead it's "Abolish ICE!" "Guaranteed jobs!" "White males are the root of all evil!" "White supremacy!" "Toxic masculinity!" "Christians are bigots!" And really? The biggest economic obstacle to black people is still racism, rather than the economic basics which afflict all poor people, including those dreaded white males in the middle of the country?
Do Democrats just prefer the noble loss to the win?
1
"They include the determination to oppose all things Trump, especially his anti-immigrant policies..."
Didn't you mean to say his anti-illegal immigrant policies?
2
AOC might just oust Pelosi and take over the speakers' chair.
the definitions of what is liberal and what is conservative have shifted to the right over the years as well. today's Democratic Party is not so different from the pre-Nixon Republican Party Barry Goldwater unsuccessfully tried to hijack. today's Republican Party is only half a goosestep away from facism, and that only on alernate Wednesdays.
The willingness of voters to support Democrats.....PEOPLE!?!? It is ludicrous how much MONEY, TIME, EFFORT, just plain talking & talking & talking & talking & talking is spent on how, what, where, if & when "The Voter" will pull the lever. I say if the same amount of "stuff" were spent on the actual welfare & the living conditions of the voters themselves, the United States of America would be a land of millionaires!!!
Good, let’s see who attack’s her, she moving someone’s cheese.
Et tu, Tom? Did you know that substantial majority of Americans favor Medicare for All and a 70% tax on income about $10 Million? The American public is FAR more progressive than is reported in the SCLM.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1/15/1826447/-59-of-voters-support-70-marginal-tax-rate-proposed-by-AOC
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/425422-a-majority-of-americans-support-raising-the-top-tax-rate-to-70 http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/SunMo_poll_0209.pdf
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/may/new_polls_on_univers.php
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112973460667273222.html
http://abcnews.go.com/images/pdf/935a3HealthCare.pdf
http://www.pnhp.org/docsurvey/annals_physician_support.pdf
3
How interesting that on the day the Socialist agenda practiced by Venezuela is hopefully in its final death throes, this opinion piece reveals that privileged white Millennials and suburban women are all in. Let’s have these constituents reap the results of their choices and report back in a few years.
1
I agree with Sawhill: "Sawhill argues that if the goal of Democrats is victory, as opposed to ideological purity, they must focus on general election swing voters who are not die-hard Democrats." But the young are by definition ideological. They don't and won't hear that many of the women and brown (or both) candidates for President are not likely to be electable in this highly racist country. They don't care. As with the Stein voters last time, many of which were young, winning was not important - only the message. I worked in Berkeley for 23 years and most of the putative "progressive" voters I talked to, and there were many, could care less about winning, only making a statement. With this attitude, Trump will have another four years, or perhaps Pence, and watch the young and "progressive" Democrats snicker, and say see... The other more disturbing side of that coin is that the younger progressive votes will again go for a Sanders or Stein, and the Democrats still lose. I don't have a solution. To be honest here, I've been a Democrat since 1970, so you can see my age group and where my opinion comes from. My opinion will be rejected by the young and so-called progressives.
Let's see, the one program, Medicaid, that is free for 75 million Americans spends $600 billion each years, and 38% of the money comes from the budgets of the states, which, as it increases, is affecting their bottom line. Wouldn't it make sense to shore up this program, which is supposed to run out of money to pay all the bills in between 2-3 years? You see, President Richard Nixon proposed a single payer health care system, but the AMA(American Medical Association) that had the lobby power, put that one out to pasture. It is very sad, as had we had that back then, we could of charged a sliding fee amount for income, and adjusted it accordingly as more expensive treatments, and the costs to a 60% overweight, and obese population necessitated it. Now, we have 8 separate government programs, where over half of the population(180 million) are on one of them, that is basically free, except Part B of Medicare, where the monthly premium is $135 These 8 are 1. Medicaid 1. Medicare 3. Veterans 4. Current Military 5. Federal government employees current, and former 6. Native American 7. Federal Prisons 8. ACA(Affordable Care Act) How are all those separate bureaucracies working out for us, and the fact that our country is now borrowing 33% of every dollar we spend each year, are $22 trillion in debt, and Congress has promised another $30 trillion in underfunded entitlements (the legal definition of the programs under different titles) over the next 30 years?
3
"Assure the general electorate that their agenda is beneficial to all and not just to favored liberal constituencies."
Last time I checked, most of the major policies put forward by liberals purposefully benefit a large majority of the country, because liberals want a better world for EVERYONE. Medicare for All, combatting Climate Change, taxing the very wealthy, etc.
The real issue is that Liberals need to figure out a way to convey this simple message to people who are brainwashed by Fox and other right-wing propaganda outlets. Once we can figure out how to counter their crazy and usually false messaging, success should be easy.
1
"Sawhill argues that if the goal of Democrats is victory, as opposed to ideological purity, they must focus on general election swing voters who are not die-hard Democrats."
1) I just don't get it - how the heck can a 'political science' analysis state this idea without noting - even perfunctorily, in passing - that 'go for the center' has been perhaps the central, controlling idea of Democratic Party politics for the last 30 years?
It would be so easy to correct. Here, I'll do it for Edsall:
""Sawhill MOUNTS THE LONG-STANDING D.P. ARGUMENT that if the goal of Democrats is victory, as opposed to WHAT IT CHARACTERIZES AS "ideological purity"...
2) Now, as to the validity of 'go for the center' as a roadmap to winning, Edsall omits - and this is a real case of ideological blinders on his part - evidence that, in crucial swing states, conservative, right-trending Democrats that supported Sanders in the primaries switched their support to Trump in the election.
Why? Because, in the absence of Sanders' authentically progressive, populist politics, those voters shifted support to the right wing populist politics of Trump vs. the nothing-burger establishment politics of the Democrats.
When the Dems drop the income tax exemption from the lower 50% of taxpayers, then we don't have to raise the rate to 70% for the high earners. We now have representation with out taxation, with is just as bad as taxation without representation. We can't have an ever increasing welfare state without taxing the rest of the people with their hand out. The math doesn't work, but you will never hear it from the Democrats. Everyone likes free stuff, but sooner or later you run out of other people's money. See France, Sweden, Israel and many others.
1
@sob
You are absolutely correct--the middle class will have their taxes increased by at least 10% if not more. That is how Europe does it.
Why is it that every time terms like "medicare for all" or "a $15 minimum wage" are said y some Democrats, some others start running for the hills, worrying that they will lose "the middle". If nothing else, the Republican Party has done a terrific job of scaring "the middle" away, throwing the "S" and/or the "C" word around whenever the aforementioned and similar terms are used by progressive Democrats. Until last November, Democrats had no wins to speak of in spite of the fact that they tried and tried to appeal to "the middle". So if they attempted to be bold by at least giving some genuine liberal ideas a try and came up empty, what else would be new? I would like for the Democratic Party to go all out for a change, and if it loses, then, well, so be it! At least the party would be able to say, "We looked death in the face, and marched on regardless."
“wields disproportionate influence over which issues get prioritized”. Actually any Democrat can participate if they wish. Apparently the whole party is okay with those who participate otherwise they would and should.
2
From the NYT , Edsall April 19, 2018
The Democrats’ Gentrification Problem
"Conversely, in the struggling Syracuse metropolitan area (Clinton 53.9 percent, Trump 40.1 percent), families moving in between 2005 and 2016 had median household incomes of $35,219 — $7,229 less than the median income of the families moving out of the region, $42,448."
Syracuse, a democratic City in one of the most democratic States in the US, so assuredly democratic that Democratic Presidential candidates rarely show up has been left by the Democrats and the Democratic Governor ,Cuomo, in a death spiral of getting poorer by the day
That in a State, that includes NYC, the international capital of the global billionaire elite.
Exactly, what have the Democrats done to help ?
5
The article quotes Isabel Sawhill as saying, "In my view, it’s a trade-off between exciting the base thereby insuring higher turnout vs. broadening the base to include independents and Republicans that don’t like Trump."
Well, the Democratic Party had a candidate who did both in the presidential primary but insiders rigged the primary to nominate someone who did neither.
3
The world is changing at an ever faster rate. Moderates have not kept up. Reactionaries have used all of the tricks in the book to stop progress. But the future will not be denied. You can delay the future but you can never stop it.
Terrible development for the Democrats and for the country.
The Republicans went around the bend around 2001-2002, giving the Democrats an opening, and the Democrats are blowing it, moving way leftward when swing voters are not.
Obama, a moderate, understood this.
This is not a left-wing country. Most people want better health insurance but are not willing to pay the taxes Medicare-For-All would require. Most Americans don't want open immigration. Most want environmental protection but think the current demonization of men is a moral panic.
The Democrats are playing right into Trump's hands. People like these new radicals in Congress can't see it, are completely blinded by their ideology. This is common among the un-experienced.
The Democrats need to focus on the economy. In particular, working-class income has stagnated for decades as a greater proportion of output has gone to the rich. Increase taxes on the wealthy. Rein in the investment industry through thoughtful legislation A focus on these things would appeal to the white working class and would be a winners for the Democrats. The identity politics is a dead end, a politically suicidal move.
The prognosis is not good. My best guess is that the leftists will hand over the 2020 electorate to the Republicans on a platter.
3
I'm glad to see the Democratic Party winning with liberal ideas. Not long ago, starting with Ronald Reagan well into the George W. Bush administration, a politician had to avoid being labeled as a liberal. "Liberal" was almost a swearword. No longer, thank you. This said, I also want the Democratic Party to be a big tent. It should not expel moderates, but rather include them fully in the conversation. Democrats all agree that we want our country to be more equitable and a better place to live us all. Through negotiation and compromise within the party, we must come up with policies that achieve this and win support from a large percentage of America's population. Take it issue by issue, and work things out. We must nominate candidates who fit the towns, districts and states where they are running. This was done in the recent midterm elections, and it accounts for the great results.
3
Let's see. Supporting women's rights and Roe v Wade; supporting better pay; supporting Social Security, Medicare, affordable health care; wanting DACA participants to have a fair path to citizenship; and a strong desire to save the planet.....that seems pretty centrist to me.
3
@Joe Barnett. And that 70% tax rate? Or the world ending in 12 years?
1
@Jackson
That's a 70% marginal tax rate on incomes over $10 million.
It's hard to see how that's going to be financially burdensome on uber-wealthy people who, after all, use the infrastructure and social services just like the rest of us. And they don't have to live in fear of losing health insurance and jobs. I fear I'm finding it difficult to be sympathetic to their plight.
Can we dispel this myth that universal health care, raising taxes on the wealthy (after deep tax cuts and deficits), parental leave, gun control, expanding medicare etc are somehow signs of Democrats "moving further to the left?" People need a little history lesson. Here's a reality check from the Bill Clinton era, recall the centrist Third Way politician from the 90's. Let's look at a few things Democrats promoted and/or passed in the 90's:
- Made a significant push for Universal Health Care via Single Payer, and actually came very close
- Raised the tax rate on the top bracket by nearly 10%
- Medicare Part C
- Pushed for Medicare Part D (later passed in 2003, though with flaws)
- Expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit
- Expanded Social Security by creating TANF and SCHIP
- Passed the Family and Medical Leave Act
- Enacted gun control via the assault weapons ban and Brady bill
Meanwhile, the signature accomplishment from "Democrats" 2009 - 2010, last time they were in control of all three branches of Government with SIGNIFICANT majorities in modern times, was to pass a Republican Health Care Plan - the Heritage Foundation plan (Subsidies for the purchase of private, for profit insurance).
AOC would be just another Democrat if the year were 1930 - 1993. Sorry, but the current crop of Democrats have moved so far to the right that even modest liberal policies now have the illusion of appearing to conservative Democrats as "far left."
2
Trump has made more leftist voters vote, which has led to more leftist candidates winning Democratically held elected offices. To say that the Democratic electorate has become more left leaning is exactly like saying that the Republican electorate has become more right leaning, it's just inaccurate. The Republican electorate is voting more rightist because the more centrist and liberal Republicans have moved into the independent center and center right. A similar movement has occurred in the 2018 elections with Democrats.
Ocasio-Cortez defeated a strongly liberal Democrat by appealing to a demographic in that district that reflects the same animosity towards establishment politicians as Trump's base feels towards establishment politicians. Trump's base wants to keep the demographics of the country the same as half a century ago and it makes them anti-immigrant. Ocasio-Cortez's base wants the country to accept the changing demographics with tolerance but they truly resent those they see as trying to exclude themselves and do seem to want to turn their enemies into an insignificant minority. It reduces Ocasio-Cortez to a divider not a uniter. If she wants to advance in government she must learn how to transcend this.
1
I see two different types of "liberal democrats". One I could call the identity issue liberals, concerned with immigration, women's issues, LBGQ issues, etc. The other is the economic liberals, more focused on income inequality, medicare for all, etc. Some liberal democrats are both, some are one more than the other. Bernie, for example, is far more focused on economic than identity issues. We need to be clear when describing "liberal democrats".
1
@EdBx Thanks for defining the problem for me. I am definitely what used to be called a blue dog — a moderate, though some of my ideas are probably fairly radical. I care far more about economic issues. Someone should give me a pitch for single payer health care that still maintains the quality of the health care system or a guaranteed minimum income or price controls for pharmaceuticals or a New Deal government program that puts people to work or more funding for housing and child care and college. Be old style Democrats. Tell me what’s in it for me and the people I care about.
I am not particularly interested in identity politics or turf wars over who is the most oppressed or who said something that offended somebody else’s delicate sensibilities last week on Twitter. It’s annoying, it is a major turn off, and will prevent the Democrats from winning. I am also in favor of border security and controlling illegal immigration. The Democrats are as bad as the Republicans at this point. Reopen the government already so my cousin can feed his kids and can stop worrying about paying his bills.
3
@Bookworm8571
Reading the comments and thinking about the Bernie support, I see more focus on economics. But read the media, and the focus is on the identity liberals. Me, I'm not opposed to identity issues, but I'm focused on economic issues. Unions in their heyday focused on economics, and lifted a lot of identity people along the way.
1
@EdBx
Sir, we do not. Neither of those democrat sects has any purchase in the Republican party. An increase in economic justice will benefit members of any identity group.
I used to be friends with a very high-achieving guy I met as a 15-year-old on a teen summer tour in Israel, run by the national Reform synagogue movement, in 1985. In the course of our frienship spanning the final years of high school through the beginning of college, gradually fading to an email or 2 once every couple years; our different paths & outlooks became very stark, though we'd both call ourselves liberals.
My friend left no stone unturned in his unambivalent achievement orientation, embracing w/religious fervor the absolute virtue of success, the unimpeachable morality & integrity of our meritocracy, & meritocratic ideals/ethos. Naturally, he wound up at Harvard, majoring in government, followed by Harvard Law.
What struck me throughout was the unvarnished "empiricism" of his outlook: rarefied, lofty principles or romantic ideals seemed alien: the nitty gritty of practical & procedural realities were the whole picture. The one time we explicitly discussed comparative politics, he only gravitated toward the topic of Harold Washington's coalition-building prowess.
He was an ardent Zionist ("Jewish homeland!"), with little apparent interest in theology or spirituality for that matter.
Eventually he went into corporate law, negotiating executive compensation. I think he epitomized the Clinton Democrat: A "Social justice," equal opportunity for all, meritocracy "synthesis."
In a word, that peculiarly "practical," pragmatic liberalism was *ultimately conservative*.
5
"The willingness of voters to support [progressive] Democrats...will depend in large part...on [their] ability to assure the general electorate that their agenda is beneficial to all...This will be difficult, [given] that what is being proposed is a much larger role for government, and that those...most in need of government support are [mostly poor and minorities]."
Sure, the right will try to argue that healthcare run by govt. instead of private insurers is 'really' just for poor and minorities.
But polls show a lot of the electorate is beyond this classic right wing dog whistle: more Republicans as well as Democrats support a bigger government role in healthcare - for themselves, not just the unquestionably poor and downtrodden.
The success of healthcare for all depends on whether the argument reaches the public: in 2008, Obama prevented any 'single payer' advocates from attending a govt roundtable on healthcare reform; it was largely Sanders' campaign that popularized the issue.
The more people learn about healthcare for all, the more they support it.
1
Everybody asks how we can pay for Medicare for all.
We already are paying for it. We just aren't getting it.
The money we pay to private insurance would instead be paid to Medicare.
We spend an average of $10,000 per person for health care in the US.
The other first world countries spend $4,500 to $5,500 per person.
And we have parts of the US with infant mortality of a second world country.
3
"Sawhill argues that if the goal of Democrats is victory, as opposed to ideological purity, they must focus on general election swing voters who are not die-hard Democrats."
Wow, what an original argument! I have been hearing the exact same thing since I registered to vote at age 18 in 1977. Democrats are always urged to support the "sensible, centrist" candidates who keep on losing elections to Republicans who drag their party, and the whole country by default, even further to the right. JFK was called a communist and worse by pundits like this and he would have won by a landslide in 1964. How about if Democrats for once push for policies that are backed by 90 percent of Americans, like Medicare For All, the higher minimum wage, universal college education, renewable energy and the rest of the Green New Deal and higher marginal tax rates for the rich. I would love to see just one presidential candidate run on this platform before I die so I can fill out my ballot without holding my nose.
5
@Dave
1.2 million people voted for the platform you're asking for. They voted for Jill Stein. If the Democratic Party wants those votes in 2020, it should nominate a true progressive, like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. If the Democrats nominate another centrist, corporatist retread like Biden, Tim Kaine, Michael Bloomberg, Eric Holder, you will see the Green Party vote exceed 2 million and the Democrats lose again.
This trend should have been expected seeing the rightward shift of the Republicans. I applaud this trend because I have zero interest in watching the political center drift rightward on account of only one party controlling the debate. It seems we are moving in a multi-party direction, and that should go ahead and be embraced.
2
The refrain that "America is the greatest country in the world" is holding this country back. I say this because we have become so navel-gazing that we have convinced ourselves that we have nothing to learn from anybody else in the world, and live in our own little delusional bubble. The level of alarm at this supposed "sharp, left turn" is a good example.
This "sharp, left turn" by the Democratic electorate is actually just putting our country in line with most of the modern developed world. You take these economic ideas supported by new wave Democratic politicians to Canada, France, Germany, Japan, wherever...and they would be moderate center-left ideas. In fact, they would usually be in line with longstanding policies.
But we are so off in our own bubble our pundits are talking about it fearfully like these it's the unknown frontier.
2
@citybumpkin - We maintain the defense readiness and infrastructure that allows each of the countries you mention to divert billions from defense.
2
She is sincerely clueless but the same could be said for POTUS. She is telegenic and approachable and so young! As our parties and populaces continue to polarize, we are seeing interesting "politicians" popping up on both the RIGHT and the LEFT
I distinguish between progressives, liberals, and neo-liberals. My politics are to the left of progressives.
Living in NYC, I have been a registered Democrat - as opposed to registered as independent - for tactical reasons, as in NYC the real vote occurs during the primaries. I have been voting since 1972, and have missed a vote only twice during that period. Of those hundreds of votes, I can't say that there were many candidates that were left enough for me: it's usually the lesser of evils. But during the 70s, there were people I could pull a lever for instead of having to write in. When the Clintons came to power, the party shifted rightward to the extent that even my father, a working-class Catholic Johnny-lunch-bucket Daily News reading sort of guy, even felt hard-pressed to remain a member of.
I have often said since Nov of 2016 that I am not unhappy that Hilary lost. It was my hope then as it is now that Trump's election would trigger an awakening. That awakening is happening, and it fills me with genuine joy that sometimes feels overwhelming. This would not be happening if Hilary won. We would have muddled through 8 more years of neoliberalism, maybe ended up with someone worse than Trump in 2024 and would have lost 8 years. The Overton Window is finally opening to ideas that represent the real needs of the majority.
God bless the Bernie Sanders, the OACs, and all the others that are finally making it safe once again to full-throatedly voice progressive ideas.
4
@unreceivedogma. So, what we're experiencing in our enlightenment is better than what Hillary would have done? trump has alienated every ally, butchered environmental processes, threatens to leave NATO, claims North Korea has denuclearized, cut protections for trans soldiers, ripped up the DACA agreement and lied more than Pinocchio every dreamed of! He's made a laughingstock of the US to the entire world. He can't leave office quick enough. And if some junior congressperson wants to hammer on these inequities, more power to them. The dems won November because we are sick of the depraved crime family that now occupies our beloved white house. The end of this nonsense cannot come soon enough!
@Cecilia.
Cecilia, the short answer to your question is yes.
The modestly longer answer is that thanks to this crisis, the Democratic Party might finally be reclaimed by people who are able to bring it back to being the party for the rest of us.
1
Of all of those quoted in this article, the only one who really gets it right is Joshua Zeitz. FDR's 1944 State of the Union address should be required reading for every Democrat, and every Establishment talking head who warns against alienating suburban voters by advocating for a New Deal social safety net.
I share the sentiments of many on who have responded by noting that it was, and is, the leadership of the Democratic Party that has moved right rather than the Democratic electorate that shifted left. Don't believe me? Go back through the sixteen years of the Clinton and Obama presidencies and see how many times each referenced Ronald Reagan versus even mentioning Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, or Lyndon Johnson.
5
Instead of speaking in terms of "trade offs", why not make an attempt to come up with language that can pitch these ideas to swing voters in terms they understand? A lot of their social and economic concerns overlap with traditionally "liberal" ones, but the culture wars stoked by the right (and abetted by centrists like the Clintons) have muddied the waters. Also, so much has already been sacrificed to the cause of "broadening the base"--must we dull ourselves down so completely as to become irrelevant?
The awful truth is that the Democratic party is veering left only in strongly Democratic districts .
Many so-called traditionally Democratic districts have now become swing districts and these are the ones that actually made it possible for trump to win in 2016. Neither Warren nor Sanders could win them in a presidential election and they need to be won if a Democrat can hope to become President .
The only hope of the Democratic Party in the next election is to motivate as broad a spectrum of the electorate as possible to vote in as great a number as possible . A Party looking to the left its raison d'etre will not, unfortunately, achieve that goal .
3
Much has been made of the Trump-effect on the 2018 elections, but the impact of President Obama cannot be underestimated. The fact that so many younger white liberals voted for women of color against their more established primary opponents is the result of their coming of age during Obama's presidency. His competence and politics of good faith made it easier to imagine similar governing qualities in those who more closely resemble him, even if his policies were not as progressive as most liberal Democrats wished.
2
The more the Dems move to the left, the more clearly they signal their true program: expropriation; theft. Polite words for that are sharing; social justice, etc., but it comes to the same thing. To them, an election is a legalized stick-up by means of which they intend to empty your wallet into their pockets. One thing you can say for theft, it's quick and efficient. For people who don't want to work, save, invest, and build over time it's the natural answer to their needs. It leads to statism and ultimately undermines and destroys democracy, the very thing they profess to believe in. The right may be accused of self-interest, but at least they're honest about it and it's synonymous with hard work and individual responsibility--still, I think, praiseworthy traits.
3
I'm so tired of the ordinary, New Deal policies that won Democrats five successive presidential terms being called bold and leftist.
Further, if courting suburban Republican women and self-described centrists were the path to victory, Obama wouldn't have lost the House, Senate, 12 governorships and 1,000 state legislature seats. And Trump would not have won a majority of white women.
What apologists for status-quo, DLC-type politics elide is the number of potential Democratic voters who stay home because they don't have a good enough reason to stand in line to vote. For every suburban Republican they win over, they probably lose at least two of those.
2
Let's not worry about a little thing like paying for it. We can have it all:
Free College
Free Health Care
Basic Income For All Citizens
No Borders
No ICE
Nationalize the Banks
Nationalize the pharmaceutical companies
Nationalize the oil companies
Nationalize the Press
"The World is Going To End in 12 years," says AOC. What do the bookmakers in Vegas have to say about that?
2
@Johnny dangerous Nobody has suggested any of these things. Change the "free" to "affordable," the "no" to "meaningfully managed," and the "nationalize" to "responsibly regulate." That would be more accurate. That last sentence... don't know what that is about.
So tired of this 'need to win elections' argument. We need to let go of being a perpetual war nation with a military industrial complex running foreign policy. (Republican Eisenhower 60 years ago or today's far left liberal?) We need to protect vast more amounts of our natural resources for future generations and have government oversight of our food and drugs. (Republican Teddy Roosevelt 115 years ago or today's far left liberal?) We need government to regulate chemicals and pollution and enforce environmental law to protect the health of our citizens. (Republican Nixon's EPA or today's far left liberal?) We need to redistribute the wealth that has been removed from the pockets of average citizens and hoarded by a few. (Republican Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt or today's far left liberal?) We need to abandon 'States Rights' and work to extinguish racism. (Republican Lincoln or today's far left liberal?) Yes - I am a far left liberal with deep Republican roots. Does anyone else get that?
4
If her base is the 18-25 year olds, wait until they mature, get well paying jobs and see how quickly they'll reject her socialism. Unfortunately, given the quality of education these past years, this may be a dream for the rest of us.
4
If Trump is the face of the right the Republicans miscalculated. They alone bear the responsibility for a "sharp" shift to the left. To every action there is reaction. Not just in physics but in politics too.
3
There needs to be one strong Democratic message that supports all their proposals for free college, Medicare for all, workers on Boards, higher minimum wage: Democrats want to rebuild the middle class.
Many working poor who voted for Trump would support that. It isn't 'too far left.'
What the Republicans use to get votes sounds racist, but another way to look at it is: Republicans do not want to help the poor. And they generate class warfare that way...pulling the less educated middle class into their 'anti-poor' message.
So progressive Democrats can win by pointing out that since FDR the core of the Democratic party is about putting the working classes, the middle-class front and center. That was why the 40s, 50s, and 60s are seen as 'the good old days' by the working class. We want to go back to those core values, but this time include everyone.
1
My only concern right now is making sure that Trump never sees a second term and that as many of his Republican henchmen as possible are put put to pasture in 2020.
I fear that the leftward movement of the Democratic Party will make that goal difficult to achieve.
There are more registered Democrats than there are Republicans. But the majority of voters consider themselves Independents, and they are crucial for a Democratic win.
Moving to far to the left runs the risk of alienating the middle.
I would like to see a safe centrist liberal candidate who will be more likely to win in 2020. Once the Democrats regain full control of all three branches of government, then by all means lets move to the left.
But we have to win first.
4
Yes, we need people who believe in liberal democracy and a modern state that serves everybody equally. The Republican Party has been taken over by people who don’t respect most of the American people and who want a republic under the supervision of themselves instead government by consent of the governed.
@Larry
"Once the Democrats regain full control of all three branches of government, then by all means lets move to the left.
But we have to win first."
You've got it exactly right. Politics is not performance art. It is not self-expression. It is not about imagining a comprehensive world outcome. It about winning elections in order to be able to legislate, in incremental degrees, towards that preferred outcome.
Win first. Don't alienate those you need to win.
Everything else comes after that.
1
Trump is getting a lot of liberals, women, and minorities elected. That's nice, but it raises the question whether voters are voting for liberal reform, or against the Trump GOP. If they're voting against the Trump GOP, they'll snap back to the new GOP as soon as Trump is gone and the Democrats raise taxes.
Because that's the problem. As France discovered, raising top tax rates to 70% doesn't actually significantly increase the tax take. The really rich people (like Warren Buffett) make their money as capital income, which pays at 22% and 20% for dividends and capital gains. There is significant doubt whether Americans are willing to raise their own taxes (as opposed to people richer than themselves) for any of these liberal reforms, and that's what it would take. When liberals making $250K call for tax rises, but only for those who make more than $500K, be suspicious that actual support for actual reform is not there. And that's inside the Democratic party. There's absolutely zero support for higher taxes on the general public in the general public.
.
The Democrats need to sell ideas like: We're going to raise all marginal tax rates by 5%, or put in a value added tax, but you will get your health care paid for by the government, not your employer. If that sounds like political suicide, then Medicare for all is a pipe dream, as are a lot of the rest of these ideas. Higher middle class taxes is the price of liberal reforms. Will people vote for higher taxes?
2
@Tom
The problem with healthcare is not that it is payed for by your employer, which is not totally correct, but it is an insurance that is tied to your job. Your employer pays a portion of the premium to the insurance company and you pay the rest. An example would be, your employer pays $450 a month towards your insurance and you pay as much as $1900 for a month for the rest of the coverage depending on the plan. If you change jobs, your insurance changes. If you lose your job, you lose your insurance unless you opt to pay COBRA at an exorbitant rate for less coverage.
The problem with our healthcare system is that it treats our bodies as profit centers for the insurance companies. Their business is to maximize returns to their investors. Our health and well being is secondary to profitability.
Until we take a stand and demand that our healthcare is a fundamental right of all Americans and not a profit making business venture, we will continue to be a second or third rate country when it comes to healthcare.
Conservatives have to get over the notion about socialized medicine or whatever you want to call it. It rankles them to think that someone may get something for nothing. The something that people will get is a chance to lead a healthy life.
Take the insurance companies out of the equation, let the money that would go to them go into Medicare for all.
3
Stop the killing of peasant people around the world. It's drained the treasury and made America more mean. We have some of the meanest Christians in the world, here. They voted for Trump.
Liberals have been waiting forever for the Democratic Party to notice them. It's time. If we win but don't promote the liberal philosophy - if our leaders don't preach it from their bully pulpits - then how will this country make the changes it so desperately needs (Even though so many are too politically and economically and spiritually ignorant to know it.)
Liberalism is correct in the modern world. We must no longer delay. Technology is putting increasingly powerful tools in the hands of individuals. But individuals can only be trusted to serve themselves - probably to the detriment of the masses.
2
@Tracy Rupp
Start taxing religion instead of gifting those businesses with umpteen paths of exemption, tax avoidance and tax shelters. Those businesses alone can fund via their taxes many municipal/state and federal programs.
3
Moving left takes a twitter account, a quixotic mentality and the word free. Its sedition arousing rhetoric is blinkered by the lack of a viable strategy to support and move it forward. Liberals thrive on the free media attention which feeds their rancor and aplomb.
Liberals are the infants of the Democratic Party. They're young, cute and full of amusing antics. They have an idyllic view of what the world can be but without efficacy. When they are challenged, or don't get enough attention, they revert to petulance.
As all mammals do, most liberals eventually grow up to join the Democratic median. Those that don't become the party regalers
brought out when the base needs energized. They grow old and fade away, remembered only for their flamboyance and dystopian view of the world.
The Democratic Party has never been more fractured since its inception. With close to thirty potential candidates for President, it is going to take a coalition within their party in order to put forth a viable nominee. Then the party infighting will commence which will lead the party into defeat.
Democrats must focus on a untied party platform which is viable and will produce results for the American people. Enough of the loquacious hyperbole and misandrous language; it's time to stop reacting and start leading.
6
If neoliberalism itself isn’t the problem, then the addition of neoconservativism certainly has put a few nails into the coffin.
AOC’s most ingenious policy proposals as of yet have all been aimed towards moving the Democratic Party back towards its fundamentals. Because the lives of people matter at least as much as the lives of the industries that they run.
1
Wow I thought I was pretty centrist but except for abolishing ICE I'm in favor of everything on that "liberal" agenda. Zeitz's point is very well taken: what we're calling "progressive" right now would be have been pretty centrist in the 1930s and 1940s.
Also very interesting that neither Pressley's nor AOC's victory was largely based on "identity" (code word for race and ethnicity). Instead, based on votes from young white liberals and yes, gentrifiers.
The times indeed are a-changin'
3
The basically libertarian “live and let live” attitude fused with opposition to all discrimination and sympathy for the less fortunate has been a cultural winner for the left. That culture war is over. Good job.
Patrolling how people talk, joke, think and dress is another matter altogether. That never ends well for the winners of any power struggle as they morph into occupiers.
China rulers did an amazing job of holding on power through replacing the symbol of Mao outfits with blue jeans and symbols such as Channel and Gucci and dumping campaigns against “ hoarders” for allowing and encouraging money and wealth to wind up in “the wrong hands.”
The American left is now running on an agenda of little red books on how to think for everybody and campaigning against wealth winding up in “wrong hands.” They could just as well run on a platform outlawing sexual desire and preference for one ‘s own children.
3
How soon we forget. Remeber Sarah Palin? The Tea Party movement? Rember how everybody said the Republican party was going to be torn apart and candidates with these fringe ideas would never get elected? And then we got Trump! maybe the Dems are on to something here.
1
@Trillium
Trump was elected by Independent voters who held their noses and voted for Trump because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary.
Any other Democratic candidate and Trump would be back hawking his steaks.
It's wonderful to see that any piece about liberal or progressive Democrats still brings out the snarly fogies who detest Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Presley.
What do the snarly fogies have in common? Mostly, they're not from the districts of those elected women; mostly, they're men; mostly, they're white; mostly, revere conventional wisdom, and loathe anybody who doesn't; mostly, they envy anybody more imaginative, charismatic & ambitious than they are.
If the snarly fogies have ever run for office, or managed a political campaign, or worked as union activists, or challenged the status quo, they keep that to themselves. You'd think that if they're so eager to belittle people who've won office by huge margins, they'd use their own experience to diminish them. You'd think they'd bring more to the debate than gassy predictions & cheap insults. But you'd be wrong.
Ignore the snarly fogies. They are not the assets of the Democratic Party; they are the liabilities.
1
Thanks to Trump, America may well be going to create itself a soul.
These voters are not moving to the left. They are correcting a trend to the right that accelerated with Reagan: the rise of corporate dominance and societal control; the loss of worker rights, healthcare and protections through destruction of our unions; and the mass incarceration of our nation’s young African American men for minor drug offenses, thus destroying their futures and communities. These “left” liberals are fighting to bring back democratic norms and values that were once taken for granted among those of all political stripes.
5
Those terrible far left Democrats!
They want universal healthcare like all the other first world countries.
They want to continue public education with two years of trade school or community college. Get people educated and working and paying taxes instead of paying for welfare and prison.
We are the richest industrial country on the planet GDP / capita. But we poverty those other countries don't and we have the highest incarceration rate in the world.
Those terrible liberals want to protect the air and water and stop global warming.
They want to give women birth control so they don't have unwanted pregnancies and don't have to consider having an abortion.
Shades of Karl Marx!
We pay around $10,000 per capita for healthcare compared to the $4,500 to $5,500 the other first world countries pay.
They get universal coverage and we have parts of the US with infant mortality rates of a second world country. Seriously, look it up.
With the savings to healthcare, we could pay for the additional two years of education.
And maybe that would decrease poverty and crime. Then we would get more people working and paying taxes instead of paying for prison and police and courts.
We have the highest incarceration rate in the world.
I can't believe how far left these new Democrats want to take us.
What would the Founding Fathers be saying today.
In the meantime, Republicans just increased the deficit.
Again.
2
The Baby Boomers failed. Trump, Bigotry, Inequality, Destruction of the Environment... They never managed expertise, they were too busy working on "gravitas". They aren't leaders, they are tourist guides for the donor class. It is no wonder they think Goldman Sachs is who to ask for "how government really works".
They took a country moving largely towards greater equality and greater prosperity for all and turned it into a a pig slough for the rich to gorge off, while pushing such a wide array of bigotries against anyone who isn't white and male that it should make one's head spin.
Should it come as any surprise that a growing number of Americans, especially younger ones, want a world that looks nothing like the one's the baby boomers laid waste to?
AOC is nothing like that. That is why she won. She is the possibility of a brighter future not forty years of failure.
@Edward Brennan
You are referring to the failed post-war careless excesses of The Greatest Generation, ditto their mini-me Silent Gen.
The Boomers graduated high school into a wobbly late 1960s economy and a full blown disastrous inflationary recession from 1970-1985, from which many never recovered or got a toehold.
The Cassandras of the pundit class are out at ever turn wringing their hands and warning of the resurgence of the status quo. Our modern day oracles and priests continue to tell us the future will be the past. As they examine the entrails of yesterdays chicken. Well the same pressures that have affected the urban cities has come to roost in the suburbs too. The growing wealth inequality is hitting every were. The Oligarch Class is no longer finding enough pickings in there slums and convenience store clients. They have long had an eye on the Social Security system and 401k's. Hunger of the mind and stomach are rife across the nation. With over a million out of work directly and indirectly from the government shut down. The longer the shut down goes the longer folks will remember it. Trump and his ilk can rumble up his racist rhetoric, bulling and bigotry, but with Their plan the hunger and insecurity remains. With hope and common sense we may restore the Promise of America. It will be hard work and we will not all get everything we want, but I say to the Koch's and the Walton's and the Ghouls on Wall Street, The French Revolution happened for a reason, don't make it come to that.
Left economic populism is key to winning back Trump's working class voters, at least the non-racist voters. Progressive issues like a higher minimum wage won in red states. White suburbia needs to make a choice. The left was forced to vote for centrist and right centrist for decades as the lesser of two evils. Now the centrist have to make that choice in voting for the left.
1
Please end you outsized coverage of AOC. I really don’t know how you justify all the news coverage. She is one of 435 representatives, and a new one at that. No accomplishments, just a large Instagram following.
5
Sad part of AOC s that she really hasn't risen above name calling. Anybody can spout off about her political agenda but it's the person who gets the ideas into law is the true leader.
3
Awesome! 2020 = 1972 - the only question is which Democrat will play the role of George McGovern?
2
Unless the progressives start addressing the concerns of the middle class, they will drive the Democratic Party right off the cliff.
You remember us, don't you? People who have tried to do things right and work hard. Granted, our cares and concerns aren't that sexy or tweetable so it's easy for you newly elected firebrands to overlook us.
Don't forget, we are the ones who will ultimately foot the bills for your giveaways.
5
This is not a shift to the left. The GOP has moved the political spectrum so far to the Right that moderate Republicans are Democrats and progressive Democrats are Socialists. However, that means that right wing Republicans are fascists and that unfortunately is the party of Trump.
Another thought provoking and informed essay by Thomas Edsall. This suggests that the motivating force behind the most progressive wing of the Democrats, in terms of voting, is not the people who are suffering most from current policies—those for whom the safety net have failed—but more ideological young White progressives who are impatient with today's timid Democratic politics. The danger is that the changes they demand don't meet the most glaring needs of our most needy citizens. By the way, a link to the Hacker article that works ishttp://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/Hacker2004.pdf
1
I want the best for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Instead of standing on the sidelines like Mitch and most Republican Senators, I'm making the following comment.
I hope when Ocasio-Cortez is wearing her follower's hat, she doesn't show indifference or absence of second order thinking to how others would be effected by the policies she proposes because in all human systems and most complex policies, the second layer of effects often dwarfs the first layer, yet often goes unconsidered. In other words, we must consider that effects have effects. Second-order thinking is best illustrated by the coverage of micro loans several years ago to the poor in under developed countries.
The early loan recipients used these loans to start small businesses, many buying and selling phone cards. Initially, the early participant in the phone card business was similar to being the first person to stand up while watching a concert.
Unfortunately, once one person does it, everyone will do it in order to see, thus negating the first person standing optimal view. Now, however, the whole audience suffers standing rather than sitting comfortably. Unfortunately, the latter micro loans market in very little time had a ratio of 10 people demanding calling cards with 500 people selling phone cards. Ending with little reporting from news outlets as the micro loans defaults increased at unsustainable rates and we no longer hear about them.
1
In a conservative country such as US now, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez is the breeze from the future, one that will help swing the country towards socialism. Scandinavian type of socialism of course, aka capitalism with a human face. To think otherwise is to not see the future, necessity, the evident!
@Nicholas
Then the future looks a lot like what is going on in Venezuela, Guatemala and Nicaragua. If that is what people like you desire and see as the future then more power to you. This is/was a democracy after all. Just be careful of the fresh breezes you wish for. Different isn't necessarily any better. Remember AOC's most recent job was as a 27 year old bartender.
The idea that the Democratic Party needs to thread the needle between exciting the base and appealing to the middle is absurd. There's very little middle left, and the vast majority of American voters hold progressive opinions on an issue-by-issue basis. The reason the Democrats have been losing ground for nearly four decades is precisely because they've been running faux progressives like Clinton, instead of real progressives. See: https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/01/22/aocs-70-percent-solution-shows-us-progressive-majority-has-been-there-all-along.
This is so scary. I am terrified. AOC is 1) completely economically illiterate and 2) in a post-modern haze where there is not objective reality. Her policies - were they to be implemented - would substantially lower the living standard of all Americans AT BEST. At worst, we would end up in like Cuba or Venezuela.
When critics bring this up - the response from her (and even supposedly objective media like CNN and the NYT) is to accuse them of being racist or sexist, and not engage in any debate about this. (For example, when conservative commentator Ben Shapiro challenged her to a debate she called his challenge a "cat call").
Please help.
4
Policies needed by all:
#1-Single payer health care
#2- Reasonable costs for education
#3-Reasonable tax plan including HMT of above 50%.
#4-Big Infrastructure work plan. Evaluate a national bank to do this.
#5- Some intelligent well thought out fair immigration plan. Evaluate the "Wall" to see if it is needed and if so what and how. Remove it as a political football.
#6- Cut in Defense spending and more on domestic needs
#7- Stop voter suppression and re-evaluate the electoral college.
#8-Redo most of the congress rules and bring them into the present day.
1
Oh, Mr. Edsall. First, how much is your yearly salary and your net worth? Do you have $400 in a bank account to cover an unexpected emergency? I'm sure you are worth plenty and therefore have no need to worry. But here's the thing, most Americans don't even have that cushion. Oxfam just came out with its latest report on world poverty and 26 individuals (26!!) have more wealth than the poorest 50% of the GLOBAL population.
And yet you want to make the case that Democrats are pushing too hard and too fast to try and help ameliorate these grotesque inequalities? Why? Really, why would you publish this column?
And lastly, all the polling I've seen, from various places, show a majority of Americans actually favor the positions you call "far left". When the supposed middle has moved way over to the right, it's time to make some adjustments. That's all people like AOC are really asking for and you should applaud their efforts every chance you get if you actually like democracy.
1
Shifted sharply? You mean more people participated in the process of voting this time, don't you.
Shift THAT, Edsall.
We need the equivalent of a Fox News megaphone to educate the people that the terms Left/Liberal mean "for the people" and the terms Right/Conservative mean for the rich and anti-democratic. Such a 'magaphone' might also point out the ways in which the Right/Conservatives work to sow discord among the people and splinter them from their common good. That would mean raising the consciousness of the people about racism, misogyny, immigrants and all the ways in which people have been distracted or have been made to turn against one another. We can start by educating Trump's base about the wall they want and the man who wants it. Not all of them are lost to reality. But first, the Left/Liberals must have their equivalent in the media. Who could be better to lead this effort than former President Barrack Obama !!
2
@reju lavtok,
Surely you jest.
We do not need a Fox news for the left.
We need CNN to get back to its roots for they are currently undermining Fox News in its reach for the gutter.
We need a news media that is unbiased, more facts, less innuendo and opinion; leave the opinions to the public at large, the comments sections and talk radio.
The news media is the instigator of our dysfunctional democracy.
Yes a free press is essential, tell us the facts, leave your opinion in the anonymous comments sections of your local newspaper.
Bernie Sanders has been saying this for decades, but socialism had been a dirty word since Reagan and centrists like the Clintons, Obama, Schumer, Pelosi et al didn't want to hear his "radical" ideas. They were always considered unrealistic.
His surprisingly strong challenge to Clinton inspired and showed the way for AOC and others, whose fresh faces now help old ideas become salonfähig, even cool again.
Would it kill NYT columnists to acknowledge Bernie Sanders, even just once?
1
When Joe Biden enters the race, he will find it necessary to smack-down the hard-left, agit-prop, know-nothing, socialist segment of the Democratic party of which Ocasio-Cortez represents. They will be nipping at his heels. She is the darling of the progressive media, so he will have to find the courage to defy the scribblers and pundits as he makes his case why it is Ocasio-Cortez's fatuous ideas are illogical and nothing more than a variant of Venezuelan socialism. Politicians can learn from President Trump that it is of little or no political disadvantage to earn the enmity of the media. Voters admire the courage and authenticity. Even though my vote is Trump/Pence in 2020, I say, "Go get 'em, Joe. Hit back hard."
Ocasio-Cortez is a catalyst, an agent of change. She is brave and determined. Why we worry that she might be moving too fast, let's not be distracted. Our feeble folks in Washington have contributed to a fast moving and expanding sinkhole.
Make waves my sister. You will never be able to
offend
disgust
and spread global mistrust like our toxic POTUS .
2
I am an old white guy who marched against the war in Vietnam and have friends and relatives who were drafted into it and now are dealing with the psychological impact in their 70's. War is not good for living things of any kind and making money off it is not moral ever. Greed is always bad and altruism is always good. So I am delighted to see Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez sticking her finger in the eye of all the Ayn Rand/Grovel Norquist following tools like Trump and Pence and McConnell. About time!
1
If AOC isn't on Trump's payroll, she should be.
She has infused the Republicans with a new stimulant, which will probably take them to victory in 2020.
To think an absolute nobody from Westchester/Bronx, a freshman congresswoman, who will more than likely disappear in 2 years and capture a 7 figure private sector salary, has sent the Republicans in a tailspin is absolutely absurd.
Ray Dalio nearly had an anxiety attack in Davos yesterday when he was asked about AOC's Socialist Agenda.
To think that a silly little girl can cause grown men/boys to drop into a flop-sweat is really quite amazing.
2
Excuse me, but can anyone explain in a few words to an ignorant european like me how you Americans passed from Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society" to Donald J. Trump's "Make America Great Again" in less than two generations? Thank you.
@Flavius
Easy. The endless open tap giveaways of LBJ/Democrats' Great Society reached a logical conclusion within 20 to 30 years, after 2 economic crashes and the recognition the GS was predicated solely to gain Dem votes on the anomalous 1950s post-war U.S. economy that would return to top dead center once Europe and the Pacific were rebuilt using all our manufactured good.
Since the 1980s+, it slowly has dawned on the more intelligent people, especially centrist Democrats, that no nation can survive and maintain any quality of life for successive generations by double the population with low education/low skilled 100 million immigrants on welfare and by funding broken family urban crime, even if those bought votes skew Democrat.
@Flavius
El Duce and his black shirts rose to power in about 10 years or so. Prime ingredients for different flavors of fascism are present in each and every society. It usually surfaces during fundamental shifts, both geopolitical (China, global warming, technology revolution, depletion of resources, lost wars, etc.), when 'ordinary' people start believing that the only solution to their problems is to have an 'extraordinary' leader.
Love her. Every time she appears she drives the right wing to go completely nuts. I gave to her campaign again last week. We need to address the middle class needs and she will be part of that.
1
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is a creature of the New York-centric media, and, if anything, she is a symptom of the over-concentrated, navel-gazing, isolated and, frankly, arrogant media that has come to dominate political and social discourse. Let's take a pledge to refrain from lionizing Ms. Ocasio-Cortez until she actually, say, co-sponsors a bill that actually passes--or, for that matter opens a diistrict office.
4
"Shifted sharply to the left," oh, please...is this a variation on the "both sides do it" thinking, as if there are Democrats who are as extreme as so many of the bigots that constitute Trump's base? More false equivalence.
The left shift is the natural response of people that saw their well paying job move to Mexico and China, and now if lucky work at WalMart. So much for free trade, NAFTA, the WTO and all the liberal economists
4
Please define “left.”
1
Trump has so contaminated the Republican party that his exit makes little difference. It's the party of Trump now, and its toxic nature is not going to change.
So it'll be interesting to see if these well-educated suburban Republican women return to the fold when the party is led by someone as nasty as Trump, but who's more sophisticated about executing the delivery of his pernicious ideology.
This is a shame as most of the country wants middle of the road.
4
"With all the attention that is being paid to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib..."
Not noted, but especially important to many NYT readers is that each of these people are anti-Israel. The same is true as noted in these pages of the leadership of the Women's movement.
I was surprised to read that Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson had until a few years ago been a Democrat.
Also, notably, former Rep. Ellison, who was one of *only 8 members of Congress to vote against* funding for Iron Dome missiles for Israelis to shoot down rockets shot by Hamas at civilians, was almost made head of the DNC and was made its Deputy.
This anti-Israel trend, which many claim is anti-Semitic of the new Democratic Party to be addressed by the entire party.
WSJ (2012) : Sheldon G. Adelson: I Didn't Leave the Democrats. They Left Me
There is an anti-Israel movement among the rank and file, and the party no longer appears to value self-reliance, charity and accountability.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204712904578092670469140316
2
Moving to the left??? I'm 64 years old. I started out on the left and haven't moved leftward in all these years. I'm just as far left now as when I registered to vote as a Democrat when I was 18. We called it being liberal and the Democratic Party reflected my beliefs.
The Democratic Party, thanks largely to the Clintons and their DLC nonsense, has certainly moved to the right. So far right that I haven't been able to call it the Democratic Party. So far right that I have seriously considered changing my party affiliation.
Right now, the only think keeping me in the party is this influx of vibrant new faces. One thing that will make me leave is any ascendancy of the corporate lapdog "New Democrat Coalition" attempting to keep my party in thrall to the Republicans.
No. The electorate has not shifted sharply leftward. We've been here all along. Our party went down a wrong path. It had better get back on track or become a footnote.
292
@chele Me too! I am 72 y/o, retired, college educated at a rather tough school in which to gain entrance. Lived below my means for over 40 years. Parents are both WW2 Marine Corps officers(not career), who voted Republican and were active in local elections. They would be shocked and disgusted at what that "party" represents now.
32
@chele
That which you are pleased to call the DLC nonsense originated not with the Clintons, but with one of the worst presidential defeats the Democratic party ever suffered: the 1972 campaign of George McGovern. That debacle resulted in a second Nixon administration and I hope that the current trends within the Democratic party do not result in a second Trump administration.
11
@chele
Me, too!
7
As a boomer who "got clean for Gene" in 1968 the current wave of progressive solidarity is a most welcome return to the egalitarian standards we adopted under the initiatives of the New Frontier and especially those of Johnson's Great Society, before he led the country into the swamps of Vietnam. We've seen comparable distraction from a progressive path as the country has bounced through continuous and fruitless wars since 911. This "leftward" trend is mainstream Democratic social democracy, which is exactly what FDR was seeking with his 1944 Second Bill of Rights. Let's keep framing this movement accurately and in historic synchrony with our best efforts applied together uniting around our core values as a nation and as a party.
Here in Wisconsin, where Trump won 2 years ago, new Dem Gov. Evers won by barely 30,000 votes; about Trump's margin of victory. And he's decidedly MOR. Meanwhile the Assembly and Senate remain in even stronger Republican hands.
Takeaway: Trumpism remains potent here in the midwest and it will take more than essays by dreamy-eyed elite coast liberals to undo.
2
What is “centrist”? I have heard it suggested that it is an idea or policy that would benefit the majority of people, or that is supported by them. By this rather sensible standard, Medicare for All, free public education through college, better wages, fighting global warming, etc. are properly characterized as “centrist”, not radical ideas.
Michael: I didn't read Edsall as branding young progressives as "radical" in some negative way. I read him as exploring the trends, and the challenges of stitching together a winning Democratic coalition. Presenting today's progressives as in essence, returning to FDR's second "bill of rights" is hardly a pejorative treatment.
I disagree that Crowley's and Capuano's defeats were due to disproportionate activist left turnouts in their respective primaries. Their two losses are due to the fact that their districts are now majority progressive, and not due to some small activist group.
Both Crowley and Capuano were full throated supporters of Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary. Unfortunately for them was that both their districts supported Sanders not Clinton. In a way, Crowley and Capuano while representing their Democratic Party were not as in-sync with their own heavily Democratic districts.
Further, in the Massachusetts Democratic Presidential primary, every single democrat office holder endorsed and campaigned ad nauseam for Hillary. All the newspapers endorsed HRC over Bernie. Voter turnout was huge. Yet, out of over 2,000,000 votes cast HRC beat Bernie by just 13,000 votes. Progressive ideas are not just popular in Somerville or Cambridge, but the entire State.
If the arc of the moral universe bends towards justice, then things will change and continue to change, year by year, era by era, toward a more enlightened nation. Democrats, liberal democrats, thought that civil unions were sufficient until the scales fell from their eyes, almost en masse, and thought in simpler, less contrived terms, unmitigated by conventional political wisdom. If you wish to target what Democrats must avoid, it is not universal healthcare or affordable education, it is inauthenticity. It is focus-group tested soundbites. Any child can hear the falseness in their voices. It doomed Gore. It doomed Kerry. Hilary's earlier record was riddled with it. Be authentically for the people, for their rights and for their well-being and Democrats can win back the disaffected Trump voters. Equally, while there were a few on the left who sought to bring down centrists candidates, for the most part, Dems encouraged local officials to remain local to their constituents. Dems want to win and pragmatism isn't beyond them. We just won't allow the right of healthcare or access to education or racial equality or addressing the existential threat of climate change to be labeled as unpractical or radical.
1
Since she is so smart and so capable and so many innovative ideas, she may wanted to go to Puerto Rico to help and advice the troubled island there. They need more helps than us and since her family was originally from Puerto Rico. Our government is in bad shape under Trump but not as bad as in Puerto Rico. There needs more help immediately. During her later years she may come back to take over Nancy Pelosi's job. I still remember the first wave of Puerto Ricans coming to NYC during early 1950s when I was a student in New York uptown.
2
Wishful thinking Edsall -- you are confusing "shift" with "media attention by NYT and WaPo." The truth is the progressive equivalents of AOC and Bernie that they campaigned for in the primaries across the country overwhelmingly lost to more moderate Democratic alternatives.
Democrats have a marvelous ability to forget that the first job is to win the election. They have allowed a party representing a small, wealthy, elite dominate politics since 1980. That is real incompetence. In all likelihood, they will manage to let this trend continue by getting too far ahead of the average voter in 2020.
2
AOC is the ubermillennial. She is to is what Reagan was to the Boomers. That’s why the right is so terrified of her. They know that they’ve lost millennials for good. They are hurrying to rig the system to thwart the change that is coming.
We lost the battle in 2016, but we were always going to win the war. Gen Y is entering the electorate, now, and they’re even more to the left than millennials, especially on social policy.
Let’s hope, for the planet’s sake, that it’s not too little, too late.
3
@Seb Williams
So far, Ocasio Cortez is all social media hat and no cattle. It's amusing that most of her admirers refer to her as AOC...because they either can't remember or can't spell her name.
2
Michael, I read through the article quickly but didn't come away with the feeling that Edsall was opposed to this shift, just that he was recognizing a problem that we lefties will have to deal with.
Like you I'm and old guy who went to a state college very inexpensively. My last kid cost me $160,000 for his 4 years over 10 years ago. That can't be sustained by the average American. I'd vote for AOC and Pressley in a heartbeat. It's the 72 year old duffer in Iowa who's cultural experience didn't even include the idea of going to college who needs to be convinced that these leftist policies will help his grand kids. That won't be an easy sell.
3
@John Locke
Not everyone ought go to college. That everyone aspired to that simplistic path since the 1960s to deal with complexities of life and differences in abilities indicates the massive problem that was percolating over the last 50 to 60 years and has now burbled forth. It was always absurd that the Americans attempted to ladder jump social classes by kowtowing to higher education if their offspring were not so intellectually inclined.
The larger math-based framework was ignored: In constantly shifting world economies, how to maintain an equal number within each economic class such that all have a quality of life on their own without getting a government check.
The U.S. has failed miserably at this, as have most industrialized nations with bloated populations and unrealistic rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul short game economic policies. We need to look at nations that have maintained stable populations AND have a high quality of life.
1
@Maggie I Agree and that is why we need to make college super easy for anyone to get into and have that opportunity. In addition to having a living wage so yuong people who do not go to college can shack up and start families knowing they have opportunities to move up a salary scale and will have healthcare and reasonable housing. Remove the impediments for the intellectual and creative eneergy that exits in our young people and enjoy all of it
... especially compared to the simple, cheap concepts of guns, abortion, foreigners, and the Wall. the great divide is perhaps between Americans who are mentally lazy and Americans who want to be awake and aware in the world.
I'm troubled that the NYT gives platform to these hand-wringing opeds that wish to frame the recent "left" push as something radical and should be approached with more caution.
As a voter who votes D but desperately wished our party system were not so entrenched, I will support the candidate who demonstrates willingness to serve the people and not the party. I appreciate the complexity of analysis that goes into understanding and identifying swing voters to attract. Don't expect normal voters to choose a "moderate" and "safe" candidate in their mind because some DC technocrats told them to vote for this more viable candidate. THAT is a subtle way of robbing people of their true vote.
Furthermore, the new, young (fresh) progressives do speak to the base and have something to offer the giant bottom of the pyramid of our population--that is, us, we the people. To suggest otherwise is not being honest.
2
The formula for success for liberal Democrats:
1. Be bold and progressive. Medicare for All and free tuition and public colleges are two issues with overwhelming public support. Be especially bold on stopping climate change and the terrifying creep toward nuclear war.
2. Be strong on equality but avoid identity politics. Focus on economic, bread-and-butter issues that benefit all. Identity politics is an enemy of progressive politics.
3. Stop bashing Israel. Opposing settlement expansion and working for for peace is great, but Democrats must make clear that Israel has a right to exist and to be secure.
4. A strategy of abandoning liberals and seeking the votes of moderate Republicans WON'T WORK. See Hillary 2016.
4
In Norway we are recruiting a lot of professors and associate professors from US academic institutions. One of the selling point is that in Norway sending their kids through university will not break the back of the family financially. It is a huge incentive as fewer and fewer of the middle class in the US are able to do so. The demographic on campuses of US universities have changed over the last 20 years. Now a lot of them are surviving on students from China and the Middle East that can actually afford the tuition. Consider what this will do to your ability to compete in the future.
4
@Erland Nettum
If you are a prof at a US university, your kids can go at reduced tuition to your University.
1
@Retired prof
And offspring of anyone signing up with the military have always gotten freebies.
@Erland Nettum
Norway = homogenous, educated population of 5 million.
United States = a not homogenous or educated since 1840 population of 330 million.
Norway's continued economic and social salubrity is not guaranteed, due to a massive influx of foreigners. It's entirely within reason to expect Norway and all Scandinavian nations to institute well-defined quotas to regulate growth by ethnicity and religion.
FYI: Norway's entire population is less than metro Houston, Atlanta or DC.
People have more leisure time than ever before, and as a result, are deciding to channel a greater percentage of their daily individual energy into politics.
The "hype" gets ratcheted up and up and up until eventually we have convinced ourselves that the world is ending if candidate xyz isn't elected.
1
People forget the University of California system was free until 1956... In the 1970's it was only a few hundred dollars - Then the system exploded in the late 1980's. Granted the population of California was much less than it is now - but the concept of "free education" certainly isn't new..
4
@Aaron
The majority of Californians during the 1950s and 1960s paid taxes. That's how you get to have a game of musical chairs where everyone is seated when the music stops.
2
Edsall seems to write the same column over and over again: "Watch out Democrats, if you move too far to the left, you'll lose." How about pointing out how far to the right Republican primary voters have moved? Witness the 2016 Republican nominee. Ronald Reagan would be trounced in any Republican primary he entered today. Is this too far to the right for moderate white suburban voters? The 2018 election suggests that it is.
Meanwhile, Democrats ran to the right trying to catch up to the Republicans but were never able to move fast enough. They did lose touch with their roots: Bill Clinton's crime bill, now finally recognized as a bad idea by many on both right and left. The end of welfare as we know it; now the shutdown is exposing how many middle class people are living on the edge without enough of a cushion to be able to afford to miss one paycheck. Repeal of Glass-Steagal which paved the way for the financial collapse.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not even to the left of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., let alone Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
3
The social justice argument for expanding the social safety net and controling winner take all capitalism is that only the federal governmet has the power to regulate modern capitalism, the financial markets, and successfully reduce income inequality through income redistribution.
The desirability of these “ back to the future” New Deal and Great Society programs may be self evident to Liberals. However, they must not repeat the mistakes of failing to raise taxes to fund such programs with current tax dollars. Even if if the slope of progressive taxation is increaded to 1960s levels, the cost is immense and the backlash reaction of affluent middle class America and The plutocrats in the Republican party will be fierce.
The devil will be in the political details. How the Democratic party creates its new national Democratic party electoral coalition will determine their electability. Only if elected, can they cease to be a voice howling in the wilderness.
If they focus on identity politics of the “oppressed” based on race, ethnicity, citizenship status they will fail. To prevail they must win Senate and the Presidental elections. Only by attracting rural and suburban white, even evangelical Christian counties in red-states can they prevail in the electoral college. If the lose they will remain the party of minorties doomed to being forever “in the minority”. In a word they must learn to find and count votes well.
4
"...Gallup found that from 1994 to 2018, the percentage of all Democrats who call themselves liberal more than doubled from 25 percent to 51 percent."
This left shift occurred at a time when the Dem politicians were moving to the right on economic issues - and importantly, during this time period there was a huge increase in voters identifying as independent.
With astronomical levels of inequality, and 60% of the public unable to financially withstand an unexpected $1,000 expense, it is clear that a progressive economic platform would be quite successful electorally, probably coaxing a big chunk of the independent voters back to the once-great party of the New Deal.
Still, the Democratic Party establishment along with the liberal media is preaching moderation. You'd think that after 25 years of moderation culminating in the loss of all three branches of the federal government and an orange-tinted dumpster fire in the White House would lead them to reconsider.
Hopefully, the establishment Dems that have coalesced around Pelosi and Schumer will go the way of the dinosaur. If the Dems put up another candidate in 2020 closely associated with the status quo, as they did in 2016, we stand a good chance of a two term dumpster fire.
The party's base is demanding change. If the party's leadership is unwilling, then they need to step aside. truthfully, they should've fallen on their swords a long time ago.
3
@Ed Watters
"You'd think that after 25 years of moderation culminating in the loss of all three branches of the federal government and an orange-tinted dumpster fire in the White House would lead them to reconsider."
That presents a disturbing question no one asks:
Could they be Republicans in Democrat clothing??
The only difference is the Democrats occasionally throw the People a bone while the Republicans leave nothing on the table.
Both feed from the same corporate trough. Both are paid by the same corporate masters. The Democrats serve to give cover to the Republicans.
There has been no progress for the People in decades but those in power keep getting richer and richer. Even healthcare, championed by the Democrats, primarily benefits the healthcare industry. The People pay twice what Canada pays but for much lower quality service.
And all those wars we pay for. The rich never serve.
Why haven't we been getting More democratic, rather than much less? The snake-in-the-grass Democrat politicians are not just Republican-lite, they are Corporate-lite. And they're enabled by so-called Democrat voters who are comfortably asleep, who counsel, "Don't rock the boat."
"They include the determination to oppose all things Trump, …”
A great many people oppose all things Trump, almost as a knee-jerk reaction. But, if the media were to focus on any one of the subject areas, presenting all sides of the issue, then voters might find themselves actually agreeing with some of Trump’s positions.
Voters might arrive at Trump’s position(s) for different reasons than he has, but, none-the-less, see that his position(s) do make sense for the country.
For example, the media does not investigate how much it is costing us annually to support undocumented migrants after subtracting the little they pay in taxes, how poorly educated they are and how much longer it is taking them to learn English in comparison to immigrants and refugees from just a generation ago, how the unskilled and low-skilled manufacturing jobs, which we still had in plenty back then, which enabled immigrants to move into the middle class are now harder to find and needed by our own citizens, how the undocumented are crowding our classrooms, hospitals, mass transit systems, and having too many children for our country’s ecology.
Let's take Trump out of the equation, and look at each issue on its own merits.
4
These cautions should and likely will fall deaf ears. You quote people saying Democrats should be trying to woo independents and disaffected Republicans, when the election results show that they won by appealing to - get this - Democrats. The Times last summer ran a series of pieces showing that there are millions of more Democrats in America, but they just don't vote. Well, if you don't run an actual Democrat, why should they?
The whole "reach out" philosophy betrays a post-Carter mindset that regards being a Democrat as politically tenuous, if not morally suspect. This new generation knows nothing of that, and has no time at all for it. They are not on probation. They are taking charge. Sure, they'll reach out. But you reach out from where you stand - not from where the other side does.
3
Democrats should not forget Eleanor Roosevelt. She championed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, it declared, "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services."
Seems to me too many moderate democrats have accepted and internalized the GOP line that Republicans pay taxes and Democrats are freeloaders who just want free stuff.
I see it as Democrats pay their share of taxes and they choose to spend that money on healthcare, instead of, warfare, usury, and subsidizing the tax dodging ways of the ultra wealthy who owe an allegiance only to their own wealth... i.e. Trump.
1
I understand the Andy Warhol concept of everyone having 15 minutes of fame. But it's absurd that AOC's 15 minutes of fame coincide with her first 15 minutes in office.
9
Let us all remember that since Reagan the “center” has moved decidedly right. So when we talk about a move left, we are moving back to where we were in the 1950s-1970’s. For example take AOC’s tax proposal. Right out of that time period. Look at the GOP platform in the 1950’s. It reads like a progressive platform today. So let’s put this in perspective. Everything is relative and we have adjusted to right wing dominant politics today.
5
One of the geniuses of American democracy is the push and pull between Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians with that debate historically between the Democratic Party and the republican party. Since republicans have gone all Russia/fasicst the debate has shifted to the various wings of the Democratic Party.
I was going to add that the Democrats aren't turning into Marxists but retracing our heritage back to FDR and LBJ; but Joshua M. Zeitz beat me to it.
2
What about the studies that say the entire political climate in this country has shifted to the much more conservative way of governing over the past 50 years? I am a 67 year old lifelong Democrat and I have not changed what I call a moderate stance on all issues and I resent being called a leftist. Social security, healthcare for all, almost free higher education - those ideas were around 50 years ago. It is just the wealthy Republicans who have changed the narrative and are now calling these things -which the rest of western Europe and Canada have - far left.
2
And so, like beleaguered mainstream republicans, I, a lifetime Democrat, am wondering if the democratic party’s tent will be broad enough for me cone next election. My money will follow the mind and heart, leaning independent these days.
4
These ideas are our belated attempt to rejoin the civilized world. It will be a test of whether or not the voters can read past the label.
2
i greatly admire Dr. Edsall's contributions and the depth of his perspective. however i repeat my assertion that analyses in terms of the fortunes and tactics of political party maneuvering is a form of obfuscation.
it's fine for the political parties concerned, but the fundamental motive of political parties is to manipulate issues of general welfare in order to increase the party hold on power.
both parties, not just now but for decades past, have either promised to correct a wrong direction forward for the country or to bring back the benefits of a past era. "Make America Great Again" is a Reagan era slogan. "Reduce Dependency on Foreign Oil" goes back at least as far as Nixon.
my view is that both parties face an electorate increasingly concerned about the future. "politics" is merely the art of characterizing those concerns in manipulative ways. a trenchant analysis is then how political distortion of the issues -- on both sides -- serve the interests of party power.
we have no evidence as to whether democrat or republican policies are good or bad for the national interest, where and why policy proposals misrepresent the facts of the issue. "politics" is merely the topic that beneath a pile of polls and commentary presents reality as a universe where opinion is reality and the voter decides.
the voter decides, but we're still trying to make America great again; opinions decide, but climate change and population growth roll on.
1
Abolishing ICE is tantamount to having open borders. No modern country can allow all people who are able to get to its borders to just move in, and take advantage of its government services. If a country were to start offering Medicare for All, no or reduced college tuition, a universal jobs guarantee, a $15 minimum wage, and wage subsidies to the entire bottom half through an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, paid maternity/paternity leave, and free child care, it would need tax-payers to support these plans. It could not afford to support all of the poor, uneducated migrants who have been illegally crossing our borders, let alone all of those who would run here if ICE were to be abolished.
Look at Canada which has more of a social safety net than is offered in our country. It has practically no illegal immigrants. (A long term illegal immigrant had to sue for the government to pay for her extensive medical care, and the court decisions appear to have limited government payment of her medical bills just to her and not to other illegal migrants.) It picks the vast majority of its legal immigrants on a merit system that prioritizes those who would contribute a special needed skill to the Canadian economy, who are fluent in English and/or French, and who could easily assimilate. Thus, most of Canada’s immigrants start paying hefty taxes as soon as they move to Canada, helping to support the country’s social safety net.
9
@ann
Agree entirely with the first paragraph. The second used to be true about Canada but it is changing fast there too. They have people crossing Roxham Road every day to take advantage of Trudeau's 'Welcome' tweet. Their conservatives are trying to shut it down but the Liberals are resisting every step of the way. They might just end up with Bernier in a year or so and he will fix it if they do. If Trudea gets a second term, expect Canada to mirror the US when it comes to illegal immigration in a few more years.
1
Being “for” legislative acts that benefit many voters may attract more of them in an upcoming election, but to retain these voters requires enacting policies that deliver on campaign promises. If this is possible, if the well-being of the population improves, if voters see that their votes not only got their candidate elected, but, more importantly, they are better off afterwards, the probability is that they won’t abandon the party, the candidate they backed. On the other hand, if nothing changes they will be more likely to return to their previous party affiliation.
It's not the Democrats moving left of center. It's the Democrats moving to the center. It's just that with the Republican move to far right policies and agenda, when media or whoever treats things as 'balanced' the perceived center is center right rather than actual center.
2
A move to the left is desirable, but can the Dems present such sensible programs and charismatic candidates as to carry the swing voter?
If the billionaire backers of the GOP want to disembowel the Dems, all they need is s good independent candidate to siphon off the swing vote from Dems, leaving Trump the winner in 2020.
Given the mastery of disinformation by the GOP, they easily could pump up support for an independent candidate. They know how to use Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, media in general. Already they define reality for 40% of voters. How hard would it be to refashion a tiny bit of their effort to achieve a similar success for swing voters?
2
Paralysis from analysis.
The issues espoused by progressives resonate with everyone across the spectrum. Medicare for all, a livable minimum wage, a green New Deal, donor class money out of politics, strengthened gun laws are all winners.
The biggest winner of all will be if Ocasio-Cortez and the rest can explain how the high marginal tax rates of the 50's and 60's on very high earning individuals were used to to pay down the debt from WWII and build the country into what it was before the last 4 decades when trickle-down economics, tax cuts that don't pay for themselves and a low wage economy ushered in the problems and wealth gap we face economically today needs to be returned to.
With 23 trillion dollars of debt already accumulated in this low wage economy there is no other resort but to be like Willie Sutton who said he robbed banks because that's where the money is, is to do the same to pay down the debt, rebuild the country and actually make America great again.
The forces against that will be many, like the highly paid and large megaphoned media elite like Sean Hannity and may others like him. Our economy has become corrupt and rigged and people have been seeing it for some time now. The impanelment of Donald Trump by the anachronistic electoral college is the result of running a low wage, tax cut for the rich society that everybody feels in their bones isn't working for them.
Shouldering a tax plan of the 50's & 60's like the "Greatest Generation" did will help.
3
@mr. mxyzptlk the Green New Deal is DOA
I wish she would do a lot more following, and less trying to lead. I appreciate her spirit and tenacity in giving a voice to working Americans of all stripes, however if Democrats are to win in 2020, it will not be with AOC type policies. These policies may fly in deep blue states, but will not appeal to swing states. Instead, we need more modest democratic proposals, such as tax cuts for the middle class with slight tax increases for the wealthy (already proposed by Harris/Booker/Brown), modest minimum wage increases, a public option for health care (not single payer), jobs/skills training and incentives for STEM (not free college), etc.
2
I grew up during the Vietnam War, and over the years came to admire the American people who ultimately forced their government to withdraw from an immoral (and disastrous) military adventure. This is rare in human history. Rare in American history too, as the follies in Iraq drag on and on to remind us.
Perhaps the American people are becoming themselves again. I wouldn’t call it drifting left at all.
4
Money is the mother's milk of politics, so let me comment on
"many of whom did not want the Democrats to nominate a candidate with deep ties to party regulars and to the major donor community."
Include me. Because the major donor community is
Charles E Schumer, Leader Democrats, House
Top Contributors, 1989 - 2018
1 Goldman Sachs
2 Citigroup Inc
3 Paul, Weiss et al
4 JPMorgan Chase & Co
5 Credit Suisse Group
That is Wall Street
Nancy Pelosi, leader Democrats, House
Top Contributors, 2017 - 2018
1 Facebook Inc
2 Alphabet Inc (Google)
2 Salesforce.com
4 University of California
5 Intel Corp $13,035
That is Silicon Valley . The U of CA should spent its money on students
What is the interest of these donors ?
For Wall Street, it is maximizing profits by suppressing wages, outsourcing to of enterprises it owns to low wage countries, and immigration of people willing to work for less
For Silicon Valley it is
Mining your data, violating your privacy, and immigration of people willing to work for less via H1B
To win general (not primary) elections you need large amounts of money. At in return for this money, you need to take care of your donors, lest you find you without money in the next election
Until the Democratic Party frees itself of this system, it will spout liberal rhetoric, but do little to help average Americans
As Sanders showed, it can do so, running on small donations.
DNC, eye on frightened donors, killed his attempt.
10
@Woof
Not just the DNC killed any hope of reversing income inequality and the endemic corruption of anti-democratic lobbyist money in government, but also the weak-kneed centrist Democrat voters who believe that $15/hour and healthcare for all is "extreme." They are liberal in name only, just like their politicians.
Older millennials learned their lesson in the 2010 midterms. Everyone else figured it out with the Clinton coronation. I would expect the generational takeover to accelerate going forward. We're probably closer to two years than we are to six. Pelosi is out in four years at the latest. If the remaining neoliberal legacy won't go quietly, they are going to be forced out violently.
Speaking as an independent millennial who never votes straight ticket in any common way, I wouldn't describe myself as liberal. I wouldn't describe myself as conservative either though. Traditional Democrats have consistently failed to realize the dynamics of party politics have changed dramatically in the modern era. The moderates are tempting fate if they go small and timid again.
You had your chance in 2016. Why do you let us do it our way this time? Democrats will most likely find themselves pleasantly surprised.
1
@Andy
If a politician won't risk losing, they're not all-in and do not deserve to win.
Perhaps the results of the leftward move by gentrifying areas can also be interpreted as being voters who are more comfortable with candidates who, like them, have mastered the tone and language of social media?...
Never has someone gotta so much for doing so little.
None of this means anything if it doesn't become law. As a life long Liberal Democrat (there, I said it) myself, I find it infuriating when Liberal/Progressive politicians get out-sized credit for their good intentions while those same good intentions threaten party unity. The Progressive idea of party unity seems to be limited to getting what they want or they'll walk away.
They just know better, so there's no need for compromise. Never mind that they have no way of enacting any of this legislation—and more often than not Progressives lose at the polls.
These "kids" need to wake up and realize that there are no moral victories in politics. The ONLY goal of any Democrat has to be unseating Trump and McConnell, everything else is a noise, and a dangerous distraction.
4
It is strange that Mr Edsall frames Medicare 4 All , Free College , and higher taxes on wealthy as RADICAL leftist ideas .. when it fact each of these proposals have the majority of support from Americans.. The most current poll shows 70% support for Medicare 4 All.. so you are only radical if you DON'T support.
5
The Dems have been drifting to the right for decades, egged on by pundits who keep telling them to move to the center. Do the math: moving to the center just moves the center to the right. Frankly, Nixon was more liberal than most of today's Dems. A move to the left is long overdue.
7
One way to get unreliable voting groups to get reliable is to have their candidates win. It gets self-fulfilling when they keep losing elections - why bother? So, a little success goes a long way.
Another way to discourage them from participating in future elections is to not keep campaign promises. Maybe they won't be able to get the results they want instantaneously, but at least show them that you are trying. AOC is just one of many impressive new Congresspeople. I'm impressed so far.
My wish is that they keep pushing for the policies they ran on, and don't disappoint their voters, like the tired old politicians always have in the past. It's the only way real change will be effected.
2
What doesn't get discussed very much is how these appealing ideas will be funded. Shifting funds under the new tax bill won't even come close. Young people always support programs they don't have to pay for. I did and was able to get a public university degree in California in the early 80's supported by financial aid and a few small government loans. Am still grateful.
But policy without funding is nothing more than conversation. Somebody has to pay for the chicken in every pot. How are these programs going to be funded?
2
@Lou Good
Crickets and magic, that's how.
My kids have been out of school for years,yet I will pay School taxes to the grave.Those adults that have property with NO kids will pay school taxes as long as they own property.Why?Take that money and give it to our PUBLIC school colleges.Don"t give a penny to any private schools.Education to all is not just a dream,it's a reality.
1
Wait: can the renowned Mr. Edsall actually title the article the way he did, and not mention the Green New Deal, and its blending of the old New Deal with the urgency and sweep of addressing the great Climate Disruption? Yes he can.
No polling on the importance of facing the climate challenge, its salience in the suburbs? This is the meeting of two great reform streams that actually pre-date the New Deal, go back to the Progressive Era, economic reforms and environmental reforms. Now the nature and scope of the economy is right in Nature's face, has put Nature's back to the Wall, and the two reforms must be carefully integrated to work together, which is what the six page Draft Bill on the Standing Committee for a Green New Deal tries to do, although the Democratic establishment evaded the challenge and put something much less focused and weaker on the table.
Still, I'm grateful that Mr. Edsall gave a cite to FDR's Second Bill of Rights, the direction FDR wanted the party to go in after World War II was won. Come to think of it, if one looks closely at the forces behind today's Green New Deal, it is the urgency and scope of a World War II like "mobilization" that it is hoped will drive the programs. The drama of "Paradise Lost," burned to the ground this fall, reminds us we are not dealing with imaginary threats. That fiery gauntlet that school buses ran to escape the wildfire brought up images of refugees fleeing the Nazis in World War II.
3
History shows that democrats will talk, talk, talk to the left in the run-up to presidential primaries. Then, in the general, they gee to the right.
FDR was an exception because America had millions of people marching in the streets for change - and not with a permit on one Saturday a year wearing inane knitted hats. They meant business. Look into the Bonus Marchers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvCuyqJXDVk
After FDR, Truman and other democrats smearing people like Henry Wallace, America's last true progressive, with the "communist from Russia" attack as Truman ignited the malign cold war that democrats have recently resurrected.
Would that democrats abandoned their current search for personalities and concentrated on workable policy in their platform.
The democrat party, what's left of it after demexit, is rapidly becoming a messianic religion, with a new "flavor of the month" just around the corner to save us all, hallelujah.
"Democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line," still applies.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
4
@Rev. E. M. Camarena, PhD, your comment loses meaning when you say FDR was "the last progressive." He may have been the greatest progressive, but LBJ and other elected dems like Mike Mansfield brought us the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid. If that is not a "progressive" series of accomplishments, I do not know what is.
A wing of the DNC Politburo has been looking for a Cultural Marxist saint since Obama left office--seems they've found one in Ocasio-Cortez.
But making strident social-fiscal demands will only rally the troops--producing results is the real test and that requires more than 20th century Grand Collective dogma.
4
@Alice's Restaurant. Big words suggesting Russian invective. Meaningless at best!
In terms of policies, this "sharp shift to the left" represents a return to the New Deal and the Great Society and a renewed commitment to civil rights. It is a return to things we never should have turned away from.
6
Maybe it would do us good to remember that the man currently identified as the best liberal Democrat, Bill Clinton, is in fact further to the political right than reagan. That is how he beat reagan's veep.
We have a very long way to go to get back to "normal" for the DEM's. AOC's proposals and discussions on taxes are closer to the reality of what made our nation exceptional. A government that was for the people and took long term proactive steps to keep it stable and build its economy so that the most people possible could get the benefit from it.
Tax cuts were for actually creating long term benefits paying jobs, not as it is since the 80's given before that was done and offering no penalty for not doing it. Two articles by Hiltzik in the LAT explain the facts about AOC's tax views and how the GOP are trying to do what they always do, portray it as something it is not.
1-7-19
https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aoc-taxes-20190107-story.html
1-22-19
https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aoc-taxes-20190122-story.html
3
The insane part of this never gets addressed. Why should Americans political interests and aspirations be controlled by two monopolistic parties?
5
@PeterC
Because we Americans cannot keep more than two ideas in our heads at a time?
1
The most important thing is that somebody take back the conversation from the right wing in this country. The capitalist, anti-tax, anti-government, interventionist war wing has had the microphone for decades now. Our still- broken healthcare system is a nightmare and literally killing people. Wages don't keep up with the cost of housing, medicine or any other essentials. Students and their families go into deep debt to break into or stay in the middle class. It is the right wing that are the extremists and they their microphones unplugged.
3
Enough about her, sheesh
8
Can we be honest with ourselves...just once?
We can all plainly see how Sandy Ocasio fot elected.(I recommend she adopt this appropriate moniker for political success....it sounds a lot friendlier and more american.....less confrontational, insisting on cultural diversity...which is NOT what its all about in Ameican Politics).
Joe Crowley, posed an imminent threat to Nancy Pelosi's dreams of regaining the sceptre of power. He had to be eliminated. So the NYC DNC Political MAchine did in fact "rig" a primary and neatly disposed of Joe Crowley.
America.....I give you the newly crowned Congresswoman from NY District 14!!! There she is! Sandy Ocasio!
And now the starstruck young lady, who has some noble ideas, will become little more than a pawn in Nancy Pelosi's schemes of Unchecked Power!! NO compromise....the hallmark of American Politics. It will be whatever Nancy Dictates.
Maybe by the end of the year, Sandy Ocasio will understand whats best for her and her constituents.......and reject the DNC Political Machine and become a true democrat......that supports the president....just like all past presidents.
The problem with Democrats "going back to their roots" and returning to the programs & policies of FDR & the Golden Age of American labor is the lack of union representation for the multitudes in the private service sector that now dominates our economy.
Pre-distribution, which is a damned poor term, but a noble & righteous term to redress growing inequality is the way to go. Greedy foolish capitalists & sloughing Dems beholden to corporate bucks have made $15 an hour a very possible reality.
We'll see how well the young newcomers are able to resist being bought. Maybe the national spotlight AOC is bathed in trumps & overshadows home district concerns as her drift will include the masses in every corner. She toyed with & resisted her ice-cream on the Colbert show, let's see if she can cope with the courting billionaires & their gifted bangles.
2
Your sources at the end of this column made the most sense to me in saying that Democrats are returning to their roots by advancing the progressive cause. The Democratic Party at one time celebrated labor, income equality (albeit in those days, with the hateful caveat that you ought to be white to benefit...), paying a fair share in taxes (and to hell with Ayn Rand) and other issues today labeled as "progressive." Seems to me it was a reaction to the Great Depression that drove a lot of that, that the country had drifted as a whole too far to the right into corporate rule in the Gilded Age, even oligarchy. In modern times since Reagan, that trend back to corporate rule has been accelerating.
Yes, progressives hate Trump's racism, ignorance, narcissism, etc., but that's not the problem. When you look at what he's done -- massive tax gift to the rich, damage to regulatory agencies that protect the little guy, shameless pose as a populist, corruption on a vast scale -- he is the twisted epitome of an oligarch. It's funny that the rest of the oligarchs see him as a useful fool but not one of them.
I think the youthful and otherwise (Sanders, Warren) progressives are doing a great public service. We should make common cause and pull this country back to being the land of opportunity that it briefly was post-WWII. And this time, let's say for fun that whites are still welcome, but you don't have to be white to participate.
3
Correlation does not equal causation.
Pressley and AOC won because they charismatically engaged their potential electorate. Those who saw and heard them, turned out to vote. Older voters just went to the polls and voted for the name they already knew.
Whether the public policy positions of Pressley and AOC are liberal or moderate is entirely besides the point. The point is simply this: CHARISMA. They have it; Crowley and Capuano didn't. Pressley and AOC presented themselves as vessels for the aspirations of Democrat-sympathizing potential voters. The specific policy proposals were merely the framework around which the edifice of their personalities was constructed.
If Democrats want to win, they'll allow primaries to determine which candidate has the charisma to motivate new Democrat voters to the polls. After Democrats win, they can engage in an earnest public policy debate (which the general public will largely ignore). Whatever they decide, it will be better than what the government-hating GOP has to offer.
4
"... protection from the vicissitudes of market capitalism"? People want protection from monopoly capitalism. The left-right frame is a fallacy. If you put the actual policies on the table, the great majority want single payer, clean elections, action on climate change, etc. Pitting Left v. Right only redounds to tribalism. It ends up with a President who shuts down the business of which he himself is the CEO. That's not great.
4
The Democrats need to get back to where they were-more liberal. republican lite is wrong and a loser. clinton was wrong just as newt was wrong.
2
Our grandchildren who are ready to vote by 2020 hopefully will rise to the task at hand.
I will soon die.
I pray for the Left to save our country before a Dictator gives it to Putin.
Dont be fooled again!
3
Gone are the days of Fiorello LaGuardia. A fierce patriot and also a magniminious defender of the "peoples rights". A republican.....who allied himself with his president, FDR. Both men, repub and democrat alike, had vested intrests in opposing the hopelessly corrupt DNC Machine of NYC.....then known as Tammany Hall(it still exists)..
Good Ole Fiorello could pass for any ethnic group and EVERY ethnic group in NYC.....just by inflated rhetoric about AMERICA. He never actually claimed to be anything else...and he could blend right into that proud, stand-offish, exclusive group known as "Boriquenos"(PRs to the rest of us).....in fact I was shocked to learn he's actually Italian, and claimed to have jewish ancestry.......Dont get more NYer and American than that.........I think the irish folks suspect he was descended from Irish kings.....
Not so for Sandy Ocasio who follows a narrow, "diverse" agenda.......making targets out of everyone who does not fit her definition of who she thinks she is............a very, very bad move for a politician.
2
“Democrats Aren’t Moving Left. They’re Returning to Their Roots.”
This I think is a more accurate reflection of our political reality. The "red shift", pun intended, must be framed within the perspective that the entire political discourse has been hijacked by the right with the likes of Breitbart, Infowars and Drudge spewing raw chunks of neo-Nazi red meat, which Faux and Fiends swallow whole and regurgitate as prime time pabulum suitable for the masses. This has "anchored"
the civic discussion so far to the right that any proposal on the liberal side is seen as Democrats moving far left. It is time for the Democrats to stop being afraid of standing up for a truly liberal program. There is nothing radical about universal healthcare or minimum wages that allow people to earn a living with a single job. It works in Canada it works in Sweden and it works in most western countries. Come Democrats, let us join the civilized.
4
It's interesting that while women are increasing in numbers as voters and politicians, the policies progressives champion still center around race (immigration, etc.) and class (economic disparity). I'm left wondering when the #MeToo movemen will translate into policies addressing the sexual predation of women by men both individually and culturally (such as the documented violence in internet porn). Perhaps the political researchers mentioned in this article aren't polling on those questions. Or perhaps the left is not yet progressive enough to challenge the men in their own party. In today's political it's an easy target to point at the leaders of the Right regarding white supremacy and wealth disparity. Male supremacist ideas exist across the political spectrum.
1
Great news isn't it?
Very interesting analysis but the terms used: moderate, conservative, liberal, etc. have no meaning any more so it's difficult to see where this is all going.
My fear is it will go the same way as the 60s Left which, when it ran into that pesky thing called the Constitution, which bakes incrementalism into our system of governance, gave up, dropped out, taught their kids that nothing about the government mattered because they're all the same, ceded their governance to corporations, and eventually gave us Trump.
I'm speaking here of the voters. Personally I see in AOC the beginnings of a good politician and a desire to learn, which could be problematic for her with such people in the future.
1
It should be noted also that Representatives Pressley and Ocasio-Cortez were elected from one-party districts with astonishing percentages of the vote, 98%, and 78% respectively. This enables them to make whatever politically extreme comment that they want, and they would still be reelected. But this lack of constraint, if pushed to the limit, could easily become damaging to the Democrats in more balanced parts of the country. As for the Republicans, it's clear that one action is paramount: disentangle themselves from President Trump, and deny him renomination. This would let some of the air out of the anti-Trump energy, and enable their ability to compete in the swing districts. If they cannot do that, then they'll deserve the political beating they will get in 2020.
1
She needs to listen and observe and not make judgments until she knows a lot more than she does. Our government is not the simple situation that her inexperienced mind supposes right now. Unfortunately, she’s become a magnet for the media and that pressures her to disregard the hard work becoming a competent elected representative requires.
4
@Casual Observer
I think you make teh same mistake the republicans are making. She is not naive or ignorant.
https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aoc-taxes-20190107-story.html
1
Of course she is ignorant and naive. Nobody learns anything by being the center of attention. She’s on the same trajectory as was Trump when he became a celebrity, so full of his own importance and eager to spout off about every popular issue what he never really understood much of anything and that he ended up a silly and ill-informed old man. She needs to be listening and learning, and expressing her opinions infrequently.
@Casual Observer
You did not read and you are not a very keen observer. There is no similarity twixt her and El Trumpo. You are pointing at the press who couldn't manage to sully her and are now trying to trivialize her by over exposure.
As the conservative establishment (politicians, institutions and the reactionary wealthy conservatives funding them) pulled the country right it pulled democrats along with them. When I look at both Clintons and Obama’s administrations I don’t see liberals, I see centralists that the times and conservative propaganda have incorrectly painted as liberals. As the leftists in the Democratic Party gain influence they will pull the party left while redefining the argument about what being liberal means. If this moves the country as a whole back to a more moderate centralism and reduces the conservative establishments influence that would be a good thing. I may be a liberal but I’m also a realist and have little use for ideological purity. Conservative ideological purity gave us Trump, I’m not interested in his liberal ideological pure opposite. Nor am I interested in allowing conservatives to define who and what liberally are, that too needs to be addressed as the Democrats move left again.
3
Extremely liberal? Really? What goes for extreme liberalism, namely high tax rate for the extremely wealthy and medicare-for-all is your run of the mill European centrism. No, this country has moved sharply rightward and it must be corrected.
3
These “big, bold leftist ideas” pose a strategic problem for liberals and the Democratic Party,"
(sigh). Here we go again.
I am an older guy (Caucasian). I attended Texas A&M University from 1978 to 1982.
My tuition payments during that entire time was $4 per credit hour. Same for every Texas resident during that time.
Roughly $128 per year.
Had Texas A&M not offered education at this modest entry point financially, I would still be working in the Holiday Inn kitchen washing dishes. Like I was in high school.
So, I don't understand why older guys who went to school on the cheap, like me, and probably like Mr. Edsall, are writing articles about "radical" proposals like "free" or at least "affordable" education for Americans.
We could achieve this very easily if America refocused on domestic growth and health and pulled itself out of its continuous wars. America has spent $6 Trillion dollars on war since 2001. For what? Nothing. Imagine how much college tuition we could have paid instead. Imagine how that would change America.
What is radical is killing people of color in other countries for no goal and no reason.
Let's refocus on domestic USA issues that are important. Like how to get folks educated so they/we can participate in the US economy.
Mr. Edsall, what did you pay to go to school per year?
Was that "radically" cheap?
For me, it was not radical to pay $128 per year. It was a blessing.
967
@Michael. Pell grants and cheap tuition allowed me to obtain a degree in aerospace engineering in 1985. I'd like to think that that benefited our country, not radicalized it.
170
@Michael - cheaper tuition starts with getting the Federal Govt out of the student loan business, it's as simple as that. Virtually unlimited tuition dollars is what drove up tuition rates. Higher Ed is a business, make no mistake.
65
@Midwest Josh
I don't think that's entirely accurate, and even if true, leaving students to the predations of private lenders isn't the answer. Although I'm willing to entertain your thesis, soaring tuition has also been the way to make up for the underfunding of state universities by state legislatures. At the same time, there's been an increase since the 70s in de luxe facilities and bloated administrator salaries. When administrators make budget cuts, it isn't for recreational facilities and their own salaries—it's the classics and history departments, and it's to faculty, with poorly paid part-time adjuncts teaching an unconscionable share of courses. So universities have been exacerbating the same unequal division between the people who actually do the work (faculty) and the people who allocate salaries (administrators)—so too as in the business world, as you say.
129
Given the numbers involved, the "far left" cannot win national or statewide elections, but they can surely cause us to lose them. The elections in 2017 (VA & NJ) and 2018 prove that; the far left was trounced in all but the safe Democratic seats, like those won by Cortez and Pressley. If they seriously think the country is going their way, they should move to, say North Dakota, and run for Congress there.
What these people are doing is making it more likely that the Republicans will re-gain the House in 2020, when people like Abby Spanberger (who defeated the loathsome David Brat in VA) have to address or even defend the sophomoric shenanigans like Cortez's "Where's Mitch?" stunt. So the real question, as mentioned in the article, is whether we want ideological purity, or do we want to win power? We can't do anything (like block unqualified conservative judicial nominees) without political power, so that's what I'm looking for in a nominee; whether or not he/she can defeat Trump. Sadly, none of those who have entered the ring, with the possible exception of Liz Warren, look to be able to beat Trump.
1
The University of California was free until a failed actor became governor. Germany has free higher education and free health care. Germany is not a liberal bastion. These are just common sense ideas.
4
Liberals -- even the "very liberal"-- cannot afford not to be pragmatic. Hillary Clinton has her limitations as candidate and politician, but she at least rhetorically embraced an optimal Democratic ideal when she identified herself as a pragmatic libera l.
1
How is it that "educated" people can support such bad ideas.
"Medicare for All, free college, a universal jobs guarantee, a $15 minimum wage, an expansion of the EITC to the entire bottom half, workers on boards of directors, ending ICE, raising marginal tax rates to 70 percent are all big, bold leftist ideas and appear to be gaining currency."
These aren't bold ideas they are stupid ideas that would bankrupt the country. Marxism simply doesn't work, do these "educated" folk not learn from the lessons that Venezuela is teaching? Perhaps they are not as "educated" as our "progressives" believe?
4
I wish Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and all of her acolytes the very best in their efforts. Let their economic and historical ignorance take them to a place most American will not follow. Heaven forbid what would happen to our economy if they truly gained power.
2
Let us stop with the labels (progressive, liberals, authoritarianism, leftist, socialist, conservatism, capitalist, radicals) and maybe we can move this country forward.
1
This old white (liberal) man regrets that I was born too late for the FDR New Deal era and too early to be part of this younger generation taking us back to our roots. I lived in America when we had a strong middle class and I have lived through the Republican deconstruction of the middle class, I much preferred the former.
Economic Security and FDR's second bill of rights is a very good place for this new generation to pick up the baton and start running.
536
@Ronny Respectfully, President Clinton had a role in the deconstruction of the middle class. My point is many of the folks in the news today were in congress that far back. Say what you will about President Trump and Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez,I believe they both have exposed the left,the right,the press for what they are. Please choose your own example. I don't agree with all of her positions, but I can't express how I enjoy her making the folks that under their watch led us to where we find ourselves today squirm and try to hide their anger for doing what she does so well. I've been waiting 55 years for this. Thank you AOC.
35
@Ronny I agree with you - have a subsidized education - (rather I prefer to say equal access to education) as well as health care guarantees to a greater extent equality of opportunity - which is what all democratic societies should strive for. It's not equality of outcome but equality of opportunity. Children should not be punished for have parents of lesser means or being born on the wrong side of the tracks...
4
@Ronny
Too bad we've DOUBLED our population since the 1960s, and not with the educated, stable and well-employed of the world who value, build and live side by side in democratic prosperity.
2
“they [Democrats] must focus on general election swing voters who are not die-hard Democrats.”
An aspect of this issue is the possibility of an independent candidate for the presidency focused upon these voters. In fact, in this era of Twitter, Facebook, Instagram etc pumping up support for such a candidate is child’s play for the masters of propaganda running Fox, Limbaugh, Coulter and innumerable fake news postings on social media and scurrilous web sites.
By turning part of their disinformation machine presently capturing about 85% of Republicans toward these swing voters, enough votes can be diverted from a Democratic candidate to hand the 2020 election to Trump.
1
This is a fascinating piece. Of course, there are going to be differences among Democrats, on policy emphases and the appeal of candidates with varying personalities. However, this need not be troublesome so long as there is a consensus on core priniciples that often boil down to more for Democrats as opposed to less for Republicans: More economic equality, social justice, concern over climate change, global cooperation, gender parity, empathy on immigration, support for the constitutional order, and so on. If a commitment to these elements is solid, differences over details can be healthy rather than disruptive.
1
This journalistic practice of labeling political thought and policies may be handy, but it's sure misleading. Everyone over 30 is used to the way things have been the last 30 or so years, and any change, however necessary or desirable, seems radical. Adults are, rightly, wary of radical changes, so that label is really a call to prejudice, rather than anything like an accurate descriptor.
But despite the long, steady drift of Democratic political thought in recent decades away from being the party of the people, returns to that idea hardly merit the term "radical" or "socialistic." And when unseasoned ideas about how to implement such a return start flying, it hardly means that they will actually become the party's platform. We need real debates about how best to return to being a true party of the people--without pejorative characterizations.
1
"The willingness of voters to support Democrats who are pushing initiatives like these will depend in large part, however, on the ability of candidates to assure the general electorate that their agenda is beneficial to all and not just to favored liberal constituencies."
And this is key, so why is it in the last paragraph of a very long essay? I see many new faces making lots of noise about social justice, which is usually code for taking care of people who are not you (but at your expense). If they want to re-capture white males and white females without a college education (you know, the key demographic slice of voters that cost Hillary the election), Democrats are going to have to explain what's in it for those forgotten voters. It's been forty years since they've seen their real family incomes go up and they're getting impatient for progress that always seems to go to other people. Just ask the Yellow Jackets in France if you don't believe me.
4
Honestly, it is the centrist, neoliberal wing of the Democratic party that gave up on talking to the Midwest and focused on the coasts. That was the Clinton strategy and it didn't work. Although AOC comes from an urban area, her message is broad: she is for the struggling, working person. Edsall underestimates AOC's basis in economic thinking and her appeal to flyover country. She speaks carefully and justly to social issues, but she also speaks to the "kitchen table" issues that middle America is concerned with--in a much more real way than the neoliberal Dems have figured out how to.
5
Since Reagan there has been a steady drumbeat to the right and far-right policies. We've lived so long in this bubble that we've normalized these For-the-Rich policies as centrist. So I don't accept the writer's premise that the Democratic party is moving to a radical left. The Democratic party is simply embracing pro middle class policies that were once the norm between 1935-1979. And I welcome the shift of the pendulum.
9
@cgtwet
I totally agree. I attended Georgia Tech 1958-1962. It was free to in-state students. I paid about $100 per quarter in "fees", including free attendance at all athletic events. Housing was not included, but was cheap, as was food at the college cafeteria. At that time states considered it part of their duties to insure access to higher education. I assume the change in that policy is due in large part to the Republican "no tax is a good tax" policy which also results, among other things, in the proliferation of toll roads.
I believe that there are things that it is in society's best interest to pay for through taxation. These things include education at all levels, infrastructure and medical care. I guess that makes me a liberal.
1
I have lived in Boston and currently live in NYC. I grew up in a swing district outside Philadelphia.
In the two congressional districts analyzed at length in MA and NY, districts were "flipped" from blue to bluer. In the district I grew up in outside Philly, the Republican incumbent won re-election by about 1,000 votes.
Winning is everything in 2020. I admire the energy and idealism of the progressive wing, and respect many of their ideas, but they need to get outside of the bubble of the superstar cities and connect with people in swing states who will ultimately decide who our next President is.
If Trump wins re-election, we will get nothing but four more years of incompetence, corruption and treason.
The notion that democrats are moving leftward is borne on revisionist history. There's nothing new or bold being proposed; Zeitz is right on the money.
5
There are two very regressive ideas put forth in this article. The first is that dividing Americans along the classic lines of ethnicity, wealth/income, education, and other social and cultural pigeon holes somehow describes their needs as individuals. That is a strategy of control and domination, a tribalism that benefits the few rather than the many. The second is that the code word “liberal” in some way can define social progress, which is a very dangerous trap to fall into. Again, using that word and deploying a discourse around it, and quoting all sorts of statistics, is a strategy of division aimed at destroying democracy. As the regressives become more and more regressive, the center moves in the same direction. The key is to destroy the two regressive ideas fostered here by Mr. Edsall.
3
I support
universal health care, free college for students who meet enhanced entrance requirements and raising marginal tax rates to 70% on wealthy Americans.
Yet I do not support
an expansion of the EITC, ending immigration enforcement or putting workers on boards of directors.
So where do I stand?
All my life I've voted Democratic. But there has been a seismic shift in politics.
And after the shift I will most likely vote Republican or for a third party.
The issue that causes my change in affiliation is the Me Too movement.
I find it repugnant that feminists seem to argue that the media rather than the courts should determine guilt or innocence in sexual assault cases.
Bill Cosby had an agreement with Andrea Constand in their case. But feminists weren't happy with the outcome. So they resorted to extra-legal means to get Cosby convicted.
This included a media campaign in which the NY Times and the New Yorker wrote stories highlighting accusations of 60 women for which statutes of limitations had elapsed.
But statutes of limitations are there for a reason. This became clear in the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh which degenerated into a trial for rape. Nobody except maybe the accuser could remember in any detail events at the party in which the rape had presumably occurred. So the confirmation became one of character assassination in which Kavanaugh was convicted of drinking beer.
I will NEVER vote for any politician who supports the Me Too movement.
4
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and her legislative cohorts are a much needed breath of fresh, progressive air for the U.S. Congress.
And I say that as someone going on age 70 who was raised and educated in the conservative Deep South.
Go left, young people!
7
The Democrats are the party of the middle class and the poor, and the GOP is a party of the rich. That is the distinction most voters make.
7
@Andrea Landry. The Dems are the party of identity politics. Do you honestly think Dems aren’t rich - Soros, Steyers, Zuckerburg, Buffet, Clinton, Obama?
3
@Jackson
All politics are identity politics and justice for all is an enduring American value. And wealthy Republicans once again put forward the trickle down economic plan for the 99%, who the heck would want trickle down anything has always been a mystery to me. Its not good enough, and its all the Republicans have.
1
It is early days with this new Congress and AOC but I would be more comfortable if AOC would take her time to learn the job from older members before she tries to lead; she is simply too young and she is getting ahead of herself. Democrats cannot simply gravitate to the left and expect to win in 2020; we have to speak to the needs of the middle class and the stresses most people are under. Sherrod Brown has the right message and talks about it in real terms, not ideologically.
1
Time will tell how much of the perceived leftward shift of the democratic party is simply rejection and strong reflexive opposition to anything Trump. Is the Democratic party really going to settle in as a de facto open borders party? Or when they next have to govern will they have to formulate a sane balanced immigration policy? And assuming the later where does that leave the likes of the AOC's of the party. Does she stop seeking the spotlight long enough to build connections in Congress and try to actual accomplish things or does she become a left mirror of Sarah Palin? It could go either way,
4
So Edsall wants to point out all the reasons that really liberal policies should not be enacted or debated thus allowing the middle of the road Democrats to stay in the party. So how come the Republican party doesn't give a hoot about moving rightward in its policies?
We need to press more liberal policies and over time more of the country will embrace some version of them. I say if a suburban women chooses to vote Republican then she doesn't care any about the Democratic values or having a say in her own body.. She rather be with Trump or his replacement. So be it.
3
I think the Democratic Party is finally returning to its roots. We are now engaging in the same politics which gave us control of the House for about fifty years.
I went to my first International Union convention is 1972 at which Ted Kennedy was one of the featured speakers. One of the themes of the convention was healthcare for all. Now it treated as some sort of radical proposal from the left.
I am not certain why clean air and water, affordable health care and housing, combating climate change, raising wages, taxing the highest income brackets, updating our infrastructure, solving the immigration issue, and providing aid not weapons to other nations, are considered liberal or socialistic.
I think it represents the thinking of a progressive society looking to the future rather than living in the past.
29
Until the left figures out that every single one of their most desired Policy Implementations are only feasible with controlled immigration and secured borders doesn't matter who the messenger is. Want Single Payer Healthcare? Can't have it and Open Borders too. Want free College? Can't have it and Open Borders too. Want Guaranteed Basic Income? Cannot have it in any form without absolutely controlling the Border. So, either you want that influx of new voters to win elections or you want to see new policy changes that will benefit all Americans. Pick one and fight for it. You seem to have chosen the new voters.
11
@GregP. Nonsense. We were extraordinarily productive in this country in the early part of the twentieth century — before the Congress shut the door to immigration. Where is your evidence that we were not? Who do you think pays for healthcare? Hint: it isn’t the CEOs collecting their Wall St. profits and not paying enough taxes. And if you want to see how nations with little immigration and an aging population struggle, you need to check out Japan’s economy for the past ten years.
An influx of immigrants provides an immediate boost economically while their general youth means that while they work they actually don’t use healthcare or other services any more than citizens do. In short, they contribute more than they cost us. This is why the government does not go after the businesses that illegally employ them. Paying for additional processing and managing large numbers of asylum seekers won’t cost anywhere near $5.7 billion (where did this number come from anyway?).
This is all about Trump’s Ego Needs and the pusillanimous Republican Party of McConnell that has abdicated its Constitution oath. Before Christmas they passed legislation that DT was prepared to sign until the Right wing ideologies embarrassed him. We still could have escaped this hissy fit if the Senate had done its job. But McConnell wants to continue to undermine the judiciary and is prepared apparently to kowtow to our Mussolini wannabe in order to do it. Capitalism destroying Democracy.
1
@GregP No one supports open borders,besides the koch brothers and the congressmen they own, who are all republicans btw.
2
@GregP There is no statistical relationship between your fabricated opposites. There are so few people who have come and are coming through our borders over the last decade that it is statistically insignificant. Taking one opposition: "Single Payer Healthcare" and "Open Borders". Illegal immigrants are not eligible for the ACA and are not and would not be for Medicare. Same with the other putative oppositions. All illegal immigrants have ever provided was cheap labor for mostly Republican corporations like farmers in California's Central Valley.
1
There is always a lot to chew on in Thomas Edsall's pieces, particularly if one is willing to follow some of the highlighted links into greater depth. (Or is it into the weeds?) He pulls at a lot of threads here, provides a great deal for us to consider and leads for further consideration.
Still, it would enrich our understanding greatly if he could add some temporal context the way Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman did with AOC's tax policy proposals yesterday. Or if this purported policy swing leftward were compared to longstanding policies in European countries, even moderate capitalist ones like Germany. Anything that helps us become less self-referential as a polity will contribute to the big debate we are trying to have and sorely need in the U.S. now.
Sure, that would be a larger undertaking, result in more notes and links, and have more readers pleading TLDR or MEGO. But it might be a hit a la Piketty. It would certainly be a service to the country.
How about it, Mr. Edsall?
3
It is remarkable that “big, bold leftist ideas” include
- preserving the historical relationship between the minimum wage and the cost of living
- lowering the cost of college to something in line with what obtained for most public colleges and universities in the 50s, 60s and 70s and exist in the rest of the Western world today
- adapting our existing Medicare system to deliver universal coverage of the kind generally supported across the political spectrum in Canada and the UK
Democrats should reject the “leftist” label for these ideas and explain that it is opposition to these mainstream ideas that is, in fact, ideological and extreme.
13
@Westchester Guy: Leftists want amnesty and, eventually, open borders. This is utterly and totally incompatible with their push for "free" college, universal health care, and so forth. The fiscal infeasibility is so obvious that one could only believe in these coexisting policies if they were blinded by something, like Trump hatred, or just plain dishonest. The "leftist" label for the new Democrat party is entirely appropriate. You also have your own bigots to counter Trump. The difference is that their bigotry is sanctioned by most of the mainstream media.
6
An interesting analysis of the divisions within the Democratic Party. My prediction: in 2020 the Democrats will nominate and elect a typical middle-of-the-road liberal who pretends to be progressive, but then governs like a typical liberal. Democratic voters will fall for it, and then be disappointed by the results. I venture no predictions about 2024 and 2028, except to say this: When Democratic presidents screw up, terrible things happen. LBJ's war in Vietnam led to Nixon. Carter's vacillation led to Reagan. Clinton's scandal led to Bush. And Obama's difficulties (admittedly, mostly a result of GOP intransigence) and support for Hillary Clinton led to Trump. So I hope that the Democrats find a way to succeed this time around, but I will believe it when I see it.
2
@Chris Rasmussen. Every one of those middle of the road Dems did a better job overall for the average American and our economy than any of the Republicans mentioned, who each left the nation poorer and economically less productive and in more debt — contrary to Republican propaganda. To believe otherwise is to live in La-La land where blaming the other guy, misogyny, racism and a variety of other unwholesome beliefs encourage the destruction of national cohesion: i.e. divide and conquer.
It is exceeding strange to me that “Conservatives” in the US consider Medicare for all and universal access to higher education as being radical, pie-in-the-sky, proposals. Here in Canada we have had universal medicare for a half a century and it has proven itself to be relatively effective and efficient and has not driven us into penury.
As for free access to education beyond high school, I remember learning a while ago that the US government discovered that it had earned a return of 700% on the money spent on the GI Bill after WWII which allowed returning GIs to go to colleges and universities.
The problem with American conservatives is that they see investments in the health, welfare and education of the citizenry as wasteful expenditures, and wasteful expenditures such as the resources going to an already bloated military, and of course tax cuts for themselves as investments.
11
I posit that there is an underlying trend towards all of those "liberal" policies. They will occur because the people want them and have for a long time. Our government stopped responding to the people many decades ago. All of this noise and the shift to blatant theft and authoritarianism are the death throws of the establishment. There are so many (non-political) trends that you ignore. And yes, us liberals are highly educated. I have a BS in Biotchnology, summa cum laude. And an MBA from Wharton. I received Pell grants. Check me out on Instagram: @grevlingard. I am 54 and will a lot long than my mom's angry Trumpian husband who with congestive heart failure will not live to the next election.
2
Edsall looks at the fact the Democrats (and, indeed, the whole country) are moving in a progressive direction. He does not look at the question of why.
I maintain that with an increase in educated voters, the country is moving towards policies that work, that are good for the country as a whole, not just for a minority.
The other wealthy countries, all with a universal government health care system such as an improved Medicare for all, get BETTER health care as measured by all 16 of the bottom line public health statistics for ALL of their people at a cost of less than HALF per person as we pay.
High inequality has been bad for the economy and governance of this country. Look at what happened in 1929 and 2008 both preceded by periods of high inequality. Compare that with the long period of low inequality after WWII of Great Prosperity. Today as a result of terrible SCOTUS decisions, the Super Rich pushing the country towards oligarchy.
The situation at our borders was actually better before 2003 when ICE was created. It has perpetrated so many atrocities, rightly garnered such a terrible reputation, why isn't it time to abolish the thing and start over with a new more humane organization. After all, the Germans did not keep the Gestapo after the war.
I running out of space, but let me end by saying we are now getting more progressive voters that say that 2 + 3 = 5, and fewer conservative ones who say 2 + 3 = 23 and fewer moderates who want to compromise on 2 + 3 = 14.
5
When progressive solutions are proposed, the opposition yells "socialism" while others bring up the cost of progressive solutions. No one talks about the significant portion of our nation's wealth spent on the military. We don't audit the Pentagon or do due diligence on the efficiency of huge projects undertaken by the military nor do we question the profits of the industrial-military complex.
Meanwhile, Russia manipulated our latest presidential race, underscoring the worry over cyber attacks. Climate events in the country mean our citizens experience life changing events not brought on by terrorists or immigrants. A medical event in a family can initiate bankruptcy; we all live on that edge. Our infrastructure projects have been delayed for so long that America looks like a second rate country. Income inequality is ongoing with no sign of lessening. Suicide is on the increase while death by drugs is an epidemic. An education for students can mean large debt; efforts to train the workforce for the technological world are inconsistent. For many of us, the hate and fear promoted in this country is repulsive. Because our society works for an ever smaller number of us, Americans are increasingly understanding that a sustainable, just society works for all it's citizens. We are exhausted by the stalemate in Washington leaving us caring very little about the labels of progressive, moderate, or conservative. We just know what needs to change.
5
“...Medicare for All, free college, a universal jobs guarantee, a $15 minimum wage, an expansion of the EITC to the entire bottom half, workers on boards of directors, ending ICE, raising marginal tax rates to 70 percent are all big, bold leftist ideas and appear to be gaining currency...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/18/us/michael-bloomberg-johns-hopkins-donation.html
“...Michael R. Bloomberg, the billionaire businessman and former mayor of New York City, is donating $1.8 billion to his alma mater, Johns Hopkins University, to create a fund that would help low-income and moderate-income students attend without having to worry about the cost...
“...America is at its best when we reward people based on the quality of their work, not the size of their pocketbook,” Mr. Bloomberg wrote in an opinion essay published online in The New York Times on Sunday. “Denying students entry to a college based on their ability to pay undermines equal opportunity. It perpetuates intergenerational poverty. And it strikes at the heart of the American dream: the idea that every person, from every community, has the chance to rise based on merit...
Of course, we could just tax Bloomberg at 70% – that’d give us enough money for all that free stuff...
If we taxed Bezos at 70%, too – we could include free shipping for all that free stuff...
PS
Who wants to rise based on merit, anyway – more self-actualizing to tread salt water and let the rising oceans do the rest...
Running up the Democratic vote in Blue states by pandering to left leaning views will not unseat DJT in 2020. Winning the popular vote by 3 or 3 million yields the same results. Unless or until we adopt the Nation Popular Vote Intrastate Compact or reapportion the House more equitably, Republicans will continue to exploit the Electoral College’s antimajoritarianism. Courting the minority of lefties mimics DJT’s courting of his base; last November proved that elections are won in the middle.
Appealing to moderates in purple states is the only path to 270. If you have any doubt, ask private citizen HRC how much good the Democratic over-vote did for her.
5
This a comment from C Wolfe (in reply to Socrates). I thought it was so wonderful it deserved to be repeated.
please send this to everyone you know, and in particular, anyone who claims the US is a "center right" country:
From C Wolfe:
I'm reminded of a poll I saw several years ago that presented positions on issues without attaching them to any individual politician or affixing labels of party or ideology. The pol aimed to express the issue in neutral language without dog whistles or buzzwords. When the pollsters had the data, they looked for the member of Congress whose positions best reflected the view of the majority of respondents. It was Dennis Kucinich, the scary liberal socialist bogeyman of his day.
4
Hey, please also note one of the most significant differences between these new Progressive candidates who are pushing the Democratic party to the Hard ha ha left, is that they are not corrupted. Yep, they did not take corporate money. They answer only to the people, not big business or Wall Street or the Koch brothers and their kind. And they dare to really fight for regular people.
This is about money, not moderate or conservative. The only honest actors here are the Progressives, everyone else is beholden to donors. The policies which the moderate and the conservatives fashion are actually often cover ups for their corruption. Mostly our elected officials serve their own needs and their donors needs first. That is why they hate the Progressives. Their cover is being blown. Sure we get some crumbs from time to time, but oh Dear God the fact that wages have stagnated something terrible for forty years and productivity has skyrocketed should give one pause.
I know it is a strange and unsettling concept for DC. You think big boss Crawley was not on the take, oh boy he was a big taker. So this is between the corrupt and non corrupt. Please take that into account when you compare ideologies. Thankyou!
3
@cheerful dramatist a very interesting take on the discourse, I sincerely like the way you use the word Progressive! The Regressives in office have puppet masters pulling their strings, whereas the Progressives like AOC are beholden to all the people, as a true democracy should be here in America. Bravo to you!
1
Americans will not vote to turn our great country into a socialist country. The failed socialist countries of this century and the last stand as a reminder that socialism only works until you run out of other people's money.
3
@Olivia So Sweden is a "failed state"? The "other people's money" meme is getting old. A balanced economy with a bigger middle-class with more spending power to create new business and more jobs, more power and security for workers, more access to higher education, and guaranteed affordable healthcare for all is not a model for a Venezuela.
Sure thing Olivia--failed states like Norway and canada. Thanks for the ringing endorsement of vulture capitalism. Not.
America is not great when so many have so little and so few have so much.
Greetings from a middle-class man living in a country with healthcare for all and living wages.
1
As soon as K Harris's record and background is displayed
totally and constantly the Democrats will have no candidate
for 2020. Ms O-C must be allowed to speak out as boldy and frequently as possible . Best Republican plant ever...
1
Hopefully, Edsall may agree, with “my voice” take on an effective strategy & strategic narrative that Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, or any other principled progressive candidate could well use to resolve the three-way conflict that the 2016 campaigns of Trump, Clinton, and Sanders presented for an essential revolutionary change that must occur in 2020:
Emperor Trump of course represented male dominated Empire for the ‘rougher-talking’ neocon ‘R’ Vichy Party, Hillary represented a novel female approach for entrenched deceit of the ‘smoother-lying’ neoliberal con ‘D’ Vichy Party, while Sanders represented revolutionary-lite change with his sincere, but vague two-word sound-bite of “Political Revolution” (Against what, Bernie?).
So this triad (try aide) in ‘16 is potentially (re)solvable if, and only if, any seriously left progressive social(ist) democracy-thinking woman candidate strongly eschews both faux-Emperor Trump’s scam role for the real Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which rules ‘we the American people’ now, exposes Hillary’s dollar-drenched, if powerful role as faux ‘Empress in waiting’, and strengthens Bernie’s populist progressive promises by actually running an overt, principled, and serious campaign of ‘exposing’, confronting, continuing, and completing our original American “Revolution Against Empire” [Justin du Rivage] by leading the people in a peaceful people’s “Political/economic and social Revolution Against Empire”.
Revolutions come quickly.
1
Seeing your photo of Cortez and Presleys stonefaced stares was mildly humorous. Their appeal is akin to electing hysterical teenagers from the Salem trials. Their radical and anti-Semitic stances and comments are alienating moderates and older Democrats.
4
Time for guys like Edsall to acknowledge these aren't radical or leftist ideas.
1
I think that the liberal movement in the Democratic Party has a rather national focus rather than a global one. Most domestic issues are globally connected and solutions to the major national issues have to viewed and often resolved globally.
Thus, I have been suggesting to Bernie and his young followers that they think and plan in systemic and global terms on dealing with the looming climate catastrophe. Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" (www.timun.net) spells out the conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of a carbon-based international monetary system with a monetary standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person and a balance of payments system that accounts for both financial and ecological (Climate) debts and credits.
Declares an outstanding economist and climate specialist about this Tierra based global governance system: “The further into the global warming area we go, the more physics and politics narrows our possible paths of action. Here’s a very cogent and well-argued account of one of the remaining possibilities.” Bill McKibben, May 17, 2011
1
AOC will be president one day. Mark my words.
3
She will disappear long before she is old e Pugh to run. Hopefully.
1
I am a old white male geezer and lifelong liberal living in complete voter disenfranchisement in Florida due to gerrymandering, voter suppression and rigged election machines (how else does one explain over 30,000 votes in Broward County that failed to register a preference for the Senate or Governor in a race where the Republican squeaked in by recount?).
I am pleased to finally see the party moving away from corporatist and quisling centrists to take on issues of critical import for the economy, the environment and the literal health of the nation.
As “moderate” Republicans come to a cognitive realization that they too are victims of the fascist oligarch billionaire agenda to end democracy; they too will move to the left.
So, I for one am not going to worry an iota about this hand-wringing over something akin to revolution and instead welome what amounts to the return of my fellow New Deal Democrats.
7
In hindsight I think it’s fairly obvious that that Bill Clinton, in reality, was more of a “liberal” Republican in the vein of Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits than a liberal Democrat. His support of NAFTA, “welfare reform” increased incarnation etc. and his reliance on men such as Dick Morris was prima facie evidence of this.
And Barack Obama was in many ways nothing more than a modern day version of Edward Brooke. His refusal to hold the banks and Wall Street accountable for the 2008 economic meltdown and his muddled continuing of the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan were essentially the policies of a Republican Administration. As was his policy of assissation by drone.
If “victory” in elections is the only goal of the leaders of the Democratic Party then politicians such as these men should continue to be supported. Such victories will undoubtedly create great jobs for Democratic Party lobbyists, Democratic Party strategists etc. However, if real change is the goal then a different type of politician should be supported - a politician who is not a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I think that when all is said and done a defeat in the short term is actually preferable to a faux victory.
I mostly agree with your assessment of both Clinton and obama. But-- you give neither any credit for their economic accomplishments: improving a mediocre economy in Bill's case or saving one in free fall crisis, as Barack had to do. As far as your thesis that short term loss is a price worth paying for ideological purity-- how can a thinking person believe that when we are suffering those ramifications in the present? Do you and other left wing dems think we can survive more right wing dominion?
1
Thomas Edsall's column is yet another conservative spin on Democrats from The New York Times.
Where are the voices of progressive Democrats, who form the overwhelming majority of New York City residents? Of New York state residents? Who form the core of the Democratic Party's support.
The Times insists that these conservative voices are the only ones deserving of publication here. Where in the world did the notion come from that The Times was a "liberal" publication?
4
Yes, you must be able to follow in order to lead, something this current POTUS has no idea of how to do. He has never been able to follow, thus, he can never really lead.....
1
Today's Democratic Party is in an unrecoverable spin.
Radical statist progressive lefties have co-opted party leadership and forcibly ejected the last vestige of what used to be known as "liberal Democrats" - now considered right wing in the party - and is barreling ahead with a statist and socialist agenda.
It can't do anythiing else.
Everywhere where people are not dependent on government handouts, the Republicans win the elections. Where people are dependent on government handouts, Democrats win.
The Democrats have controlled the politics of all large cities for decades; in New York's case, centuries.
Sure, an odd republican mayor gets in, but the City Council ? N E V E R anything but Democratic control.
And those Democrats have maintained policies that foster the continuing existence of slums and poverty.
Don't try to argue that in 200 years, New York could not have rid itself of slums. That's baloney. Poverty doesn't make a slum. It's behavior, law enforcement, and education. All could have been, and have not been, addressed by the Democrats - because they must preserve their voting base.
It's all they have left - except statist-socialist ideologues, who can be counted on in all cases, as facts bounce off them like ping pong balls.
The nation - is shifting away from Democrats. Leftist media will never show it, but it is now unstoppable. The Democrats can only push further left - curtailing speech and rights and losing support every moment that they do so.
NYT columnists need to lower the volume a notch. Please don't turn Alexandria O-C into a Sarah Palin of sorts. Republicans did that before, they amplified everything Sarah did, said, gestured and we all know how that turned out. So please, moderate yourselves. Show everyone equal coverage, impartial and nonjudgmental. But then NYT is unable to do that, hmmm..
4
It's interesting that while women are increasing in numbers as voters and politicians, the policies progressives champion still center around race (immigration, etc.) and class (economic disparity). I'm left wondering when the #MeToo movement will translate into policies addressing the sexual predation of women by men both individually and culturally (such as the documented violence in internet porn). Perhaps the political researchers mentioned in this article aren't polling on those questions. Or perhaps the left is not yet progressive enough to challenge the men in their own party. In today's political it's an easy target to point at the leaders of the Right regarding white supremacy and wealth disparity. Male supremacist ideas exist across the political spectrum.
1
She's new-give her a chance to settle in after the shut down.
2
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the poster child of the lunatic left. She's the best thing that's happened to conservative politics since Madame Pelosi. All you have to do is flash her image and voters will think that this is the future of the Democratic Party, and then immediately vote GOP. There'll be a centrist revolt in the Democratic Party, the question is when will these folks have the bolas to stand and be heard?
If by liberal you mean the circular firing squad of the politics of aggrievement, no.
My politics fall in line with FDR's Second Bill of Rights. Here he describes them in 1944
https://youtu.be/3EZ5bx9AyI4
"...true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security & independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry & out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made...
We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security & prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job...;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food & clothing & recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise & sell his products at a return which will give him & his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition & domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care & the opportunity to achieve & enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident & unemployment;
The right to a good education."
That is where Democrats used to be. Then came the Corporate Democrats, the DLC and the Clintons.
4
Please put me on the "Willingly" list.
1
What a confusing mix of stereotypes, statistics, and generalized issues. Well-educated suburban women are naturally Republicans. “Young” voters include 44 year-olds. Gentrification now breeds...radical liberals.
And Dems have shifted on the effects of discrimination and amnesty for illegal arrivals. And do we get to see how these poll questions were phrased? What choices were listed?
And let me get my map out so I can follow all the neighborhoods, towns, cities.....but don’t mention what was a factor reported on in these defeats of moderate Dems...they lost touch, ignored, never evolved positions...
Once again- get over stereotypes. List policies. List all variables within each policy. Poll registered party members...maybe actually go door to door (hint; calling as a pollster will get a hang-up - too many scammers calling now).
And give some credit to Black Lives Matter on the shift in attitudes on discrimination. Breathing while Black- we suburbans (that naturally Repub lump) thought things were getting better. They’re not. Video matters. Oh wait- let me check my neighborhood- I must be....gentrified.
1
Let's be honest: there is nothing mainstream about the GOP. They are the true subversives and radicals, and anyone who would vote for them is no moderate.
3
Best comment of the day. All dems need to riff on the extremism and trump born cowardice of today's right wing GOP.
Every Democrat should sign on to FDR's 1944 Economic Bill of Rights speech. It is hardly radical, but rather the foundation of the modern Democratic Party, or at least was before being abrogated by the "new Democrats." Any Dem not supporting it is at best one of the "Republican-lights" who led the Dem party into the wilderness. It would also behoove the party to resurrect FDR's Veep Henry Wallace's NY Times articles about the nature of big businesses and fascism, also from '44. Now that was a party of the people.
199
@stuart
They used to call it the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party".
I was glad when Thomas Edsall finally got around, in this piece, to mentioning that what is often thought of as a radical leftist turn today, due to just how far to the right our general political discussions had gone, was actually pretty much mainstream Democratic policy for much of the middle 20th century.
13
@stuart I agree to some extent but you must realize things have changed from that time to now, a lot. Education for example has become unaffordable for many due to the greed of these institutions. Students are left in debt for years if not decades. Professors and instructors making six figure incomes when THEY produce little or nothing of commercial value. I live near a major university for example where I'd be willingly to bet we have at least twenty professors of art each making over $100,00 dollars annually that couldn't SELL a piece of their art if their lives depended on it. Moreover, we even provide loans to students now and like healthcare costs we need to investigate where and why this money is being made. They've turned it into a massively profitable business for them and government officials which WE get to pay for. It's ridiculous.
@Chris Young Briefly: CUNY, FDR. etc.
1
The younger educated progressive voters who swept aside Michael Capuano despite his liberal record and hard work have ignored the functional importance of seniority in Congress. Let us hope the cost of this ignorance isn't too great. We need every advantage in the fight against the Republican troglodites and their reptilian leader.
2
Please write about some of the other excellent new representatives from non-typical backgrounds. The over-exposure and obsession with "AOC" is a tiresome distraction.
2
To the conservative, liberal means socialist. Unfortunately, they don't know what socialism is. They think socialism is doing nothing and getting paid for it, a freeloader society.
Socialism is government interference in the free market, interference in production. Ethanol is socialism. Oil and gas subsidies are socialism. Agricultural price supports are socialism. Tax breaks and subsidies are socialism. The defence industry is socialism.
All of these socialist policies greatly benefit big business. What liberals want is socialism of a similar nature that benefits people. This would include healthcare, education, public transportation, retirement, and childcare.
Currently, people work their tails off to generate the profits that pay for corporate socialism and get next to nothing in return. Daycare costs as much as many jobs pay. Kids graduate from college $50,000 in debt. Get sick and immediately go bankrupt. They have to work past 70.
Pursuing these policies is not some far out leftist agenda. They are the norm in most industrialized nations. It's hard to live free or die if you don't have anything to eat. It's easy to be a libertarian if you make a million bucks a year.
Liberals are not advocating getting paid for doing nothing. They want people to have something to do and get paid for it. That is the message that should be pushed. Sounds pretty American to me.
634
@Bruce Rozenblit Wow! Great points, why don't you run for office? I agree!
51
@Bruce, have you ever considered creating a new "reality" network where the truth about things could be told? You're quite good at articulating and defining how the world works, without all the usual nonsense. I really appreciate your comments.
64
@Bruce Rozenblit
Absolutely correct. According to the Bible of Saint Reagan, Socialism for corporations and the rich: Good. Socialism for the poor and working class: bad.
68
Moving left is not a bad thing. Fighting for the rights of those disadvantaged and discriminated against is the path to restoring integredy and ideals to America. If moving left means being paid a living wage or protecting the environment I applaud all of the young idealistic individuals working hard to make it happen. Diversity of ideas, promptoting a path of security for all Americans seems like a better goal than the policies of only the rich, pollution at all costs and no persons of color need to apply. These are the destructive policies of trump and the republicans. Young voters have awoken and reject the status quo. This is not a bad thing.
How leftist are these ideas? : Medicare for All, free college, a universal jobs guarantee, a $15 minimum wage, an expansion of the EITC to the entire bottom half, workers on boards of directors, ending ICE, raising marginal tax rates to 70 percent are all big, bold leftist ideas and appear to be gaining currency.
I went to college and graduate school in the 70s and graduated with 3 degrees a debt of $2K, for a loan with a 1.9% interest rate administered by the US govt not commercial institutions. Health care wasn't universal, but it wasn't nearly as expensive as now, and 20% of health care budgets didn't go to administration. The minimum wage was low, but so was the cost of living, people could live on a minimum wage because housing was not outrageously expensive. Marginal tax rates were in fact very high. ICE didn't exist.
Then we had Ronald Reagan who promoted and normalized greed is good. Then the globalization leaders globalization and their partner financial institutions were either too stupid to realize or too indifferent to care that they were exporting the American middle class to other countries. We have raised standards of living all over the world by hollowing out the economic core of our democracy.
The "bold leftist ideas" aren't that bold. Th US was on the way to adopting them prior to Reagan. The true change being embraced is inclusion of everyone in society, but I think the Constitution can be read as establishing that in principle if not practice.
Mr Edsall is a treasure. Just a shame that so many who comment here do so just to indulge their own preconceived ideas rather to engage with his ideas and those of the people whom he quotes. Mr Edsall deserves better!
1
Constantly contrasting white up-and-comers with urban minorities is a false binary. While it fails to take into account the effect of communities with stronger ties to the church for both Blacks and Hispanics gives them a slower buy-in to new ideas, both Blacks and Hispanics will tend to vote for more progressive notions than ones that serve predominantly the wealthy. Does anyone think Hispanics will vote for a party led by claims their families in home countries will pay for Big Fat White Daddy's wall?
Edsall, Still! fails to understand how the the DNC establishment shot itself not in the foot but its face in 2016. Telling people who were unemployed and if employed at the same starting wages of their parents to continue to wait as Hillary did? Debbie Wasserman and those who propped her up protecting it's own is what created the push through not of insurgents but rank and file that has already waited for 2 decades.
Democratic [Clinton] sell out to republicans for instance the "Cadillac Momma" safety net cave health care failure are now very long term failures of established democrats, the effects have eaten away faith of moderates for 40 years who are now more urgent.
I'm saying this at age 60, white but one who has not had health care for most of their adult life, whose college education took 10 years to get, and the effect of the Great Recession combined with no health care ate up what would have been a strong retirement plan.
I'm not a young insurgent. I'm Woke.
Nonsense, "...“big, bold leftist ideas” pose a strategic problem for liberals and the Democratic Party". Lets be honest, the ideals that have more in common with FDR & the New Deal, are a threat to establishment politicians who call themselves Democrats; those who have abandoned progressivism (ie their voters) and embraced Bill Clinton's version of corporate democracy.
This is not an endorsement of Sanders or an assault on HRC: Sander's revealed a path fwd. to attract the voters that this article argues are impossible to capture. 'Republican light' will not help anyone - irrespective of who wins and it's a legislative reality we see time and time again.
Both parties, since the 1970s have enacted legislation that harms the poor & middle-class while elevating corporations and the richest to unimagined heights. None of this is my opinion - it's all supported by economic & legislative data.
Unfortunately, the Right-wing, which is now radicalized under Trump's Cabal, has corrupted the narrative of America for all. We must get it back. It's not 'Communism' or 'Socialism' to determine Americans deserve more, that HC is a right, that wages not rising since the 70s when adjusted for inflation is wrong...
If we don't move to a new 'New Deal' you will see a revolution & nothing in what I know suggests it will be peaceful. The 'lesser of two evil' folks, ironically, will be tacitly adopting the status quo. Guess what? The status quo (and its leadership) is literally, killing us.
2
The political land scape had been moving to the right for decades. The Democratic party is returning to its roots. The Republican Party has taken the nation to the edge of becoming a Fascist state and people of conscious are finally waking up to it. The voter suppression, bigotry, racism and economic inequality that Republicans have foisted on the nation is finally creating a backlash. The perversions of religious rights into the right to discriminate against those with different beliefs, the perversions of rewarding the wealthy at the cost of the working poor and the stacking of the courts with right wing zealots as judges have only intensified because of Republicans. Is a 70% tax rate on mega million$ inconceivable today? Under Eisenhower it was 90%. Free college tuition? California had free college tuition for over 100 years, from 1868 until the 1970s. In 1968, when I first attended college at the University of Iowa, tuition for the entire year was $370. I won't even bother to get into immigration other than to remind people of what is written at the base of the Statue of Liberty.
Moderate Baby Boomer Democrat here. If the Democratic Party somehow nominated Louis Farrakhan to run against the current occupant of the White House I might vote Republican for the first time in my life. Otherwise, anyone who isn't rabidly racist and antisemitic will get my vote - I don't care if he, she or they walk and talk like a hamster.
That said, the country doesn't need a divisive candidate from the left. We need someone who will unite us around core American values, someone who will face real world problems with reality based solutions. Specifically, I want a candidate who will:
1. Rededicate America to the still revolutionary idea that all people are created equal.
2. Recognize that diversity and immigration are precisely what has made America great and at the same time acknowledge that a majority of Americans do want border and immigration controls.
3. Move us toward universal health care.
4. Respect allies who share liberal Democratic values.
5. Incentivize alt energy, then dedicate us to solving the problem of carbon sequestration on an industrial-global scale in the same way Kennedy dedicated us to landing on the moon (there is no longer a way to stop and reverse global warming and ocean acidification with alternative energy alone). This program would provide jobs and new technologies and also shift environmental politics since oil and coal companies are the best ones to put CO2 back into the ground (oil companies already do this to extract more oil).
If the Democrats nominated an actual turnip to run against Trump, I would vote for it.
Yes, Democrats do appear to be "returning to their roots". And, we outnumber Republicans.
Aiding this leftward movement is the simple fact that Republicans/Conservatives are self immolating. Greed, racism, willful ignorance and corruption in the leadership have severely hurt their future prospects. Trump is putting the final touches on their loss of credibility now.
AOC is a charming advocate of much that needs to happen. It is hard for this old white liberal to resist. And, I believe Nancy Pelosi has recognized that AOC and other young upstarts bring value to the liberal movement by elevating them to critical spots on key committees.
A hard rain is going to fall on the Trump GOP conservative base.
Alexandria is just 29 years old a week on job in the Congress. We should not push her so much to such a position that the right wing media, the toxic talk radio hosts and the crook Republican pundits will use her as punching bag. Already the FOX TV pundits are ridiculing her daily basis. The Republican leaders her using her name for raising funds. She has plenty of time to lead the progressives. Slow and steady will win the battles.
"The willingness of voters to support Democrats who are pushing initiatives like these will depend in large part, however, on the ability of candidates to assure the general electorate that their agenda is beneficial to all and not just to favored liberal constituencies."
Thank you Mr. Edsall.
The current exuberance on the left, much of it likely a knee-jerk to the MAGA - may not sufficiently heed your final inference on this matter - to our peril. I.e., there are products that Americans will not buy, period. Even if the other choice is abhorrent.
Politics may sometimes progress like certain stuffier branches of science: One death at a time. Some folks are really overdue. Hopefully at some point we can be free of living in the 19th century.
1
@Ambient Kestrel In 1974, many of us thought that we had all but won*, and just needed time to pass, and death to harvest, to set the stage for an eventually McGovern-type victory.
* Just as not 1989, an intellectual thought that we'd reached the end of history.
1
Ocasio-Cortez is my Representative in Congress. She has rightly refuted the 'how will we pay for it' question with a counter-question of her own: Why is the 'how will we pay for it' question only asked when a progressive politician proposes spending money to adequately meet human needs and to improve the quality of life for all Americans? For example, the last military budget Trump signed was $1.3 trillion. This servers no one but the military industrial complex and yet it sailed through. Trump even awarded the Pentagon several billions more than they had requested, This is obscene and exposed for all the world to see. The younger generation is too smart to be suckered. That's the explanation behind the leftward shift. Shifting of priorities from death and mayhem to living and flourishing. It's elementary, my dear Watson.
I object. I vote in Democrat primaries. I endorse some of the policies that AOC and others like her promote, but I think we need a decidedly centrist presidential candidate. I find Bernie Sanders and his Bernie Bros demagogic, racist, and sexist. To the extent that AOC continues to align with him is the extent that I will not align with her.
1
“Pew found that from 2014 to 2018, turnout in House primaries rose from 13.7 to 19.6 percent of all registered Democrats, in Senate primaries from 16.6 to 22.2 percent and in governor primaries from 17.1 to 24.5 percent.”
If people don’t vote, they cede their right to complain. And if they vote for obvious losers, like Jill Stein (and Ralph Nader), they are throwing their votes away. I’m afraid young “voters” own Trump, despite how much many of them dislike him.
1
I'm glad to see the Ds move left and embrace POLICY SOLUTIONs for higher ed, health access and support for female leadership. Its about time!
I'm an older white guy who spent his entire adult life in the South. Centrists lite POLICY TWEAKS and WHITE MALE candidates alone don't attract support from the rural & white working class (a fav swing group of Dr Edsall for some reason).
Moreover, I'm tired of D Party sensibilities towards this group's profound & deep prejudices, simple ignorance and easy electoral distraction. Let Trump and the Rs embrace these constituencies' worst instincts. And so be it.
Attracting young voters, women & the college-educated, suburban voters, people of color and diversity - and encouraging their FULL participation and leadership - is fine by me.
Lead from the front friends!!!!!
2
What is the obsession with this woman? She has absolutely no new ideas and carried a 90 percent Democratic district. Why not cover one of the 99 other women in Congress?
1
Ms. AOC is certainly an interesting character. Unfortunately, she also seems to be remarkably ill informed or willfully ignorant. Listen closely to her in one on one interviews and you will see she is strong no on opinion but really short on facts.
3
The American political system is broken. The GOP is the party of the far right (or worse). Under its prior management the Democratic Party became what the old Republican Party was, the home of the corporate “social liberals”.
We are now at the point where when AOC proposes a marginal income tax rate more than 20% below that we had in the 1950s she is a “radical”. So Dwight David Eisenhower was a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, just like Richard Milhouse Nixon was a tree hugger for creating the EPA and Barry Goldwater was morally deficient for supporting LGBTs in the military.
This 74 year old white man says it’s time for the Democrats to go back to their roots, and for the young women to lead!
I disagree with this destructive assumption.
All types of voters can exist under the umbrella of both parties.
Tradition and family history have to be extrapolated out of the conclusion.
Many voters have a collage of voting behavior over years.
My self ...... voter since age 21
Registered democrat 1973
Registered independent 1979
Registered A Connecticut Party ( Weickers idea) 1991
Registered Republican 1993 to present
I did not ever vote for trump. Or Clinton.
So how bout stats on my voting behavior
There are others out there like me.
At local political levels the parties try to work together in successful communities.
When there is derision at the local level it is usually about “ the other”. Charity is lacking and bigotry allowed to fester.
Leadership locally determines the community response to bigotry and racism.
Success depends on elected leaders and minority groups opening real dialog and presenting workable solutions.
All these stupid polls and data miss so much yet sway voters to the likes of trump , pence, King, etc.
The most loyal and long suffering base of the Democratic Party are black African American and brown Hispanic/ Latino and Native American women.
They carry both the misogynist patriarchal burden of their gender along with the heavy historical legacy of their ancestors enslavement, conquest and separate and unequal status of their color aka race aka ethnicity aka national origin.
Being members of physically identifiable groups with unique histories inextricably intertwines caste and class. Their "identity" is self-evident. What they are not matters much more than what they are in determining their socioeconomic educational political legal status in America.
The U.S. is and has been having a going out of business sale for years with the GOP taking over the country for corporate America, either to control their policies or to resell them for a profit. We have finalized this by electing a business film-flam man POTUS.
First let's recognize that AOC comes from a district that Marx could have won in a landslide, and that's fine that's how the Congress works. AOC would be slaughtered in any swing district in the country. She's never had to win in a purple area. AOC can say stuff that is never going to happen, like soak the rich, which I'm for, and never pay the personal price, being fired. If DJT is reelected she'll still get her $175K/yr....it's the rest of us that will suffer.
I've not heard her say if we follow her ideas and lose she'll resign.
There is no doubt the the Dems are moving left.... The question is where is the country moving, We just elected DJT!!! I contend that at best it MAY be moving to the middle maybe left of middle. Whoever carries the independents and holds the middle will win. Crazy silly polices will drive them away
Young lefties tend to be urbanites with no idea what lies outside urban American
We must get the WH back, hold the House, the Senate is rigged to the rural states, & is probably out of reach unless liberals start moving to the red states.
The only way to change the GOP is to beat them at least 3 cycles, otherwise we'll continue the cycle of the GOP running the gov't
I consider Thomas Bird Edsall's columns the most informative feature in the Times, and today's is no exception.
One quibble, though: I would like to see the Times banish the misleading phrase "ideological purity" from its pages for the next two years. Most progressives and leftists are smart enough to know that politics is not about "purity."
1
I like AOC, but am sick of your wall-to-wall coverage of her. i see at least two stories every day about her and Kamala Harris.
Reminds me of the media's obsession with Trump. Not healthy.
1
The rise of AOC is unfortunate for the Democrat Party. I watched a video of her talking about billionaires being immoral and the world ending in 12 years due to climate change. What struck me the most about her remarks was how many times she used the word “like” in a single sentence, at least 2 or 3 times, and ending sentences with a high inflection as if they were questions. Listening to her talk is like, and I am using the word correctly, listening to the dialogue of the movie Clueless or Frank Zappa’s song about Valley Girls. I am not impressed by people who talk this way, men or women; it demonstrates a limited vocabulary and a certain degree of shallowness. Polls indicate that if AOC were old enough many people would support her to become president! Can you imagine the State of the Union in which every other word was “like”? Maybe that accounts for her popularity because her followers talk like (again used correctly) that as well; they understand her, and if she didn’t speak that way they would not. Well, I am not impressed, and neither are millions of other Americans. We may be deplorable, but we can speak with proper diction. Thank you.
3
@Southern BoyLike your oh so articulate president Trump?
1
Why is the media creating this AOC meme? She has now become "famous for being famous." Let's wait until she accomplishes something other than being a 29 year old twitter celebrity.
3
I was raised a democrat and voted that way until I was in my my 50s. The reason I left the party is not that I don't want people to have entitlements that improve their lives. It is not because I hate immigrants or those who are different. It is because, and almost solely because, NOTHING was being done about ILLEGAL immigration. We can't have an entitlement society when people are self selecting for immigration at whatever level and however they can manage to get in and place roots. I was surprised and put off by liberals claiming my desire for national border integrity to be nefarious and racist. I am bitter now. I am dug in now. I am sorry, but that is how I feel. This is the last of my subscription to the Times as I am tired of being hated because I believe in strong borders. Many of you don't care and say good riddance. But I will vote in 2020, and there are many like me.
4
This woman might single-handedly hand Donald Trump a second term if the Democratic Party allows her to define a very large tent of progressive who find her an abomination. The party has a choice to make, and it needs to make it pretty fast. Be pulled further to the left or get back to the center with a platform and a candidate who can beat Trump.
1
Leading and following at the same time, is that similar to chasing her own tail?
1
"began to accelerate during the administration of George W. Bush"
That's me in a nutshell. Fairly conservative for decades, then the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld Iraq War. Started moving left then and haven't stopped. Now further left than I could ever have imagined 20 or 30 years ago. Right there on the left hand edge, and don't plan on moving toward the center, ever.
"that votes in primaries and wields disproportionate influence....— has moved decisively to the left."
My answer to the above is, vote! If you don't vote in the primaries it's your own fault.
1
Ocasio-Cortez is one of about 100 new reps elected to Congress.
So why is it that she is the only one we ever hear about?
3
I have always voted in every primary. I have always voted for the most "leftist" available. So did my whole family, and all the people with whom I discussed our voting.
The issue was always "most leftist available." That often was not very leftist at all.
That is what has changed. Now the option is there. It isn't because we vote for it. We vote for it now because now we can, now the choice is there.
What has changed is not so much the voters as the invisible primary before anyone asks us voters. What changed is the Overton Window of potential choices allowed to us.
I think voters would have done this a long time ago, if they'd had the opportunity.
So why now? Abject failure of our politics to solve our problems has been true for decades, so it isn't mere failure.
I'd like to think it was voter rebellion. We just wouldn't vote for their sell outs. Here, that meant Bernie won our primary, and then we did not turn out for Her.
We finally forced it. The money men could not get away with it anymore.
5
As a senior, who has been a healthcare provider for decades, I hope that people will not be afraid if they get sick, that people will not fear going bankrupt if they get sick, that they do not have to fear they will die needlessly if they get sick, because they did not have proper access to haeathcare treatment.
If a 29 year old woman from Queens, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, can fulfill my hopes and dreams, and alleviate these fears, just to get humane healthcare - then I say “You Go Girl!”
What a wonderful world that would be.....
295
@MIMA Yes, absolutely. I'm retired from the healthcare field after practicing 38 years. It is unconscionable that we question the access of healthcare to everyone. The complaint usually heard from the right is about "the takers." Data I've seen indicates that the majority on "the dole" are workers, who can't make ends meet in the gig economy or the disabled.
That some lazy grubbers are in the system is unavoidable; perfection is the enemy of the good.
21
@MIMA,
As a retired R.N., it is a priority that in my lifetime every American has access to free healthcare as a right, BUT, unfortunately the Democratic Party has very mixed messaging, like a child in a candy store; how can anyone hope to eventually secure free healthcare for our people when we continue to open our southern border, ports and airspace to indigent people from nearly failed states who have no hopes of ever supporting themselves and actually drain our social services from poor black, brown and white poor people.
The Democratic Party needs to have better financial responsible representatives.
4
@JRS
Democratic party leaders have been in favor of more border security and an overhauled immigration system for as long as I've been alive. The suggestion (clearly this comment's intention) that Democrats favor "open" borders, ports, etc., is a myth propagated by an ever more influential right wing. And it's working: it's been repeated so often that it's now virtually an assumption that Democrats favor open borders, despite that fact that any critical thought on the subjection indicates the opposite is true.
21
With democratic and republican primaries separate are we just likely to end up with choices at two ends of the spectrum? Moving to open primaries with 50% of the vote required for election and the top two candidates under 50% moving to a final election will get us representatives who actually represent us and do not leave us feeling that we voted the best of two bad choices.
Just as less educated white voters vote Republican against their own interests, the better educated and wealthier progressive Dem voters in the burbs and gentrifying parts of cities are at risk of doing the same but for different reasons. Hopefully, being better educated, they will realize in time that they will be voting against their own economic interests. This will come in several forms including paying more in FICA taxes when the income cap is eliminated, not getting their health insurance federally subsidized because they make too much money and paying more in state and local taxes to finance better public schools and local services. As a lifelong 70 year old white male Independent, who has never voted for a Republican and am decidedly liberal, in my view the young-uns who are pulling the Dem party to the left need to realize that the majority of our population lean left or right from the center and may not buy in to their 'socialist' agenda. In sum, watch what you wish for -- you may get it.
4
I never cease to be amazed at the way Americans, especially in the media, conflate the terms "leftist", "liberal" and "progressive," as if they all mean the same thing. Trade unions are typically opposed to unfettered immigration and "free" trade, classical liberals oppose government intervention, and Medicare for all would not be considered a "leftist" idea anywhere else in the entire world. I think all high school students should be required to pass a basic political vocabulary test prior to graduation and then maybe we would all be less confused.
3
Cortez has fire and I respect that. Time to have what WE want, not what they want.
7
Voter turnout in this country, even in presidential elections, rarely exceeds half of registered voters. Telling the Democratic party that they must attempt to woo people who disagree with their policies based on the fact that those people voted in the past ignores the massive population that doesn't vote at all.
If the Democratic party can convince even 8% or 10% of the non-voting population to vote for Democrats then they will never worry about suburban white women again.
2
She has a massive throng of twitter followers, is completely unconcerned with facts, uses publicity to gain power and seems unwilling to negotiate on her positions. Remind you of anyone else?
14
@PEcactly..and it seems have to worked well for that other person.
1
What facts is she unconcerned with please?
The Washington Post fact checker gave her four pinnochios regarding her assertion that the pentagon has 21 trillion dollars unaccounted for. This flat out false, confirmed by a reputable publication. This is just one example. Regardles of your views of her policy goals, the simple fact remains that there are mathematical and economic realities she seems to ignore and can’t explain regarding implementation.
The establishment is trying so hard to spin the progressives push on the issues of Medicare for All, free state college and university tuition, a livable wage of $15/hr as ponies and fairy dust and an extreme "socialist" makeover/takeover of America. But from all the polls that I've seen, these policies are actually quite popular even with a majority of Republicans. Yes, a majority of Republicans. A Medicare for All would cover everybody, eliminate health insurance premiums for individuals and businesses ( which by the way are competing with businesses in other countries that have a single-payer system) and would save $2 trillion over ten years (Koch bothers funded study). The result would be a healthy and educated populace. But how to pay for this? Well, we spend over $700 billion on our military while Russia spends $20 billion and China spends $146 billion, so there seems to be plenty of money that is already being spent to be redirected back to us without compromising national security. A Medicare for All system supports a private healthcare system just as it is now, except instead of giving some insurance company our premium who then skims off a big chunk for their profit, we pay it to our government who then administers the payments to the healthcare provider(s). The system is in place and has been for people 65 years and older and works very well with high satisfaction rates. Just expand it to all.
14
@FXQ
Thank you for stating the argument so well. Truly, Medicare For All is a no-brainer.
I am retired and as such am entitled to Medicare, which I gleefully accept. I mean, holy crap, where else can you get full medical coverage and go to any doctor you want, any time, without going through a "referral" process?
That costs me about $350/month which is my Medicare premium and a quality backup plan that pays what Medicare doesn't.
During my working years my health insurance premiums were 5X that amount, for less coverage.
Like I said: no brainer.
Thanks. Well said.
The rumblings in the Democratic party may represent a realization that WE THE PEOPLE deserve a bigger slice of the pie. Democrats such as Sanders, Warren and AOC are tapping into a reservoir of voters who have been excluded from the American Dream by design. The new message seems to be "fairness". I think that translates into government which does the most good for the greatest number of people. Candidates who embody that principle will be the new leaders. Ignore at your peril.
7
Basically more fretting over the possibility of a real left emerging from within the rusted framework of the Democratic Party. All those statistics, all that demographic analysis. Save your eyesight. There are no hidden constituencies. Something resembling a radical left has been with us since the origins of the republic, and it emerges whenever it is necessary. It is the saving grace of the nation.
4
The leftward swing of the Democrats is in direct proportion to the rightward swing of the Republicans and a gut reaction to the GOP's failure to do anything constructive while in power -- i.e. failure to replace Obamacare with Trump's promise of "cheaper and better;" failure to repair our crumbling infrastructure, and yet another failed attempt at trickle-down economics by robbing the U.S. Treasury with a massive tax cut for the rich that provided absolutely no benefits for the middle class and the poor. As always, what the Republicans destroy the Democrats will have to fix.
8
The shift claimed by Mr. Edsall among democratic voters who claim to be liberal or progressive is more illusion than reality. With President Obama more democrats are willing and indeed proud that our party represents the cutting edge principle that we protect the needs and interests of those struggling to find a place in our society.
For a long time Democrats bought into the notion that the word liberal was some how shameful. But now with the machinations of a McConnell and Trump it becomes obvious that Democratic principles of justice for all and fighting for economic equality are not outside ideas, but actually central to the growth of our country. No longer will we kow tow to a false stilted opinion, but stand up proudly for what we believe and fight for.
8
Democrats need to win elections first. Progressive ideas may have support on the coasts and cities but fall flat in red states where there is still widespread dislike for immigrants and minorities and strong opposition to “having my hard-earned tax money supporting free stuff for the undeserving who can’t/won’t take care of themselves.” Because the Electoral College gives red states disproportionate representation the Democrats must win some red states to win a presidential election. Running on a strong progressive platform won’t work in those Republican-majority states.
What Democrats need is a “Trojan Horse” candidate. Someone who can win with a moderate message that has broad appeal across the entire country but who will support and enact a strong progressive agenda once he/she is elected. And on a local election level, Democrats need to field candidates whose message is appropriate for their local constituency—progressive in liberal states, more moderate in conservative areas.
Winning elections comes first. Let’s do what it takes to win and not let our progressive wish list blind us to the importance of winning elections.
6
Any winning immigration policy starts with legal immigration, a party censure of sanctuary cities, those here illegally (without criminal records) getting back in the citizenship queue, and providing real resources to address those seeking sanctuary. We are either a society of laws or not.
Trump will flog the Dems with immigration...further divide us...and win. That is why we are knee deep in "the Wall". Anyone wanting to be a US citizen should understand and respect this. It is, in part, why they wish to be here.
Throw in Medicare for all, compulsory voting, Real ID as a national identity document, reducing military spending, and a return to progressive tax rates, and creating a jobs program that leads to jobs with a future...and you are getting somewhere.
Get rid of the Super Delegates and it's even better. Why vote if a party hack can overturn the outcome of your vote?
Be for something, Dems.
3
AOC is the best breath of fresh air this country has had in a very long time. Although vehemently opposed to the death penalty, I could see my way to forgiveness on single issues to appease the more hesitant of our electorate. I am hoping for all the states to try at least one Democratic senator resulting in a 60 plus majority as well as a strong majority in the house. A little court packing and these creaking old bones would get to marching for some real progress.
3
I think this article underscores the incredible opportunity available to the left if they pick a radical democratic socialist candidate. If they are already winning the college educated crowd that is gentrifying these major urban areas and losing the poorer minority crowd that is voting for people like the Clinton's over Sanders or Crowley over AOC; we are getting the people whom one would think would be less incentivized to vote for our platform and we can gain the people who would benefit more from our platform.Therefore, it is really just a question of exposure and talking to these people. Reaching out to minorities; talking about mass-incarceration, how it disproportinately affects precisely these minority voters that we have to gain; and how the moderate democrats have been benefiting economically and politically from the chaos and inequities in these communities for years. It is a question of messaging. Minorities are our natural allies. They are disproportinately affected by the inequality; and as soon as we can reach them; tell them that there brothers, husbands, sons are coming home, and that we have a job for them to support their family when they do, that is a huge % of voters that will swing our way, and accelerate the pace of our revolution--and what critics will come to remember as the end of their decadence and control over all facets of society, to the detriment of everyone else. The end is coming--and a new, better society is on the verge of being reborn
5
@nickgregor
You're right only if FDR was a radical. He wasn't. Returning to our FDR/Truman/LBJ Ross is where it's at. Obama rules!
These 'new' ideas are not new, nor are they 'progressive democrats'', nor are they even the democratic party's per se. More importantly, the 'issue', for which no one has come up with a solution, is the same -- how are we going to pay for this all? The GAO reported in '16 that Sander's proposal for payment was completely unsustainable. Similarly, Cortez's plan for a tax rate of 70% of earnings (not capital gains) over $10mm per annum does not come close to funding 'medicare for all', 'free collage/trade school', and 'the New Green Deal'. Our military is a 'jobs program' rooted in certain state's economy -- it is going to be very difficult to substantially reduce those expenditures any time soon. The purpose of government is governance -- what politician is going to have the integrity and cujones to tell the American people that we need these 'liberal' policies, but that every single one of us is going to have to contribute, even those at the far lower income strata? Are we all willing to work longer in life and live in much smaller houses/apartments to do what is necessary? If the answer is yes, then and only then can any of us claim the moral high ground. Until then, it's just empty rhetoric for political gain and personal Aggrandizement of so-called progressives.
9
@Giacomo That's right, this country can afford trillions for the Pentagon system--the military-industrial complex, to coin a phrase--and foolishly criminal wars, but it can't afford national health insurance, something that some industrialized countries have had since the late 19th century. Anybody who thinks these ideas are "radical" or "leftist" clearly understands nothing about politics.
8
Arghh. This “we can’t afford it” argument is nonsense. Tax the wealthiest at much higher rates. Prioritize spending differently. Of course we can afford to be a more fair society.
1
@Tammy
Excellent. What is the name of the politician and where is her/his plan for taxation posted for public review? Exactly, there aren't any.
You missed the point completely... it's not that we can't afford it, it's that no one has the political will, integrity, and math skills to actually make the numbers work. (Google Vermont's attempt to pay for state-wide healthcare in '15.)
Both Sander's and Cortez's tax plans (eg, 'taxing the wealthiest at much high rates') will not be enough to pay for what they both preach (and the country needs).
So again Tammy, what politician is going to have the integrity and cujones to tell the American people that we need these 'liberal' policies, but that every single one of us is going to have to contribute, even those at the far lower income strata? Until then, it's just empty rhetoric for political gain and personal aggrandizement of so-called progressives.
Bernie and AOC don't seem all that radical to me for the reason this op-ed points out -- I grew up in a New Deal Democratic family. My Grampa was an electrician supervisor for the City of Chicago and my Granma was a legal secretary. They wanted universal health care and free education and jobs for all. Those things made sense then, and they make sense now. They provide solutions to the deep problems of our society, so who wouldn't want them? We've had a lab test -- other than actual jobs for all Northern Europe has these things and we don't. Neo-liberalism, its Pay-Go formula for government, and its benefits for the rich fails on most counts except producing massive inequality and concentrated wealth. Bernie voters want solutions to inequality and climate change, and they are readily available if government can be wrested from the hands of Republicans like Trump and neo-liberals.
33
Americans are much more liberal than they have historically voted, thanks to the nefarious Grand Old Poison that destroys the judgement of voters when they turn on FOX News, hate radio and other Grand Old Propaganda outlets of disinformation, fear and loathing.
Most Americans supported the details of the ACA while Obama was President, but that support dropped significantly when the ACA was called 'Obamacare', which is a term that is a low-grade racial slur in the minds of America's Whites R Us voters.
77% – including 69% of Republicans – favor allowing people to buy health insurance through Medicare once they turn 50.
75% – including 64% of Republicans – favor allowing people who aren’t covered by their employer to buy insurance through their state’s Medicaid program.
74 % – including 47% of Republicans – favor a national government plan like Medicare that is open to anyone, but also would allow people to keep the coverage they have.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/23/medicare-for-all-support-kaiser-poll/2645166002/
The majority of Americans favor progressive policies but many don't vote for them due to Pachyderm Spongiform Encephalopathy that gives them Mad Republican Cow disease in the voting booth.
What Edsall fails to mention is that America has been radically hijacked to the right for 39 years by gun nuts, religious nuts, science-deniers, corporate supremacists and the radical rich.
It's well past time for a leftward lurch to the center.
253
@Socrates
I'm reminded of a poll I saw several years ago that presented positions on issues without attaching them to any individual politician or affixing labels of party or ideology. The pol aimed to express the issue in neutral language without dog whistles or buzzwords. When the pollsters had the data, they looked for the member of Congress whose positions best reflected the view of the majority of respondents. It was Dennis Kucinich, the scary liberal socialist bogeyman of his day.
35
@C Wolfe
Wow. Funky Irishman has been, for many months, writing about and presenting excellent data showing that the US is actually a center-left (if not strongly progressive) country. I used to present this evidence to Richard Luettgen (where has he gone??) who kept insisting we are center-right (but never, as was his custom, presented any evidence for this).
your example is the best I've ever seen. I'm a member of a 4000-strong Facebook group, the "Rational Republicans" (seriously - a local attorney with a decidedly liberal bent started it and almost beat regressive Patrick McHenry here in Asheville). I've been making this point on the FB page for the past year and people are stunned when they see the numbers.
I'm going to post your example as well. Excellent!
12
@don salmon
Richard Luettgen expired Dec. 1 2018 at age 63.
Here is his NYT obituary.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/21/reader-center/a-tribute-to-a-prolific-times-commenter.html
4
The Republican Party used to be a moderate political party that was fully capable of governing. Over the years, the right wing of the party assumed control and they became a radically conservative party that basically hated government and did nothing for the benefit of average Americans. As a result, many voters came to believe that a more liberal stance was preferred to what the Republicans had become. Basically, the Republican Party veered sharply to the right and went off and left a lot of their earlier supporters, like me.
6
Ideology fails when it meets reality. Trump and McConnell are busy teaching the American middle class what it is to be reduced to poverty - health care they can't afford, rising taxes on those who have had some economic success, elimination of well paying jobs, and on and on. Those voters are understandably interested in pocket book issues, the resurgence of progressive candidates meets this newly emphasized need.
In addition, look at the population demographics. The baby boomers were a "bump" in population, they in turn have produced a new bump in their children, who are now adults. The boomers were quite left, their children have inherited some of this belief system - equal rights and protection and support of those with less opportunity.
The voters in general are also completely fed up with politicians lying to them and taking away their benefits. They generally have a mistrust both of the right wing destruction of our norms, and the Democrats failure to fight back (Garland should have been appointed even in the face of McConnell's calumny). The new face of the Democratic party feeds pocketbook issues, a belief that America is, in fact, a melting pot, and the need for restoration of our Democracy. This pretty much covers all the bases, the Democrats just need to get better at educating the populace.
5
I lived in Europe for a long time. Not even most right wing parties there wish to abolish universal healthcare, replace low or tuition-free colleges with college debt, etc.
The US has politically drifted far to the right when the center Democrats were in charge. Now Trump is lurching the country to extreme raw capitalism at the cost of national debt, even our environment and climate, Democrats need to stop incrementalism. Simple as that.
34
@LizTime to rock the boat.
1
You have to accept some of this polling data with a grain of salt. Most of the population has no idea what “moderate,” “slightly liberal,” or extremely liberal mean. These tend to be labels that signify how closely people feel attached to other people on the left side of the ideological spectrum. The same is true, btw, of people on the right.
The odd thing is that if you ask Trump voters about the economic policies they favor, they generally agree that social security ought to be expanded, that the government has an obligation to see that everyone has medical care, that taxes on the rich should be higher and that we ought to be spending more money, not less on education. Where you see a divergence is on issues tightly aligned with Trump and on matters that touch on racial resentment. Trump voters do not favor cuts in spending on the poor, though they do support cuts in “welfare.”
The moral of the story is that a strategic Democratic politician who can speak to these Trump voters on a policy level or at the level of values—I’m thinking Sharrod Brown—may be able to win in 2020 with a landslide.
9
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, as is well documented here and throughout world media, prefers spotlights and baffling interviews to opening her district office and serving her electorate.
As with every other media creation, the shiny star that it has made of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez will fade soon. The arc of her House career will as well.
8
@JBC, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez was voted into congress and then the media took notice. It wasn’t the other way around.
My only hope is that she stays the course.
25
@David J
I wonder if it would be acceptable to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez' electorate for her to stay a course which precludes opening a district office that other newly-elected Representatives have accomplished. Either she is ill-informed (uninformed?) about how to open the office to which she was elected to occupy, or she prefers a course which is simply jumping from talk show to talk show.
Regardless of which came first, the Representative evidently prefers spotlight to service.
1
@JBCWrong, Trump did not fade, but became president.
We need to be careful what we refer to as left. Is the concept that we have access to affordable housing, healthcare, and decent jobs really a position of the far left? Not really. The 1944 progressives saw access to basic life as a right of all people. This is why young educated progressives support policies that encourage success within the unregulated capitalist economy that has been created over the last 40 years. The evidence illustrates that federal and state governments need to help people survive, otherwise we are looking at massive amounts of inequality that affect the economy and ultimately affect the very people, the extremely rich, who support deregulation.
6
Edsall writes with his normal studious care, and makes some good points. Still, I am growing weary of these “Democrats should be careful and move back to the center” opinions. Trump showed us that the old ‘left-right-center’ way of thinking is no longer applicable. These progressive policies appeal to a broad majority of Americans not because of their ideological position, but because so many are suffering and are ready to give power to representatives who will finally fight for working families. Policies like medicare for all are broadly popular because the health insurance system is broken and most people are fed up and ready to throw the greedy bums out. We’ve been trying the technocratic incrementalism strategy for too long, with too little to show for it. Bold integrity is exactly what we need.
41
@Loren Guerriero Amen!! It seems as if the MO of the "progressives" has been to coddle right-wing ideas to get along...and, probably, to be on the contributors gravy train. I'll never forgive Clinton for his acquiescing to the destruction of oversight on the financial industry. Thieves run rampant when there are no controls.
1
I think the Internet has provided an influx of new understanding for the American left. They’ve learned that things considered radical here are considered unexceptional in the rest of the developed world. There is a realization that the only reason these are not normal here is because of a lack of political will to enact them. That will is building as the ongoing inequities are splashed across the front pages and the twitter feeds. It is the beginning of the end for American exceptionalism (a term coined by Stalin as America resisted the wave of socialism spreading around the world in the early 20th century). Unbridled capitalism lasted longer than communism but only because its costs were hidden longer. We need to find the sustainable middle path that allows for entrepreneurship along with a strong social safety net (and environmental protection). This new crop of progressive Democrats (with strong electoral backing) might lead the way.
21
Finally, the left came out of its hibernation. We have spent the last decade or more either sleeping or hiding, while at the same time, the Tea Party, the Freedom Caucus, Trump, and his minions were taking over our government---It is such a breath of fresh air to finally listen to airwaves filled with outrage over CEO's making millions of dollars an hour, of companies that have become monopolies, of tax plans that bring back the middle class---it took us a while, but we are back.
48
@Amanda Jones
Hope you are correct. Still there are the 40% of Democrats who are not Liberals, are they secret Republicans? and the 80% of Democrats who are not progressive.
If you're not progressive you just sit there and that's regressive when the Republicans are marching for the alt-Right.
3
@Fourteen, I have been a Democrat for all of the 30 years I have been voting. I consider myself “progressive’ish.” I think there are some good ideas coming out but I think there are some lousy (impractical) ideas, too. This “you’re either 100% with us, or your against us” attitude is going to alienate many other Democrats like myself who are not far left on the spectrum but sure as heck would never identify anything close to resembling a Republican. So go ahead, alienate us. Many will still vote Democrat but don’t put your hand out asking for campaign contributions when you tell us to go to the other side because we are not 100% progressive or liberal.
1
Younger candidates, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, appeal to younger voters. John Kennedy appealed to WWII veterans, most of whom were in their 30s when they elected him. One of the reasons for Barack Obama's support in 2008 among younger voters is that he was a younger candidate and they identified with a younger candidate. That appeal to a younger electorate will play a larger role in future elections.
Don't focus too strongly on issues. Democrats will win by a landslide in 2020 if they nominate a younger candidate that can inspire younger voters.
November 3, 2020.
19
@OldBoatMan
AOC appeals to more than just the younger voters. She appeals to everyone who is tired of catering to the loony right.
Focusing on issues is exactly what she's done, and should continue to do.
Kind of make sense considering how far to the right the Republican Party has gone with the Donald. And he’s a guy who was a Democrat at one point. He’s a dangerous mr nobody. Let’s counter going far to the left so we can come back to some middle ground.
4
These so-called liberal and progressive ideas aren't new. They work now in other countries and have so for many, many years, but the rich keep screaming capitalism good, socialism bad all the while slapping tariffs on products and subsidizing farmers who get to pretend that this is somehow still a free market. It's fun to watch my neighbors do mental gymnastics to justify why subsidizing soy bean farmers to offset the tariffs is a strong free market, but that subsidizing solar panels and healthcare is socialism AKA the devil's work.
All of this underscores the reality that, much like geography, Americans are terrible with economics.
75
The meanings of these labels--liberal, left, center, conservative--, and of the spectrum along which they supposedly lie, changes year to year, and most pundits and politicians seem to use them to suit their own purposes. When you realize that a significant group of people voted for Obama and then for Trump, you realize how radically the politics of the moment can redefine the terms.
The Democrats could create a narrative that unites the interests of all economically disadvantaged people, including white people. Doing so would create a broad majority and win elections, but it would arouse the fury of the oligarchs, who will demonize them as "socialists." But as Obamacare proved, if actually you do something that helps people across the board even the Republicans and the media will have a hard time convincing people that they are oppressed, for example, by access to health insurance. For the oligarchs, as for the Republicans, success depends on creating a narrative that pits the middle class against the poor. In its current, most vulgar form, this includes pitting disadvantaged white people against all the rest, but the Republicans have an advantage in that their party is united behind the narrative. Democratic politicians may be united against Trump, but that means nothing. The challenge will be uniting the politicians who run on economic justice with the establishment Democrats who have succeeded by hiding their economic conservativism behind identity politics.
8
"These “big, bold leftist ideas” pose a strategic problem."
No they don't. The Real Problem is the non-thinking non-Liberal 40% of Democrats and their simpatico Republicans who are programmed to scream, "How will we pay for all that?"
Don't they know all that money will just be stolen?
They were silent when that money was stolen by the 0.1% for the Tax Giveaway (they're now working on tax giveaway 2.0) and by the military-industrial complex (to whom Trump gave an extra $200,000,000,000 last year), various boondoggle theft-schemes like the Wall, the popular forever Wars (17 years of Iraq/Afghanistan has cost $2,400,000,000,000 (or 7 times WW2)), and the Wall Street bailouts.
Don't those so-called Democrats realize whose money that was?
First of all, it's our money. And second, our money "spent" on the People is a highly positive investment with a positive ROI.
Compare that to money thrown into the usual money pits which has no return at all - except more terrorists for the military, more income inequality for the Rich, and Average incomes of $422,000 for Wall Street.
When the People's money is continually stolen, how can anyone continue to believe that we're living in a democracy?
41
It’s funny to watch people shocked when she makes her proposal. Her ideas are very old and have worked in the past in various cultures.
But the point that she can voice them is because she can. Her people put her there because she said those things with their approval.
She reflects her community ideals. Just like Steve King.
12
Ok, from the perspective of a rural white midwest retiree independent with post graduate education, the issues weren't the democrats moving to the left, it was the Republican party turning right (and they show no signs of stopping). Who is against an equal opportunity for an equal quality education for everyone? My college costs years ago could be met with a barely minimum wage job and low cost health insurance provided by the school and I could graduate without debt even from graduate school. Seeing what years of Republican rule did to our college and university systems with a raise in tuition almost every year while legislative support declined every year, who is happy with that? Unions that used to provide a majority of the apprenticeships in good jobs in the skilled were killed by a thousand tiny cuts passed by Republicans over the years. The social safety net that used to be a hand up became an ever diminishing hand out. What happened is those that had made it even to the middle class pulled the ladder up behind them, taking away the self same advantages they had in the past and denying future generations the opportunity. The young democrats and independents coming along see this all too clearly.
79
@tom, I was a 60's/70's kid. So I know the glories of the middle class as well as you do. I for one did not pull the ladder up behind me-- I have voted for every tax I could to benefit the many, since my first election, then at age 21. I volunteered in local public schools to make them best in class-- not for MY kid only, but for ALL kids. As far as these younger people, where was the leading edge of them as the GOP and then Obama launched us into disastrous wars in the middle east? Silent bystanders as their peers rushed off into a fool's mission, wasting our (THEIR) blood and treasure. Please recall it was US-- the baby boomers-- who brought down the disastrous Vietnam policy and kept us out of a draft and wars of choice for a long time to follow. So let's not over-congratulate those "coming along" until we see them actually accomplishing something.
3
Chock full of very interesting data, but we tend to to believe Zeitz's conclusion that Dems are just returning to their roots, following the spectacular 2008 failures that saw no prosecutions - in starkest contrast to the S&L failure and boatload of bankers charged:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/magazine/only-one-top-banker-jail-financial-crisis.html
To the extent this primary voter data is replicated across the country in Dem primaries, and not just the AOC and Ayana Pressley races, we could be convinced some massive swing is occurring in Dem primary results. Until then, we tend to believe that the cycle of 30-50 House seats which swing back and forth as Dem or GOP from time to time (not the exact same 30-50 districts each cycle, but about 30-50 in total per election cycle or two) is a continuation of a long-term voting trend.
Unpacking the egregious GOP'er gerrymandering, as is the goal of Eric Holder and Barack Obama:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/us/politics/voting-gerrymander-elections.html
which has blunted Dem voter effects, will be of far more consequence - get ready !
9
Isn't this somehow the natural swing of things? Years of heavy-handed politics benefitting small minorities on the right have taken their toll, so now new ideas are up at bat.
By the way, these ideas aren't really that bold at all - many countries have living minimum wages or mandatory healthcare, and are thriving, with a much happier population. Only in the context of decades-long, almost brainwash-like pounding of these ideas as 'Un-American' or 'socialist' can they be seen as 'bold'.
American exeptionalism has led to a seriously unbalanced and dangerously threatened social contract.
Tell me again, Republicans: why is a diverse, healthy and productive population living under inspiration instead of constant fear so bad?
17
The New Democratic approach in essence is taking wealth and redistributing it, along with promising free goods and services. Is that high-minded or simply a Brave New World. The underlying assumption seems to be the rest of America will not find that worrisome, and that what happened in MA and NY represents a nationwide trend.
5
@LTJ
No one is promoting ''free stuff'' - what is being proposed is that people/corporations pay into a system Progressively upwards (especially on incomes above 10,000,000 dollars per year) that allowed them and gave them the infrastructure to get rich in the first place.
I am sure you would agree that people having multiple homes, cars, and luxury items while children go hungry in the richest nation in the world is obscene on its face.
Aye ?
37
@FunkyIrishman I propose that ecologically unsound urban areas become self-supporting or disaggregate, rather than relying on food and water being shipped in from outlying areas. And I leave it to others to be the judge and jury of what level of wealth is “fair,” and what should be taken.
2
@LTJ
Tell me -- do the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq count as "free goods and services", since we chose to print money to finance them, rather than pay for those pointless military adventures with tax hikes? Or what about farm subsidies and leasing of public lands for way below market price? That's not paid for either -- we're running a $1 trillion deficit, if you haven't noticed.
Am not sure what terrible things happened in MA and NY, but all but the very rich are far better off in those states than their counterparts in most of the rest of the low tax/low service states. And you don't see many NYC and Boston billionaires relocating to Utah unless maybe they intend to run for the Senate.
3
I am confused about what message, what issues resonate with the "moderate" people who are disaffected from the liberal message of the Democrats on the left. What policies would bring them to vote Democratic, what is it about health care for all, a living wage and opening the voting process to all people are they opposed to.
Is it policy or message that has them wavering?
6
"The most active wing of the Democratic Party — the roughly 20 percent of the party’s electorate that votes in primaries and wields disproportionate influence over which issues get prioritized — has moved decisively to the left."
Yet it seems that you feel that the party should ignore them and move to the center right in order to capture suburban Republican women, who will revert back to the Republican party as soon as (and if) it regains something resembling sanity.
Do you seriously think that its worth jettisoning what you describe as "the most active wing of the party" for that?
10
@Cwnidog, you misread Mr Edsall, I fear.
@Perspective: I can only read what he writes and put it in the context of past columns. As such, I respectfully disagree with you.
The "experts" offering advice here seem to have forgotten that Hillary Clinton listened to them in 2016: the party decided that appealing to suburban Republicans and Jeb Bush voters was more important than exciting the Democratic party base.
The other hazard of calculated politics is that the candidate is revealed to be a phony, believing in nothing but power or that it's simply "her turn" -- an uncompelling program for a voter.
15
@jrd Oh, just stop it already with the "her turn" (sneer quotes yours) canard. Hillary Clinton never once suggested it was her "turn" to run, nor did any of her supporters. Yet the haters started trotting that one out in 2008, cut and pasted it all the way through the 2016 election, and seem to have never tired of it. (Reminds me of the folks who continue to insist that Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet.)
There is a difference between posturing as a leader and actually leading. So, there is another, and very direct, way for real Americans to end the shutdown: Recall petitions. With very little money, why not target Mitch McConnell. Laid off federal workers could go door-to-door in Kentucky. The message, not just to the Senate majority leader, would be powerful. And this need not be limited. There are some easy targets among GOP senators. Perhaps Ms. Ocasio-Cortez can achieve greater national standing with a clipboard and pen down on the hustings.
7
For so long (40+ years) the political spectrum has been pulled wildly and radically to the right across so many issues.
The Democratic party has for the most part ''triangulated'' their stances accordingly to essentially go along with republicans and corporate interests for a bargain of even more tax/corporate giveaways to hold the line on social issues or programs.
It has now gotten to the point that continuous war has been waged for two (2) decades and all the exorbitant costs that go along with that. There has been cut, after cut after cut whereas some people and businesses are not paying any taxes at all now.
Infrastructure, social spending and education are all suffering because the cupboard is now bare in the greatest and most richest country in the world.
It just came out the other day that ONLY (26) people have as much wealth as the bottom half of the entire world's population. That amount of wealth in relation to dwindling resources of our planet and crushing poverty for billions is abjectly obscene on so many levels.
Coupled with all of the above, is the continued erosion of human rights. (especially for women and dominion over their own bodies)
People are realizing that the founding fathers had a vision of a secular and Progressive nation and are looking for answers and people that are going to give it to them.
They are realizing that the Democratic party is the only party that will stand up for them and be consistent for all.
48
A O-C has yet to open a district office. A O-C is more interested in "national" issues and exposure than those of her district. What A O-C may have forgotten is that it is her district and constituents that have to re-elect her in less than 2 tears (or not):
"Would you rather have a Congress member with an amazing local services office, or one that leads nationally on issues?” she queried her 1.9 million followers on Instagram — a number that is well over twice the population of her district. The results strongly favored national issues."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/nyregion/aoc-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-district-office.html
As Mr. Edsall points out, her district is not necessarily progressive and liberal and while there may be national issues, at the bottom line, many of her instagram groupies are not her constituents.
Democrats like to constantly point out that Ms. Clinton won the popular vote, and she was the non-liberal-progressive Democrat.
I am sure that the Republicans pray for the success of the Democratic left. They seek to give voice to that left. That will bring the swing votes right back to or over to the Republicans, without, but possibly even with Mr. Trump (if the Democrats cross a left-wing tipping point).
Bottom line, instagram is fine and likes are great, twitter is good for snappy answers, but representatives to the House have to deliver to their district and constituents. A O-C leads, but to the salvation of the Republican party.
17
@Joshua Schwartz M. Ocasio-Cortez explained on The Late Show the other night that the reason she has not opened her district office is due to the Government Shutdown. The people charged with setting up the office are on furlough, the money for the office is being held up and she staff or furnish the office.
17
@Marc
Except that’s outright false. Offices are open. All the other new Congress members from New York are setup and taking care of people.
She doesn’t care about constituent service. She revels in the media attention, but isn’t getting anything done even in the background.
NY has three Congress members (Lowey, Serrano, Meng) whose under-appreciated work on the appropriations committee actually helps ensure our region’s needs and liberal priorities are reflected in federal spending.
Meanwhile Ocasio Cortez is working on unseating Democrats incumbents she deems insufficiently leftist e.g. Cuellar, Jeffries.
Who needs Republicans when you have Socialists trying to destroy the Democratic Party.
12
@Joshua Schwartz
"A O-C is more interested in "national" issues and exposure than those of her district. What A O-C may have forgotten is that it is her district and constituents that have to re-elect her in less than 2 tears (or not)..."
Just want to compare and contrast that with Ayanna Pressley, who has a laser focus on her district.
"My process begins with the residents of the MA-7 congressional district. They are my greatest counsel and my stewards in how I vote, and in what legislation that I introduce. It’s by actively listening to them that I better understand not only the nuance and the complexity of the problem, but usually where I find the solutions. "
As long as she continues to walk that talk, it should assuage any doubts i may have about her.
2
They will all face primary challengers in 2020. Tlaib and Omar didn’t even win a majority of the primary vote. There were so many candidates running in those primaries, they only managed a plurality.
And let’s be honest about the demographic changes in the districts Pressley and Ocasio Cortez won. They went from primarily ethnic White to minority majority. Both women explicitly campaigned on the premise that their identity made them more representative of the district than an old White male incumbent. Let’s not sugarcoat what happened: they ran explicitly racist campaigns. They won with tribalism, not liberal values.
Democrats actually need more candidates like Lucy McBath, Antonio Delgado, and Kendra Horn if they want to retain Congressional control and change policy. And many minorities and immigrants aren’t interested in the far left faction. We don’t have a problem with Obama and a moderate approach to social democracy.
15
There are two points left out of all of the analysis of both Pressley's and Ocasio-Cortez's campaigns.
First of all, both women did old fashioned retail politics, knocking on doors, sending out postcards, gathering as many volunteers as they could and talking about the issues with voters face to face. They took nothing for granted. This is precisely what Crowley and Capuano did not do.
Second, they actually listened to the voters regarding what they needed and wanted in Congressional representation.
What both of the stand for is neither Liberal or Conservative. What they stand for human values.
This is not to say that Capuano and Crowley did not stand for these same values, but they took the voter for granted. That is how you lose elections.
The Democrats are going back to their roots. They have found that the Mid-terms proved that issues of Health Care, minimum wages, good educations for all despite economic circumstances, and how important immigration is to this country really matter to the voters.
They need to be braver in getting this across before the next election
And the press might want to start calling the candidates Humane, period.
22
@Jean Yes, definitely. The question about serving the people, all of the people, should not if, but HOW.
A majority of Americans, including independent voters and some Republicans favor Medicare for all, a Green New Deal, and higher taxes on the rich. While Trump has polarized voters around race, Ocasio-Cortez is polarizing around class—the three-fourths of Americans working paycheck to paycheck against the 1 percenters and their minions in both parties. Reading the tea leaves of polls and current Democratic Party factions as Edsall does, is like obsessing about Herbert Hoover’s contradictory policies that worsened the Depression. If Ocasio-Cortez becomes bolder and calls for raising the business taxes and closing tax incentives, infrastructure expansion, and federal jobs guarantee, she’ll transform the American political debate from the racist wall meme to the redistribution of wealth and power America needs.
115
@Bruce Shigeura
AOC in some ways is doing what Bernie was doing—mobilizing people around class as you say—but the difference is that AOC doesn't shy away from issues of racial justice. Bernie seemed to want to unite people by ignoring issues of race, as if he was afraid that mentioning race too much might drive Whites away. AOC seems able to hold whites on the class issue while still speaking to the racial justice issues that are important to non-Whites. She's an extraordinary phenomenon: smart, engaging, articulate and with personal connections to both the White and Non-White worlds, so she threatens neither and appeals to both.
18
Labels such as ‘liberal” fail to characterize the political agenda articulated by Bernie Sanders. By style and substance, Sanders represented a departure from the hum-drum norm. Is something wrong about aspiring to free college education in an era when student debt totals $1.5 trilliion? His mantle falls to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her followers.
One hundred years ago, American progressivism was spawned by Robert La Follette. As governor and senator from Wisconsin, and as failed third party candidate for president, La Follette called for laws to protect youth from horrendous labor practices. He called for laws to protect civil rights. In time, many of La Follette’s positions became mainstream. Will history repeated itself? Maybe.
The rise of “liberalism” in the Democratic Party is therapeutic, as evidenced by youthful audiences who attended the Sander’s rallies. Increasing voter turnout will take back government from a minority that undermines the essence of a democratic system. A Democratic counterbalance to the Republican “Freedom Caucus” may appear divisive to some. To others, it offers a path to the future.
105
@Stu Sutin
I agree, "Liberal" is too broad a term, as so-called liberals do not agree on everything, especially the degree. We can be socially liberal, while economically moderate--or vice versa. Some believe in John Maynard Keynes economics, but appose abortion. Some want free college tuition, while others support public schools but do not support the public paying for higher education. Our foreign policy beliefs often differ greatly. What joins us is a belief in a bottom up economy, not top down--and a greater belief in civil liberties and a greater distribution of wealth. Beyond that, our religious and cultural beliefs often differ.
21
@Stu Sutin
"Is something wrong about aspiring to free college education in an era when student debt totals $1.5 trilliion?"
Yes. If you're the Congressperson who gets his/her funding from the lenders.
18
@Billy Thank you, Billy, for your thoughtful comments. I agree 100% with your view.
Stu Sutin
1
I’m a very moderate Democrat -liberal on social issues and very supportive of free global trade- who would vote for any of the current Democrats over Trump, but would leave the party if AOC’s ideas became the norm.
I don’t have a problem in principle with a 70% top marginal tax rate or AOC’s Green New Deal- Meaning, these aren’t moral issues for me per se. I just believe they would bankrupt the economy and push us into a chaos far worse than what we’re seeing under Trump.
21
@Cass You are forgetting that the best economy we had was post WW2 when the top rate was 90% and corporate CEO's made reasonable incomes not the obscene pay of today.
Additionally, the negative economic impact of global warming will make us regret not addressing it sooner and leave the bottom 50% far worse off then they are now. So, we need to consider both a higher marginal rate and the green new deal very seriously before it is too late.
4
@Albert Petersen
The top marginal tax rate should be what it needs to be in order to maximize economic growth in any particular year- That may be 35%, or 70%, or 90%. But, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez seems to be throwing out numbers arbitrarily based on what she feels is "just," rather than on what makes the optimal economic sense.
Second, a green new deal is a wonderful thing. Her green new deal- having 100% of the cars, trucks, airplanes and busses running on 100% electric within ten years would require increasing mining in the Congo for cobalt by an order of magnitude, among other things. It's literally physically impossible to attain in such a short amount of time. By 2050? Sure. 2030? No way, Jose.
3
@Cass You may self-identify as a moderate but you sound like a conservative. Please go join the other party of no ideas if AOC strikes you as radical. The majority of Democrats don't agree with you.
5
Ocasio-Cortez is selling her politics as the other side of the Trump economic pendulum. Many of Ocasio-Cortez & Donald Trump’s supporters reasons for mobilizing stems from perceiving two linked fears, Cortez's base’s fear of being taken advantage of & Trump’s supporter’s fear of under producing for lack of opportunities. Creating a way, a path, for us to work with citizens and government in a format that eliminates these ingrained fears by understanding both supply & demand should be the singular goal of a virtuous politician instead of the divide and conquer approach both Trump and Cortez implement. On the demand side, the commons situation encourages a race to the bottom by overuse—what economists call a congested–public-good problem. On the supply side, the commons rewards free-rider behavior—removing or diminishing incentives for individual actors to invest in developing more output. Regardless which side you're on, for most it seems we have 3 choices. 1. Live in the sea of mud many think we have today. 2. Actors with coercive power have to enforce an allocation policy on behalf of the people (A.O.C.’s socialist solution). 3. the people to break up as village members, fence-off bits they can defend & manage sustainably. (Trump’s physical and metaphysical wall) Instead of Cortez pandering to her constituent’s fear by mimicking Trump’s non-virtuous approach, Americans should seek to make open-source cooperation sustainable similar to what programmers do with software.
1
One could argue that many of these ideas are not that far left - rather it's a result of more and more Americans realizing that WE are not the problem. Clean water and air, affordable health care and affordable education are not that radical.
50
"This will be difficult, given the fact that what is being proposed is a much larger role for government, and that those who are most in need of government support are in the bottom half of the income distribution and disproportionately minority — in a country with a long racist history."
True enough, but if progressives want actual people in that bottom half to lead happier lives, the focus of any programs should not be to employ armies in left-leaning and self-perpetuating "agencies," but rather to devise policies to help people develop the self-discipline to:
A) finish high school,
B) postpone the bearing of children until marriage (not as a religious construct but as a practical expression of commitment to the child's future), and;
C) Find and get a regular job.
These are supported by what objective, empirical data we have.
These have not struck me as objectives of the rising left in the Democratic party. Mostly, I see endless moral preening, and a tribal demonizing of the "other," just exactly as they accuse the "other." In this case the "other" is we insufficiently "woke" but entirely moderate white folks who still comprise a plurality of Americans.
I see success on the left as based primarily on an ability to express performative outrage. But remember, you build a house one brick at a time, which can be pretty boring, and delivers no jolt of dopamine as would manning the barricades, but which results in a warm, dry, comfortable place to live.
19
@D I Shaw I think the precise point is that would much easier to do A,B, and C if there were universal health care, job guarantees, and clean water to drink. It is much easier to make good long-term decisions when you aren't kept in a state of perpetual desperation.
9
@Roger
I agree that universal health care and security in old age make it much easier for people to live responsible lives. Beyond that???
Right there with some sort of universal health care, to the extent that it does not just enrich providers and insurers at the expense of everyone else. No one wants to be ill, so that addresses the moral hazard of health insurance on the part of the insured.
Right there with social security, as originally conceived. No one wants to get old and infirm. Not so much with its expansion to accommodate the self-interest of its administrators or its beneficiaries who learn to game the rules to avoid taking responsibility for themselves.
As for higher education, it would be much less expensive if the price were not jacked up by "Deans of Diversity" who make more than professors. Or anyone else who does not teach, other than custodians, groundskeepers, etc.
Finally, job guarantees sound good until one observes people standing around doing next to nothing, gaming THAT system. Not to mention public works projects where people set out cones at the beginning of the morning rush and take them back at 7:00 PM. Need I say more?
So, start with orderly primary and secondary classrooms where students in EVERY neighborhood can learn. Lose the outrage about "systemic racism" and "disparate impact" and simply teach children FIRST, to restrain their own impulses in the their own larger interest, and THEN to use that discipline to learn everything else.
@D I Shaw
Good. Keep saying it.
And keep doing the parody of PoMo blather.
1
I think you look at all this in a vacuum. Democrats veered left because there was a need to counterbalance what was happening on the right. They see Republicans aggressively trying to undo all the gains the left had achieved the previous several decades. Civil rights, Womens' rights, anti-poverty efforts, and so on all not just being pushed to the right, but forced to the right with a bulldozer. It got to a tipping point where Democrats could clearly see the forest for the trees. A great deal of this was a result of Republicans inability to candy coat their agenda. Universal healthcare....not being replaced by affordable alternatives, but by nothing. Tax cuts that were supposed to help the middle class, but, as evidenced by the government shutdown, giving them no economic breathing room. And, in fact, making their tax cut temporary, something nearly impossible to reverse with such a high deficit. Attacking immigrants with no plan on who, actually, would do the work immigrants do. The list goes on and on. In the past, many social programs were put in place not so much to alleviate suffering as to silence the masses. Now Republicans feel the time has come to take it all back, offering easily seen through false promises as replacements. That the left should see the big picture here and say "Not so fast" should come as absolutely no surprise. All they need now is a leader eloquent enough to rally the masses.
30
The tensions between progressive and moderate positions, liberal and conservative positions in the Democratic Party and in independents, flow from and vary based on information on and an understanding of the issues. What seems to one, at first glance, radically progressive/liberal becomes more mainstream when one is better informed.
Take just one issue, Medicare for all, a progressive/liberal objective. At first glance people object based on two main points: costs and nefarious socialism.
How do you pay for Medicare for all? Will it add to the debt? Will socialism replace our capitalist economy?
People who have private medical insurance pay thousands in premiums, deductibles, co-pays each year. The private insurance is for profit, paying CEO's million dollar salaries and returns to stockholders. People paying these private insurance premiums would pay less for Medicare and have more in their own pockets.
Medicare for all is no more nefariously socialistic than social security. Has social security ended capitalism and made America a socialist country? I think not.
Is social security or Medicare adding to the national debt? Only if Congress will continue to play their tribal political games. These programs are currently solvent but definitely need tweaking to avoid near term shortfalls. A bipartisan commission could solve the long term solvency issues.
The more we know and understand about progressive/liberal ideas, the less radical they become. The solution is education.
72
@JABarry - Some data:
Canada has a program like Medicare for All, and its bottom line health care statistics are better than ours in spite of a worse climate. We paid $9506.20 per person for health care in 2016. In Canada, they paid $4643.70. If our system we as efficient as Canada's, we would save over $1.5 TRILLION each and every year. This is money that can be used for better purposes.
If one uses the bottom line statistics, we see that both Canada and the UK (real socialized medicine) do better than we do:
Life expectancy at birth (OECD): Canada- 81.9, UK - 81.1, US - 78.8
Infant Mortality (OECD)(Deaths per 1,000): Canada - 4.7, UK - 3.8, US - 6.0
Maternal Mortality (WHO): Canada - 7, UK - 9, US - 14
Instead of worrying how we would pay for it, we will have the problem of how to spend all the money we would save.
BTW can you point to a period where too high federal debt hurt the economy? In 1837 the federal debt as a percentage of GDP was 0%; it was 16% in October of 1929. Both were followed horrendous depression. It was 121% in 1946 followed by 27 years of Great Prosperity.
15
@JABarry Help me out since I'm new at this. Do you have any empirical data to support Social Security's sustainability? Do you have empirical data or a simplified argument for universal health care? I want this as much as you do. What I'm afraid of is people who rationalize their behavior because they're pursuing what they perceive as a noble cause only to realize the realities of the situation after the fact. In other words, I'm trying to avoid shooting my arrow at the direction I want to then painting a target (bullseye) around it. What is it that I don't see? Thanks in advance.
1
@Len Charlap
Quite simply Canada's healthcare quality is ranked 16th in the world, while ours is lower ranked at 23rd. And we pay twice as much.
That indicates some funny business going on.
13
I work with young adults in a university setting. The university I work for used to be really inexpensive. It is still realatively inexpensive and still a bargain. Most of the students have student loans. They can not make enough money in the summer or during the term to pay for tuition, fees, housing, and food. They need jobs that will pay enough to pay for those loans.
They also need portable health care. As the employer based health insurance gets worse, that portable health care becomes a necessity so they can move to where the jobs are.
So if a livable wage and universal health care are far left ideas then so be it. I am a leftist.
222
@Rich Pein
" .. So if a livable wage and universal health care are far left ideas then so be it. I am a leftist."
Those who "really care" about young people's wages, why don't they start businesses and hire them? Y'know -- walk the talk, not just talk-talk-talk?
What are those "leaders" waiting for? C'mon, do it "for the people," like Ms. Harris says! Now! Yes!
Its ok for a far right bigoted clown to be elected to the president and a tax cut crazy party that wants to have a full scale assault against the environment and force more medical related bankruptcies to be in charge? The safe candidate protected by 800 superdelegates in 2016 was met with a crushing defeat. The Democratic establishment wants a safe neo con corporatist democrat. Fair taxation and redistribution of wealth is not some far out kooky idea. The idea that the wealthiest Americans getaway with paying tax at 15%, if at all, is ruinous to the country. Especially since there is an insane compulsion to spend outlandish trillions on "national security". Universal health care would save the country billions of dollars. Medicare controls costs much more effectively than private insurers. As with defense the US spends billions more on health care than other countries and has worse medical outcomes. Gentrification has opened fissures in the Democrats. The wealthy price out other established communities. The problems of San Francisco and Seattle and other places with gentrification need to be addressed before an open fissure develops in the party.
52
@c harris - Hillary received almost 4 million more primary votes than Bernie.
5
I guess you skipped the part about gentrified districts voting progressive in 2018.
4
Are these really moves to the left, or only in comparison to the lurch further right by the republicans. What is wrong with affordable education, health care, maternal and paternal leave, and a host of other programs that benefit all people? Why shouldn't we have more progressive tax rates? These are not radical ideas.
460
@Matthew D.
Actually, her ideas are to the left of Switzerland, Germany and Denmark. So yes, they really are to the left.
A thoughtful green new deal is a great idea. Her particular green new deal, not very well thought out, would bankrupt the country and bring about more internal and global chaos than Trump.
Increasing the top marginal tax rates to the extent that is economically necessary is a fine idea. Increasing these rates to a percentage that “feels good “ is sloppy and could bring about the opposite results of what people would like.
These are radical ideas.
2
" .. This will be difficult, given the fact that what is being proposed is a much larger role for government, and that those who are most in need of government support are in the bottom half of the income distribution and disproportionately minority — in a country with a long racist history .."
Inconvenient fact, Mr. Edsall -- "government role" costs $$$.
USA taxpayer debt is 2x what it was in 2008. Even the USSR had debt limits -- look up their old bond records.
Money isn't "racist" -- it just is.
You're welcome, sir.
1
@Cass Her ideas are not the only ideas, they are a starting point for a discussion. You even appear to agree with this.
2
I think we should write off those Republican suburban women. They’re a fluke, a function of distaste for Trump. And by 2020, they’re probably going to revert to their mean (pun intended). Unlike many younger progressive women and minorities, they tend to have successful husbands. So not only do they not need government support the way we do, but government expansion poses a threat to their quality of life. And then you have the cultural aspect; as we increasingly expose the unbearable terribleness of white males, like we did with those monsters from Covington Catholic, they’re going to protect their sons and turn against the greater good.
This is why we need to make a stronger case to both our older fellow Dems and our minority Dems that this path to the far left is the best one. For the minorities I think we’re good. Is it possible to genuflect, to sanctify them, to wallow in guilt for being white any more than we already are? Some of them may roll their eyes at this for now, but once more of them see that they can extract material benefit from this I think they’ll come around. Right now it’s mainly just minority politicians who are taking advantage of this, but hopefully this spreads.
For the older moderates, we need to explain the sanctification and the guilt. So here it goes. I live in a gentrified hood. I’ve displaced minorities and they basically wait on me hand and foot. The fear that they’ll one day turn on me is real, hence the humility and genuflection.
2
I wonder how much 'oppo' the Republicans have on A.O.C., and are just holding it back for a more opportune time? She has been way to free a spirit up until now for there not to be oppo. Having jumped into the political arena on a whim, there's no way she was keeping her life as pristine as she likes to let on. Undoubtedly, she does talk about the most flattering 'escapades' in her life, but living in NYC for as long a she did under the radar so to speak. It's out there waiting.
2
@Richard Mclaughlin You are falling for the Republican's demonizing a new, left congresswoman and joining a now launched campaign to get rid of her. My guess is you are aligned with this approach and do not support her platform. She may fall but not because of her goals, but because of practices that should be beneath us.
1
@Richard Mclaughlin If they have none, they'll invent it. The party of Sen. Joe McCarthy, the John Birch Society, the 'swiftboaters', etc, are geniuses at the smear.
2
@Richard Mclaughlin As opposed to, say, the dirt the Russians have on Manhattanite billionaire playboy Trump?
1
You're missing something big here, sir. Capuano was a Clinton superdelegate in 2016 who declared well before the primaries (like all other Mass superdelegates, save for Warren who waited until well after the primaries.) Thereby in effect telling constituents that their vote was irrelevant, as they were willing to override it. Somerville went for Sanders 57% to 42%. Putting party over voters maybe isn't a great idea when 51% of voters in Massachusetts are registered Unenrolled (Independent) and can vote in primaries. Bit rich to signal that our votes don't matter, but then expect it later as it maybe actually does matter after all.
Pressley was all in for Clinton, which is of course suspect. But like me, she had only one vote.
12
This paragraph caught my eye: "One key Democratic target, Sawhill observes, is the “well-educated, suburban women, many of them Republican, who voted for Democrats in the midterms.” Once Trump is gone, she continued, “they could easily return to their natural home in the Republican Party.”
What constitutes the "natural home" for women in the republican party? Do women (or men for that matter) believe that republicans/conservatives want them to have affordable health care, child leave and child care, equal pay, and may I add, respect? Will republicans protect Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid? Anyone paying attention knows that women are second class citizens in Republoville. There it doesn't take a village, no. It's every man, woman and child for him/herself.
260
@mrfreeze6 I'm a woman who's also a registered Republican because at one point I felt that the Democratic party lost me on issues regarding foreign policy and support for business. While I'm not on board w the GOP's ideology on social issues (or Trump), the traditional Republican party tends to have more practical ideas around economic growth.
And the GOP doesn't "own" corporate welfare. For example, insurance companies lobbied heavily for the Affordable Care Act, which was pushed through Congress without input from across the aisle. Many Republicans were against ACA, not because they didn't feel that people should have healthcare, but that it doesn't address the reasons for driving up costs. Ask anyone who's been on one of these plans (not including Medicaid), and you'll understand why some people voted for Trump.
@In the know I’m formerly Republican, and female. I’m on the ACA, and while premiums were going up slowly, they’ve exploded in the past two years due to Republican sabatoge. They are certainly no reason to vote for Trump.
15
@In the know, Your party invented the fundamental ACA program. It was the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation that started this fiasco that you'd like to blame on Dems. Also, you simply cannot argue that the Republicans attempted to implement the program in good faith. They have done everything they can to sabotage it. In the end, Republicans don't want people to have affordable health care. It doesn't fit their "family-unfriendly" philosophy. Furthermore, the only real business-friendly ideas Republicans embrace are a) eliminate taxes, b) remove regulations, c) pay employees nothing. If you as a woman believe these are notions that strengthen you or your family, I'm at a total loss in understanding your reasoning.
9
"...what is being proposed is a much larger role for government, and that those who are most in need of government support are in the bottom half of the income distribution and disproportionately minority." Yes, quite true, but Donald Trump is demonstrating daily that the United States as a whole, not merely the "sum of its parts," cannot continue to survive as a national community without government as its basic function.
I don't really think that many Americans wish to do away with the system of capital, but, certainly now, with Trump, income inequality has surged to the forefront as the issue that concerns just about everyone--who is not wealthy--across the political spectrum.
I agree with the contributors to Mr. Edsall's article that women, especially Republican suburban women, are much more likely to return "to their home" after 2020. The danger for the Democrat who will challenge him next year, whomever he or she may be, as well as for the party in general, will be avoiding a drift to what many might fear will be the extreme left. The party must hew to the moderate center if it is to attract those who saw Donald Trump as flawed but acceptable, hoping that seasoned Republicans would rein him in. The president wrestled the party from the hierarchy and forced it to become something it always wanted to be but has now become politically vulnerable because most citizens see it now for what it really always was. They can't go back.
The "New Democrats" must be cautious.
2
@Red Sox, '04, '07, '13, ‘18,
"The party must hew to the moderate center if it is to attract those who saw Donald Trump as flawed but acceptable"
You are suggesting that Hillary should just try again.
"avoiding a drift to what many might fear will be the extreme left."
There is nothing extreme about the left. It's not extreme at all to vote for $15/hour and healthcare. That's getting back to normal. The so-called extreme left is normality. Nothing to fear but fear itself.
"The "New Democrats" must be cautious." Only if they want to lose again.
Pedal to the metal is what the People want and need. We want risk, not politics as usual. Risk and controversy get media attention and turnout and buzz.
Trump has changed everything, why is that difficult to understand? When there is change, you adapt or lose.
1
A great essay!
The wild card in all this analysis, of course, is what happens when these (now) young voters, age, eventually partner, and have kids.
As every generation has shown, the needs of a voter changes as they age.
I'm surrounded by many new neighbors with little kids who moved out of Brooklyn and Jersey City who suddenly find themselves concerned about rising property taxes- they now see the balance between taxes and services.
Not something they worried about a few years ago.
19
@profwilliams - Well, property taxes are a local affair, but if we had a responsible federal government, it would help more with education which is the largest factor here.
As for the federal government, most people do not understand the relationship between government services and taxes.
Government services, militarily, infrastructure, research, etc. are NOT paid for or limited by taxes or borrowing.
The gov doesn't need your money. It can (thru the FED) create as much as it needs out of thin air. Just think about where YOUR money came from in the first place. Unless you have a printing press in your basement, it came from the federal gov. (This isn't quite right. Banks can create a limited amount, but we have just seen in 2008 what happens when they try to create too much.)
But there's a catch. If the gov needs to create too much money to do the things we want it to do, we may not be able to make enough stuff to soak that money up & will have too much money chasing not enough stuff, i.e. excessive inflation.
But that's easy to solve & where taxes come in. Taxes allow the gov to take back the excess money & prevent inflation. The purpose of taxes is to adjust the amount of money in the private sector. That is what max is telling us.
Now if the economy is constrained, if we cannot produce enough goods and services to soak up the new money, that's when we get excessive inflation. The usual cause of a constrained economy is shortages such of oil or food.
3
@profwilliams Agreed. As a corollary, a huge problem in this country is the lack of affordable housing. Investors, searching for the greatest return, concentrate on housing for the affluent. The greatest need is for the rest of the population.
You are studying this like it represents some kind of wave but in fact it is just a few districts out of 435. These young women seem extraordinarily simply because the liberal media says they are extraordinary. If the media attention on these new representatives were to cease, no one except their families, their staff, and maybe Stephen Colbert would notice.
48
@Matt Williams - You are ignoring the many statistics in the article that apply to the Democratic party as a whole.
For example:
"From 2008 to 2018, the percentage of Democrats who said the government should create “a way for immigrants already here illegally to become citizens if the meet certain requirements” grew from 29 to 51 percent, while the share who said “there should be better border security and stronger enforcement of immigration laws” fell from 21 to 5 percent."
There are many others.
9
@Matt Williams
But they are extraordinary, relative to their bought and paid for colleagues. That came first and the media is reporting it.
Their authenticity is naive, but it shouldn't be, and that's the story. It's a glimmer of hope for democracy that may be extinguished - let's celebrate this light in the darkness, while it lasts.
11
@Matt Williams Without the undue media attention we wouldn't be saddled with this cartoon character masquerading as a president.
10