It would be helpful to consider the chunk of the population which didn't vote - perhaps a third. My sense is that you presume they are AWOL and don't matter. It happens that one of the most intelligent people I know is clearly in the lower right quadrant and after much thought couldn't vote for any of the Presidential candidates.
It is possible that our system of very low turnout primary elections is producing candidates that are simply ridiculous. Now if we had a study on the primary voters we'd see what's really going on.
My guess is that the lower right hand quadrant is infinitesimal in the primarys. I suspect that the parties have rigged the system to encourage crazy people at the expense of sane people.
I suppose you can't do a study and conclude that the results don't make sense.
It is possible that our system of very low turnout primary elections is producing candidates that are simply ridiculous. Now if we had a study on the primary voters we'd see what's really going on.
My guess is that the lower right hand quadrant is infinitesimal in the primarys. I suspect that the parties have rigged the system to encourage crazy people at the expense of sane people.
I suppose you can't do a study and conclude that the results don't make sense.
3
One of your best, Ross, but you left out one thing: emotions. A large, maybe half of the electorate don't know or care about issues. Confront a Trump supporter with Trump's latest blunder and they will tell you they don't care; he makes them feel good. Two books that address this issue are "Strangers in Their Own Land" and "White Trash". Also, there's the issue of personality; likability wins elections. Reagan, Obama, Bush 44, Warren Harding, etc. In the next general election, the party that fields the most likable candidate will win. The Republicans are stuck with President Albatross and the Democrats ...?
JD
JD
3
To call the Trump GOP or what it was just before mainstream Republicanism is problematical. Does real Republicanism call for dropping 24 Million Americans from Healthcare only to hand over the savings to the very rich?
The same applies for today's Democrats. The Third Way Democrats are in no way close to where Progressives want them. The difference between the Thirdway Democrats and right of center Republicans is so narrow as to be indistinguishable. The left and the "near left" have been out in the cold since Bill Clinton took over the Party.
The same applies for today's Democrats. The Third Way Democrats are in no way close to where Progressives want them. The difference between the Thirdway Democrats and right of center Republicans is so narrow as to be indistinguishable. The left and the "near left" have been out in the cold since Bill Clinton took over the Party.
1
The chart cited by Mr. Douthat helps explain things, but politicians win elections by kissing babies and telling people how great they are, and how even greater they and their wonderful civilization can be, and what a bright future their children will have. Elections are not won by moralizing boors, pointing their fingers at them, who then turn to screaming at people when nobody wants to listen to their self-righteous preaching, calling their fellow Americans racists, Islamophobes, Nazi's, haters, bigots, hypocrites, xenophobes, a "basket of deplorables," and misogynists. Nobody is going to win an election when they denounce their own country, and tell the citizens how awful they are.
The Democratic "brand" right now is toxic because of this. Nobody, other than the masochists and flagellants, wants to be govererned by know-it-alls who look down their noses at them, and telling them how stupid they are for voting against their own self-interests. That does not win elections. And people aren't stupid: They might not like Republican policies, or even President Trump - but they'll take their chances because the alternative would mean subjecting themselves to even more lectures about what an awful country this is and what awful people Americans are.
And unfortunately, there is nothing Democrats can do about this "brand" - it's out there now for everyone to see. The genie is out of the bottle and it can't be put back in.
The Democratic "brand" right now is toxic because of this. Nobody, other than the masochists and flagellants, wants to be govererned by know-it-alls who look down their noses at them, and telling them how stupid they are for voting against their own self-interests. That does not win elections. And people aren't stupid: They might not like Republican policies, or even President Trump - but they'll take their chances because the alternative would mean subjecting themselves to even more lectures about what an awful country this is and what awful people Americans are.
And unfortunately, there is nothing Democrats can do about this "brand" - it's out there now for everyone to see. The genie is out of the bottle and it can't be put back in.
2
Seeing all those Democrats mashed up against the right-hand extreme, one has to wonder if that limit is properly placed. If the issues and scoring were chosen to extended the range of the "Economic Dimension" axis to the liberal [left] direction, then the Democrats would look like "smear" across the bottom two quadrants, the Republicans the "fist" in the social-conservative + economic-conservative quadrant, and the upper-left quadrant would look "astonishingly empty".
3
Where is this scheme is a consideration of over-riding inequality of the system? To measure economic conservatism doesn't get at the problem if the system itself is "rigged" for the rich with too many of the benefits of the world's largest economy flowing to the top. This is leading to a failure of our very system. I appreciate your scheme and any effort to understand this situation we find ourselves in but it seems that inequality trumps, no pun intended, traditional ways of looking at voters. I'm afraid Jimmy Carter may have it right, we are an oligarchy with "unlimited" campaign contributions and that's what voters are feeling and trying to respond to. Thank you.
2
I would be interested to see how the chart would play out for the Canadian population. Our country has traditionally been oriented to economic conservatism (small c admittedly) and social liberalism that includes an acceptance of progressive taxation to fund a functioning social safety net. That has resulted in all our political parties leaning towards the center, and has made for relatively stable governing and a fair degree of consensus. We have real challenges going forward - not the least of which is how we deal with rising American protectionism when the vast majority of our exports go south of the border - but we are still able to have productive dialogue about our issues and choices. I hope the US is able to reestablish a degree of consensus in their politics - but it doesn't seem imminent.
4
technology drives inequality and mobility which result in euphoria among the ascendant and resentment among the descendant; a battle of alternative symbols of the future and the past to win clusters. Ross wants politicians to reconcile the ascendant 'elite' and descendant 'public' views. this pragmatic aim aligns with the researchers' mapping common perspectives onto voting choices. A different approach is instrumental, how to improve society, which would point to splitting existing popular clusters of thinking and policy. for example: increased effectiveness of both markets and government economic institutions, drawing the hallowed out sectors into emerging economy, discipline/accountability of people with social equality/tolerance. This framework points to Macron as a leader drawing people from comfortable views toward institutional change. The battle for the center in the US instrumentally is between the pragmatic shufflers of symbols a la Clintons, vs fixing problems a la Brookings, Third Way, Niskanen, etc. The democrats are clustered around one set of vapid policies, and the republicans are spread among several sets of vapid policies; nary a leader to be found.
1
The pollsters really need to work on their methodology...bad. Several incredibly had Ossoff winning in what was clear to people on the ground an unwinnable race. At a certain point you have to wonder are they skewing the numbers or looking for patterns that simply don't exist Here's what the media & the DNC is missing about this election. It's all over after the primary in most GA districts. A lot of people don't bother voting after the primary in their district. Everybody who lives here understands this. Critics will say this is because of Republican gerrymandering, but that's not accurate. Both sides do it. Georgia's 2nd, 4th, 5th &13th districts are all held by Democrats. These districts were purposely drawn to keep Republicans from winning. Barring scandal or illness these are in effect lifetime appointments. The election is just a formality at best.
John Lewis represents Georgia's 5th Congressional District, one of the most consistently Democratic districts in the nation. Since its forming in 1845, the district has been represented by a non-Democrat for just 11 years. Lewis has been reelected 14 times. He has dropped below 70 percent of the vote only once! He even ran unopposed in 1996 and from 2004 to 2008. He was challenged in the Democratic primary just twice: in 1992 and 2008. When I see outraged liberals screaming about gerrymandering I have to laugh. Both parties have their hands elbow deep in the cookie jar. Until we have term limits this will never change.
John Lewis represents Georgia's 5th Congressional District, one of the most consistently Democratic districts in the nation. Since its forming in 1845, the district has been represented by a non-Democrat for just 11 years. Lewis has been reelected 14 times. He has dropped below 70 percent of the vote only once! He even ran unopposed in 1996 and from 2004 to 2008. He was challenged in the Democratic primary just twice: in 1992 and 2008. When I see outraged liberals screaming about gerrymandering I have to laugh. Both parties have their hands elbow deep in the cookie jar. Until we have term limits this will never change.
4
So let's see. The public voted for an amoral womanizer as President, and a congress run by a Republican party whose leaders are extremely conservative both fiscally and socially and were able to look past all their objections on both fronts because ...?
Ross, stop looking to blame the Democrats for what they are and aren't doing. It's time to start assigning responsibility for the train wreck of this Presidency where it belongs - the Republican party, who after all fielded how many other candidates against him, in the primaries and couldn't find one that appealed to Republican voters.
Despite Republicans having had majorities in one or both branches of Congress for some time now, and despite 4 of our last 6 Presidents being Republican, they have avoided taking the rap for their policy choices, including ones that have eroded financial security for the middle class. The new breed of Republican is basically somebody who doesn't believe in gov't and has successfully exploited the public's cynicism. So called reasonable conservatives and Republicans are the ones that need to stop these people, by forming a new party, if necessary.
The fact that you keep looking to Democrats to save the country from these people should be a wake up call.
Ross, stop looking to blame the Democrats for what they are and aren't doing. It's time to start assigning responsibility for the train wreck of this Presidency where it belongs - the Republican party, who after all fielded how many other candidates against him, in the primaries and couldn't find one that appealed to Republican voters.
Despite Republicans having had majorities in one or both branches of Congress for some time now, and despite 4 of our last 6 Presidents being Republican, they have avoided taking the rap for their policy choices, including ones that have eroded financial security for the middle class. The new breed of Republican is basically somebody who doesn't believe in gov't and has successfully exploited the public's cynicism. So called reasonable conservatives and Republicans are the ones that need to stop these people, by forming a new party, if necessary.
The fact that you keep looking to Democrats to save the country from these people should be a wake up call.
19
While we still have a "middle" somewhere, we also suffer from tyranny of the minority. Except that we have several minorities.
Various IRS and campaign finance loopholes (the 501(c)(4) and PACs) and the Citizens United case gave the rich the opportunity to directly or indirectly bankroll a candidate to the point where he or she is beholden to them.
Courts and a number of statutes have liberalized standing requirements so that virtually any party can claim injury and sue for almost anything. "Private rights of action" and "private attorneys general" rights in statutes have allowed small cadres of activists to tie up the will of the majority in courts for years.
The media has decided that obnoxious activists at either end of the political spectrum, who generally represent only a small minority of voters, generate better ratings and political theatre than rational, intellectual debate. These louts get most of the media face time and crowd out more productive discussion of issues.
And gerrymandering, mostly by the GOP in recent years, has skewed elections because districts have been drawn to put GOP minorities into the same district to allow them to become voting majorities.
And we middle? We go to work, pay our taxes, raise our families and help our neighbors and communities. We don't have time for any of that nonsense.
Well, we're going to have to make time, or else we'll find our country has been stolen our from underneath us.
Various IRS and campaign finance loopholes (the 501(c)(4) and PACs) and the Citizens United case gave the rich the opportunity to directly or indirectly bankroll a candidate to the point where he or she is beholden to them.
Courts and a number of statutes have liberalized standing requirements so that virtually any party can claim injury and sue for almost anything. "Private rights of action" and "private attorneys general" rights in statutes have allowed small cadres of activists to tie up the will of the majority in courts for years.
The media has decided that obnoxious activists at either end of the political spectrum, who generally represent only a small minority of voters, generate better ratings and political theatre than rational, intellectual debate. These louts get most of the media face time and crowd out more productive discussion of issues.
And gerrymandering, mostly by the GOP in recent years, has skewed elections because districts have been drawn to put GOP minorities into the same district to allow them to become voting majorities.
And we middle? We go to work, pay our taxes, raise our families and help our neighbors and communities. We don't have time for any of that nonsense.
Well, we're going to have to make time, or else we'll find our country has been stolen our from underneath us.
14
My head is hurting.
7
Frankly overstating how far left the Democrats have become. This has been a bromide of the cult of "both sides" for awhile. There can't be a right wing demented shift without something comparable on the left. And no, the actions on some college campuses aren't the left.
4
This just points-out, and rightfully so, that human beings cannot be cubby-holed, that is, unless the want to be. Jimmy Carter, and other well-known politicians had also said that he was fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.
When I discus the role of government in the national economy, we should expect to provide some stimulus--monetary or fiscally--when necessary; but, that does;t mean that you need to be a spendthrift with your personal affairs.
For instance, when the economy enters a recession, balancing the budget, rather than putting people to work, will just contract the economy further. That means that a weakening economy will result in higher unemployment, less consumer spending, and a further reduction in jobs.
So do what you wish to with your own finances; however, but, remember when the economy is weak, and consumers are not spending, neither w=ill businesses. So in that case, the government will be both the lender (to states and banks) and the spender-of-last-resort!
So, expect people to wear different hats, depending on what role they are in.
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
When I discus the role of government in the national economy, we should expect to provide some stimulus--monetary or fiscally--when necessary; but, that does;t mean that you need to be a spendthrift with your personal affairs.
For instance, when the economy enters a recession, balancing the budget, rather than putting people to work, will just contract the economy further. That means that a weakening economy will result in higher unemployment, less consumer spending, and a further reduction in jobs.
So do what you wish to with your own finances; however, but, remember when the economy is weak, and consumers are not spending, neither w=ill businesses. So in that case, the government will be both the lender (to states and banks) and the spender-of-last-resort!
So, expect people to wear different hats, depending on what role they are in.
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
Not so sure about the interpretation of the graph, but as a matter of pure opinion, I agree. There is a fantasy center that is socially liberal and economically conservative. Well really that's a concatenation of euphemisms. These are actually just people who want everything for themselves. Infinite freedom to do whatever they want, and infinite capacity to accumulate wealth. These are the people who never stop wearing their college rings and playing acquisition-oriented pop tunes in their heads.
But--obviously--it's a double standard. In order for them to enjoy such unlimited freedom and wealth, everyone else needs to be marginalized, silenced, and impoverished. The "principles" of this group are just a dominance tool masquerading as a form of morality. This is why speech and ideology are so carefully policed: the system of lies is so fragile that even the slightest variation will cause the whole deceptive confection to implode.
Very much as it is currently imploding.
But--obviously--it's a double standard. In order for them to enjoy such unlimited freedom and wealth, everyone else needs to be marginalized, silenced, and impoverished. The "principles" of this group are just a dominance tool masquerading as a form of morality. This is why speech and ideology are so carefully policed: the system of lies is so fragile that even the slightest variation will cause the whole deceptive confection to implode.
Very much as it is currently imploding.
6
Very good article. But it comes down to less identity politics and more focus on economic and "opportunity" issues (affordable health care, student debt, better public schools).
6
Or, alternatively, the chart doesn't explain that the Republican Party is an ideologically driven, anti-minority, anti-poor propaganda octopus funded by extremists who are using anonymous funding of front groups to control government at every level for their own rewards. Mothers would be readily sacrificed if it meant more control of the reins of power.
There is nothing in the bottom right quadrant because to be a Republican office holder today means selling your soul and your country on behalf of the benefactors who have arranged it that you will never lose.
There is nothing in the bottom right quadrant because to be a Republican office holder today means selling your soul and your country on behalf of the benefactors who have arranged it that you will never lose.
6
Ross, president bone spurs was appointed by the electoral college.
Hillary Clinton easily win the American People's Vote by a staggering three million votes.
Three million votes.
Why is it that you rightists always seem to forget that fact?
Hillary Clinton easily win the American People's Vote by a staggering three million votes.
Three million votes.
Why is it that you rightists always seem to forget that fact?
11
This rightist will tell you. That "fact" is irrelevant. The race was for electoral votes not the greatest number. If Trump ran a campaign to get the greatest number, he would most likely get it.
Not everyone voted and people voted illegally. Therefore, the number of votes is again irrelevant.
Ok, the next thing to point out is that the US is a republic, not a democracy. The beauty of a republic is the balance of power among the various States, districts, and federal government. It also protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority which normally I would thing you Lefties would support.
...and finally, Hillary outspent Trump nearly 2 to 1. She really should have won the election just based on that fact. The problem for Hillary and the Left now is the moral and intellectual failure of progressive ideals, and the critical thinking skills of citizens who could not be manipulated (like you have been) by a sophisticated political campaign based on anti-American ideals.
Not everyone voted and people voted illegally. Therefore, the number of votes is again irrelevant.
Ok, the next thing to point out is that the US is a republic, not a democracy. The beauty of a republic is the balance of power among the various States, districts, and federal government. It also protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority which normally I would thing you Lefties would support.
...and finally, Hillary outspent Trump nearly 2 to 1. She really should have won the election just based on that fact. The problem for Hillary and the Left now is the moral and intellectual failure of progressive ideals, and the critical thinking skills of citizens who could not be manipulated (like you have been) by a sophisticated political campaign based on anti-American ideals.
4
So, when it's shown the Russians "gave" the election to Trump, shall we have a do-over?
New people will come along, catch fire with the voters, and get elected. Then everyone will say, Oh, why didn't we see this coming?
This happens again and again, surprising every New York Times columnist that absolutely ever was, along with every pundit in the known universe.
This happens again and again, surprising every New York Times columnist that absolutely ever was, along with every pundit in the known universe.
4
Ross-Your best article to date.
1
The American Center: Where ever Douthat is. His voice, as he is sure to tell you, is the perfect Center of all things, not just the America, but the world. All Republicans are reasonable centrists, anyone with sickness, weakness, originality, uncomfortable ideas, an observation that is not mainstream-- they shall be marginalized. We are in the new era of Republican Rightness.
The lock step of old is marching in America.
The lock step of old is marching in America.
Mr. Douthat should just admit that the GOP has louder high-pitched dog whistles to control the barking in the big tent. Throw in high-tech gerrymandering, fake news sources, and some highly ideological billionaires. Now, we can explain the GOP success.
14
Actually, the mid point between the blue and red blobs on Figure. 2 is slightly liberal on economics (about -0.25) and almost neutral on social issues. That is slightly left of dead center, and not in the upper left quadrant as Douthat says.
Red blob center: 0.1 economic & 0.6 social.
Blue blob center: -0.6 economic & -0.7 social
Calculated midpoint: -0.25 economic & -.05 social
That portion of the plot (+/- 0.1) has a mix of red and blue data points.
Red blob center: 0.1 economic & 0.6 social.
Blue blob center: -0.6 economic & -0.7 social
Calculated midpoint: -0.25 economic & -.05 social
That portion of the plot (+/- 0.1) has a mix of red and blue data points.
2
Totally wrong here, foolishly based on a single poll. He should have learned about polls from the 2016 election, "garbage in, garbage out". Americans that are struggling, over-worked, unhappy with their lives, medicated, etc. are under-sampled in such polls. Call up an educated liberal and ask them, in your best English, about themselves - and you can't get them to shut up. Desperate Americans don't talk to pollsters, voted for Trump and would vote for Bernie. The political establishments of both parties are at the middle, as is the media. Democrats need to move left and they'll bring many Trump supporters with them.
2
I was born and raised in western NY and my best English is the same English you here on the National news shows. Not so sure about your Ozarks. But I have spent a lot of time Dixie so I am sure I could understand you. I call a soft drink pop, it's soda in NYC, tonic in Boston, cold drink in much of the south, or RC, OR Dr. Pepper.
I do like to talk and I have had a very interesting life. Even went to an Oral Roberts revival out of Yankee curiosity, not to be born again. I was born perfectly fine the first time, and don't need any snake oil.
I do like to talk and I have had a very interesting life. Even went to an Oral Roberts revival out of Yankee curiosity, not to be born again. I was born perfectly fine the first time, and don't need any snake oil.
4
Excellent analysis. Thanks for bringing this great study to our attention.
1
Again, the false equivalency from Mr. Douthat, who seemingly cannot resist it.
Bill Clinton's moderate liberalism, was actually moderate liberalism: common sense, left-of-center policies that actually worked. George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" was actually neither: anyone who would call the Orwellian-named Clear Skies Initiative or the Healthy Forests Initiative "compassionate" is just plain lying, while his Medicare prescription plan was a huge government giveaway to Big Pharma.
Stop selling those false equivalencies, Mr. Douthat. Nobody with a brain is buying them.
Bill Clinton's moderate liberalism, was actually moderate liberalism: common sense, left-of-center policies that actually worked. George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" was actually neither: anyone who would call the Orwellian-named Clear Skies Initiative or the Healthy Forests Initiative "compassionate" is just plain lying, while his Medicare prescription plan was a huge government giveaway to Big Pharma.
Stop selling those false equivalencies, Mr. Douthat. Nobody with a brain is buying them.
13
"Given populism’s derangements and divisions, this elite consensus can still win elections — witness Macron’s recent triumphs"
Now this deserves a multiple choice explanation (one doesn't exclude others):
1) Mr. DOuthat is currently in France and he mixed up two articles on elections
2) Mr. Macron is secretely supported by american people, and a covert operation was swapping the french votes with those from Americans. That explains why mr. Douthat counts France's votes by american standard.
3) France is considering a Frexit from Europe and it'd like to be annexed to US, that explains why mr. Douthat takes in consideration the original french votes ( ante litteram american citizenship extended to all french people ).
4) mr. Douthat thinks the Acela corridor is actually France
5) the red and blue colours of graph number two, and the horrifying white in the other sections took a deep impression on mr. Douthat, as french flag, and they acted subconsciously to make him write the Macron citation.
6) Someone was thinking of being funny by inserting the french notation into the article. The author is not pleased but then he reconsidered how by the virtue of predestination, maybe he is wishing France to become more american so he can live there and feel at home at the same time. (He can do that right now, he needs only the phone number of mr. Nehisi-Coates who lives in Paris)
Whatever the reason, thanks for having our minds always questioning yours and the nytimes articles.
Now this deserves a multiple choice explanation (one doesn't exclude others):
1) Mr. DOuthat is currently in France and he mixed up two articles on elections
2) Mr. Macron is secretely supported by american people, and a covert operation was swapping the french votes with those from Americans. That explains why mr. Douthat counts France's votes by american standard.
3) France is considering a Frexit from Europe and it'd like to be annexed to US, that explains why mr. Douthat takes in consideration the original french votes ( ante litteram american citizenship extended to all french people ).
4) mr. Douthat thinks the Acela corridor is actually France
5) the red and blue colours of graph number two, and the horrifying white in the other sections took a deep impression on mr. Douthat, as french flag, and they acted subconsciously to make him write the Macron citation.
6) Someone was thinking of being funny by inserting the french notation into the article. The author is not pleased but then he reconsidered how by the virtue of predestination, maybe he is wishing France to become more american so he can live there and feel at home at the same time. (He can do that right now, he needs only the phone number of mr. Nehisi-Coates who lives in Paris)
Whatever the reason, thanks for having our minds always questioning yours and the nytimes articles.
1
As Toffler predicted in Future Shock, the future would not be about the narrowing of choices, but instead the overwhelming expansion of choices.
We have a two party system but the same number of seats (435) in the lower house of congress as in 1912, even though we have almost 4x as many people.
Why not rethink the reapportioning the number of seats to reflect the same ratio of representatives: citizens as in 1912?
The result might mean building an new capitol building, but what the heck, a more diverse group of people for a more diverse country.
We have a two party system but the same number of seats (435) in the lower house of congress as in 1912, even though we have almost 4x as many people.
Why not rethink the reapportioning the number of seats to reflect the same ratio of representatives: citizens as in 1912?
The result might mean building an new capitol building, but what the heck, a more diverse group of people for a more diverse country.
1
This has been my point for months. Why doesn't the democratic party take up this mantle? I do not think we need a new building-- much of this could be done virtually, skype, etc. The only reason they are in DC so often currently is so they can mix it up with the big $ lobbyists who guide policy on behalf of their benefactors. The house is supposed to be the REPRESENTATIVE branch, and at the current ceiling, it most clearly is NOT.
2
"Of the American center" sells us short, I think. There are universals out there that will too easily be left behind or "newspeaked' so as to be meaningless.
This is to be expected, I guess, because almost no one in the media allows, encourages or contributes to discussions of the universals that our Founding Fathers laid down.
That is, discussions of what it means to "to form a more perfect Union", or to "establish Justice" (or even what Justice is), or to "insure domestic Tranquility" (I do not believe opiates are needed for tranquility), or to "provide for the common defence" (the Second Amendment called for well-regulated militias!), or to "promote the general Welfare" (this cannot mean promoting the welfare of the 1% above that of the lowest, or any, citizen), or even to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" are only rarely heard--and then only by select audiences.
This is to be expected, I guess, because almost no one in the media allows, encourages or contributes to discussions of the universals that our Founding Fathers laid down.
That is, discussions of what it means to "to form a more perfect Union", or to "establish Justice" (or even what Justice is), or to "insure domestic Tranquility" (I do not believe opiates are needed for tranquility), or to "provide for the common defence" (the Second Amendment called for well-regulated militias!), or to "promote the general Welfare" (this cannot mean promoting the welfare of the 1% above that of the lowest, or any, citizen), or even to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" are only rarely heard--and then only by select audiences.
1
The obvious:
-- Populism is economically liberal and socially conservative.
-- The U.S. is center-left economically. Contrary to what conservative pundits like to say, the U.S. is center-right but actually center-left economically, which is supported in survey after survey on economic inequality, regulating banks, progressive taxation, social welfare programs like Medicare, Social Security.
-- The U.S. is center-right culturally - which is why Democrats lose when the are identified too strongly with gays, trans-gender rights, abortion rights, etc. People get tired of hearing constantly about Gay Pride parades and trans-gender bathroom rights, which are not mainstream issues, but dominate the news.
-- Republicans attain power by exploiting social conservatism and masking their own economic conservatism. Put a cruder way, Republican power is the result of a coalition of the ignorant and the rich. Bankers and rich people play up culture wars to get people to vote against their own economic self-interest.
-- The Democrats can make progress by being more forceful in their economic arguments. Most people want to tax the rich more and expand social benefits. But Democrats are too timid in these areas.
I would also add that Democrats need to promote policies rather than a brand. Millions on TV ads for a "brand" just enrich the political consultants. Democrats need to educate the grass roots about policies and shun the Hollywood celebrities. Listen to Bernie Sanders.
-- Populism is economically liberal and socially conservative.
-- The U.S. is center-left economically. Contrary to what conservative pundits like to say, the U.S. is center-right but actually center-left economically, which is supported in survey after survey on economic inequality, regulating banks, progressive taxation, social welfare programs like Medicare, Social Security.
-- The U.S. is center-right culturally - which is why Democrats lose when the are identified too strongly with gays, trans-gender rights, abortion rights, etc. People get tired of hearing constantly about Gay Pride parades and trans-gender bathroom rights, which are not mainstream issues, but dominate the news.
-- Republicans attain power by exploiting social conservatism and masking their own economic conservatism. Put a cruder way, Republican power is the result of a coalition of the ignorant and the rich. Bankers and rich people play up culture wars to get people to vote against their own economic self-interest.
-- The Democrats can make progress by being more forceful in their economic arguments. Most people want to tax the rich more and expand social benefits. But Democrats are too timid in these areas.
I would also add that Democrats need to promote policies rather than a brand. Millions on TV ads for a "brand" just enrich the political consultants. Democrats need to educate the grass roots about policies and shun the Hollywood celebrities. Listen to Bernie Sanders.
7
You wonder, "why Democrats keep losing even though the country seems to be getting more liberal..."
I answer, because the country obviously isn't becoming more liberal, and especially isn't becoming more progressive. Progressives are under-cover socialists in street clothes, and the have taken control of the Democrat Party, while comprising less than 1/3rd or even 1/4th of Democrats. The progs were able to do this because they are committed, ideologial zealots, as most socialists are, whose god is government and who would sell their soul for a political office from which to wield power and bend people to their will with the force supplied by government and it agents.
The survey you point to sounds to me like it is even more inaccurate than the polls that had Hillary winning by a large margin. Bye the way, the chart you are relying on, by the way, looks like it was copied from THE WORLD'S SMALLEST POLITICAL QUIZ (https://www.libertarianism.com/), which has consistently shown more people to be libertarians than ever vote that way.
I answer, because the country obviously isn't becoming more liberal, and especially isn't becoming more progressive. Progressives are under-cover socialists in street clothes, and the have taken control of the Democrat Party, while comprising less than 1/3rd or even 1/4th of Democrats. The progs were able to do this because they are committed, ideologial zealots, as most socialists are, whose god is government and who would sell their soul for a political office from which to wield power and bend people to their will with the force supplied by government and it agents.
The survey you point to sounds to me like it is even more inaccurate than the polls that had Hillary winning by a large margin. Bye the way, the chart you are relying on, by the way, looks like it was copied from THE WORLD'S SMALLEST POLITICAL QUIZ (https://www.libertarianism.com/), which has consistently shown more people to be libertarians than ever vote that way.
1
At age 81, I see the country becoming fatter (bad), but less religious (good), but still too many religious fundamentalists (very, very, bad). We are using more tech, but for the wrong reasons. We need more socialism and less billionaires. Inheritance taxes need to be close to 100%, to avoid a permanent aristocracy.
4
You may remember we had a centrist candidate last November. Her name was Hilary. You must have an inner ear problem, that's why the world looks so tilted to you.
2
BT-- Hillary-- centrist-- won the election.
1
Thanks for telling us, yet again, what's wrong with secular liberalism and the Democratic party. I am 70 and first followed presidential politics during the Nixon-Kennedy election. Excuse me, from my perspective, ever since Bill Clinton (and Tony Blair) the entire Democratic party has been forced to the Center, given the ongoing, universal Conservative Revolution. America may be more "liberal" than the current GOP, but Democratic politicians don't dare to be. And you Ross, like all other conservative pundits, are suggesting they stay in their closets! This is pure tactics on your part, not objective analysis. You want all Democrats to face the cruel realities of McConnell, Ryan, Limbaugh, and Fox News like that good "centrist" who just lost the Georgia election. What a wonderfully smelly soft sell.
4
What America wants is easy answers. Our politicians deliver the same.
1
You have nailed the heart of the Democratic party's dilemma. Can moderates and progressives co-exist in the same party? Given what has happened in the past 6 years the answer has to be a resounding no. The math simply isn't there. We've lost everything that's important. It hasn't worked, isn't working now & won't work in the future. We need to part company. The tent has become to big. Progressives should form their own party...and when it makes sense collaborate with Democrats or Republicans. Supporting policies that empower labor, enhance equality, protect the environment, & further justice are good things but progressives will never be able to translate these ideas into passable legislation. They alienate voters & are unwilling to compromise. Progressives can't be the face of the Democratic party. They can be a factor in local elections...but nationally no way. I have working class friends & relatives who live in the swing states HRC lost in 2016. To them, Progressives means trigger warnings, safe spaces, vile college protests & obnoxious academics who posture as their will on earth. They despise & hate these people to their very core...they always have and always will. And let's be honest. Changing your identity from Socialist to Progressive is fooling no one , admit it you're Socialists. To be a Democrat in this day & age one has to be delusional. 1+1 may equal 3, 4, or 5, sometimes even all the numbers. 1+1 =2. Until we are willing to admit this we are doomed to failure.
4
the main problem with this analysis is the acceptance of republican propaganda that they are the protectors of capitalism and vestigial libertarianism. republicanism is fascism. republicans have conned their voters into voting against their own best interests. until the democrats confront that head on they are not going to build a winning coalition that spans the country and is not just coastal
5
So, what you are saying is that even though Americans have shifted to the left on many important issues, they would prefer reactionaries from the far right, I.e. Republicans, to those who closely agree with their views, I.e. Democrats? Wow, you're going to have to explain this to me, Ross.
3
Putting financial criminals in jail - contrary to the stated Obama admin policy of "too big to jail" - is a wildly popular, centrist position.
Breaking the stranglehold of for-profit insurers on our health insurance access with a single payer backbone like every other civilized nation - including extremely conservative and fiscally responsible north European nations such as Holland, Switzerland, Germany - is a very popular, centrist position.
Ending the insanity of "sanctuary cities" and restoring rule of law to our immigration policy is a hugely popular, centrist position. It is especially popular among LEGAL IMMIGRANTS, including the 30% of latino citizens who voted last fall for the only national politician to support this sensible, mainstream policy since Barbara Jordan passed.
Asking whether it makes sense to follow the European example of willy-nilly admitting immigrants from the world's failed states without first tightening up our review process is a popular, centrist position.
Asking whether it serves our interest to unnecessarily provoke Russia, while failing to do anything serious to stand up for our legitimate interests, is a wildly popular centrist position.
Pointing out that it is not the police who shoot and kill young black men, rather -
overwhelmingly - other young black men is a wildly popular, centrist position.
Of course, neither party supports all or even most of these obvious, sensible, popular centrist positions. A pox on both your houses.
Breaking the stranglehold of for-profit insurers on our health insurance access with a single payer backbone like every other civilized nation - including extremely conservative and fiscally responsible north European nations such as Holland, Switzerland, Germany - is a very popular, centrist position.
Ending the insanity of "sanctuary cities" and restoring rule of law to our immigration policy is a hugely popular, centrist position. It is especially popular among LEGAL IMMIGRANTS, including the 30% of latino citizens who voted last fall for the only national politician to support this sensible, mainstream policy since Barbara Jordan passed.
Asking whether it makes sense to follow the European example of willy-nilly admitting immigrants from the world's failed states without first tightening up our review process is a popular, centrist position.
Asking whether it serves our interest to unnecessarily provoke Russia, while failing to do anything serious to stand up for our legitimate interests, is a wildly popular centrist position.
Pointing out that it is not the police who shoot and kill young black men, rather -
overwhelmingly - other young black men is a wildly popular, centrist position.
Of course, neither party supports all or even most of these obvious, sensible, popular centrist positions. A pox on both your houses.
2
Ross, do you really want to know where the Center is? It is the Democratic Party. where a majority of the country actually is. Does the number 3 million mean anything to you? The only reason the Dems are considered, unfairly, far left, or too liberal, is because the Republican Party is hugging the extreme Right, and you have to go far, far left to get to the Center.
4
"The ideological groups that occupy this space — consistent libertarians, globalist Democrats, socially liberal deficit hawks, pro-choice and pro-immigration supply-siders — are vanishingly rare within the American electorate."
Fear not, there is a huge peak of that electorate right in the building you're sitting into.
Fear not, there is a huge peak of that electorate right in the building you're sitting into.
3
Which is why I'm a long-time subscriber to the NY Times which, with the Washington Post, is truly "Fair and Balanced."
2
We read many generalizations here, and most are suspect. I will offer one of mine based on 22 years of military service spent every region of the US. I now live in prosperous, educated, tolerant Seattle. I made colonel 7 years early and 5 degrees in engineering including MIT.
My generalization is that prosperity, education and toleration are much more likely to be found in regions where televangelists and holy rollers are scarce.
My generalization is that prosperity, education and toleration are much more likely to be found in regions where televangelists and holy rollers are scarce.
12
"... as the country has moved left, the Democratic Party’s base has consolidated even farther left, and in the process the party has lost the ability to speak to persuadable voters who disagree with the liberal consensus on a few crucial issues."
Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership has remained staunchly centrist for the past 4 decades. How has that been working for us lately?
As for the "few critical issues", I assume you are referring to wedge issues like gun control and abortion.
Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership has remained staunchly centrist for the past 4 decades. How has that been working for us lately?
As for the "few critical issues", I assume you are referring to wedge issues like gun control and abortion.
1
"A better center for our divided polity does exist. Maybe someday one of our leaders will succeed in claiming it."
A good candidate for the leader Mr. Douthat and the rest of us seek may be David Brown, the former Dallas police chief who provided such eloquent leadership after the shooting of five Dallas police officers last August. His recently published book - "Called to Rise: A Life in Faithful Service to the Community That Made Me" - provides a blueprint for uniting us. He has not declared himself to be a candidate for any elected office, but I and many others would like to see him do so.
by David O. Brown, Michelle Burford
A good candidate for the leader Mr. Douthat and the rest of us seek may be David Brown, the former Dallas police chief who provided such eloquent leadership after the shooting of five Dallas police officers last August. His recently published book - "Called to Rise: A Life in Faithful Service to the Community That Made Me" - provides a blueprint for uniting us. He has not declared himself to be a candidate for any elected office, but I and many others would like to see him do so.
by David O. Brown, Michelle Burford
1
Gerrymandered safe Republican Congressional districts and the territorial contingencies of the Electoral College are why Democrats don't win more elections. Structural, not ideological, factors matter.
11
Really? You need to get out of NYC now and then.
2
According to such Hillary should be president. Such analysis is heavily flawed, first the questions are not properly phrased and asked to check, next people don't tell the truth either. Trump supporters are tired of progressives failing to deliver for our citizens, that simple.
4
Do the Republicans ever blame the treasonous Mitch McConnell for attempting to thwart every Obama initiative? Chinless Mitch should tarred and feathered, and shipped to Gitmo as a training dummy for water-boarders. He is totally anti-American and a racist bigot.
4
Your language is too harsh, but McConnell is an excellent example of the old adage that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
3
"moral/identity issues"
Ross. My civil rights are not "moral issues" (i.e., things that hurt 'christian' conservative snowflakes' precious fee fees). Nor are they "identity" issues. I hate the term "identity politics" because it is dismissive. It takes the focus away from whatever civil right is at issue and places it on the group of people with which the right is most commonly associated. Hate the group? Dismiss the concern. Pretend it's just some group lobbying for something that they alone care about. I don't care about my right to abortion because I'm a woman. I care about my right to abortion because it's a fundamental right.
It also 'others' people. It sets up the straight cis christian white man as the default and singles out all other people as 'different.' I am not a 'special interest group' just because I'm not a white man.
Ross. My civil rights are not "moral issues" (i.e., things that hurt 'christian' conservative snowflakes' precious fee fees). Nor are they "identity" issues. I hate the term "identity politics" because it is dismissive. It takes the focus away from whatever civil right is at issue and places it on the group of people with which the right is most commonly associated. Hate the group? Dismiss the concern. Pretend it's just some group lobbying for something that they alone care about. I don't care about my right to abortion because I'm a woman. I care about my right to abortion because it's a fundamental right.
It also 'others' people. It sets up the straight cis christian white man as the default and singles out all other people as 'different.' I am not a 'special interest group' just because I'm not a white man.
10
But your "civil rights" don't include say using whatever bathroom you might desire. And a focus on very small minorities interests tells others that they really don't matter. When you say protect the US from terrorists that helps everyone, not just say Transgendered people.
3
vulcanalex: the bathroom issue is bogus. Europe has had unisex bathrooms for decades with a shared sink. You go in lock the door, wash you hands, and leave. Who cares - end of story. Are you proposing potty police to check underwear?
1
Franklin Foer in a recent Atlantic column implies if not outright suggests that Trump's political genius, manifest from 2015 on, was to substitute a xenophobic anti-globalism for the no longer quite performative, not so subtly racist, southern strategy developed by Nixon. This president is a moronic void, unlike Nixon, but there's no doubt in my mind that the ploy is politically valid and reality based. It will remain a going concern, with or without Trump, and I'd love to see Douthat take it up in a future post.
As for his argument here, I find it convincing with the following caveat: Ross should pay closer attention to the present state of political volatility, a clear symptom of a populace thirsty for answers to our current, verifiably complex quandaries, which finding none from a mediocre political class, flops from side to side like a fish gasping for air. What this means is that no party, as May discovered in the UK, can assume the game set at any point.
As for his argument here, I find it convincing with the following caveat: Ross should pay closer attention to the present state of political volatility, a clear symptom of a populace thirsty for answers to our current, verifiably complex quandaries, which finding none from a mediocre political class, flops from side to side like a fish gasping for air. What this means is that no party, as May discovered in the UK, can assume the game set at any point.
3
The problem is less the ideology than the parties, which are both poorly run, led by mostly old white men, catering to the rich and to their own privilege and status.
There are people in this country who could lead us away from where we are, and restore our shared desire to be one nation, indivisible. But I fear the lack of knowledge of history and civics, and of how government is supposed to work, is making that more of a dream than a possibility.
There are people in this country who could lead us away from where we are, and restore our shared desire to be one nation, indivisible. But I fear the lack of knowledge of history and civics, and of how government is supposed to work, is making that more of a dream than a possibility.
Nixon's southern strategy was blatantly racist, not subtle. So was Reagan's kickoff in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the cesspool of Dixie.
Here's a "radical" thought: Maybe it's we the people who need to move more to the left.
The A.C.A. *is* a disgrace. Though far better than what existed before, when compared with every wealthy European democracy's health care system, it falls far short (and I don't even want to contemplate the murderous health plan the G.O.P. is currently hatching).
I dare say there is something wrong with the American psyche that blithely accepts an unfettered Dickensian capitalism that poisons the environment and makes ungodly profit off of people's illnesses and believes that health care is just for the deserving affluent.
The A.C.A. *is* a disgrace. Though far better than what existed before, when compared with every wealthy European democracy's health care system, it falls far short (and I don't even want to contemplate the murderous health plan the G.O.P. is currently hatching).
I dare say there is something wrong with the American psyche that blithely accepts an unfettered Dickensian capitalism that poisons the environment and makes ungodly profit off of people's illnesses and believes that health care is just for the deserving affluent.
23
It is only better for those that get cheap or free health insurance, for those that actually pay it is much worse.
1
Healthcare is a basic human right. Private healthcare insurance companies should be exterminated. Low overhead Medicare for all.
6
Reagan's welfare queens turned out to be the red states, mooching off the educated blue states.
3
Russ posits that Democrats don't win elections because they're so far left. There is another explanation. Dirty tricks--which collectively have the effect of discouraging votes by those apt to vote Democratic.
Start with Nixon's war on marijuana which targeted 2 groups--"hippies" and blacks. 1) Put 'em in jail where they can't vote and 2) enact laws preventing voting even after release.
Reagan and the air-traffic controllers strike. Although anti-union sentiment has been around as long as unions, this provided the impetus to go full bore, reducing union membership in the private sector to 6%--down from a high of 33%. At this point unions--and their traditional support of Democrats--are almost completely negligible (see MI, PA, WI).
Suppressing voter registration including the stealth operation to destroy ACORN whose "crime" was registering new voters.
Election day shenanigans--"challenging" voters, polls so crowded people give up (poor/minority districts only)
Perfecting the black art of redistricting.
No transparency in vote counting+unwillingness to change/amend the process.
In a fair fight, Republicans would get slaughtered because as Russ accurately notes, America is becoming more liberal. In matters of voting, Republicans lie, cheat, obfuscate, suppress, and then distract with voter fraud fables.
Mandatory voting, as practiced in Australia, would reveal the will of the American people far more accurately. The GOP is dead set against this.
Start with Nixon's war on marijuana which targeted 2 groups--"hippies" and blacks. 1) Put 'em in jail where they can't vote and 2) enact laws preventing voting even after release.
Reagan and the air-traffic controllers strike. Although anti-union sentiment has been around as long as unions, this provided the impetus to go full bore, reducing union membership in the private sector to 6%--down from a high of 33%. At this point unions--and their traditional support of Democrats--are almost completely negligible (see MI, PA, WI).
Suppressing voter registration including the stealth operation to destroy ACORN whose "crime" was registering new voters.
Election day shenanigans--"challenging" voters, polls so crowded people give up (poor/minority districts only)
Perfecting the black art of redistricting.
No transparency in vote counting+unwillingness to change/amend the process.
In a fair fight, Republicans would get slaughtered because as Russ accurately notes, America is becoming more liberal. In matters of voting, Republicans lie, cheat, obfuscate, suppress, and then distract with voter fraud fables.
Mandatory voting, as practiced in Australia, would reveal the will of the American people far more accurately. The GOP is dead set against this.
15
You mean like those dirty tricks as having a server in your home with classified data on it, calling people deplorable, coughing, fainting, appearing to be highly incompetent and corrupt?
1
"It helps explain why Donald Trump won the presidency and... why Democrats keep losing even though the country seems to be getting more liberal..."?
Do we REALLY need another "survey" to explain the obvious:
BIG-money and BIG lies in advertising, faux-media and false-news via tweets, etc, gerrymandering, voter-suppression, and election tampering (by a hostile foreign power, no less!) on one side, and utter and complete political ineptitude on the other!
The Dems desperately need NEW LEADERSHIP and the ability to run on issues, not just "don't vote for the Republicans"!
Say what you will about the Repubs, after defeats, THEY get new leadership! Meanwhile, the Dems are STILL stuck with the inept Pelosi and the once-admirable-but-now-Senator-from-Wall-Street" Schumer.
And the writer's assertion that "the country seems to be getting more liberal" is risible! Politics has sewed so far to the RIGHT that former middling--conservative Republicans are now in sync with moderate Democrats! To wit: James Baker is now a national voice on the environment!
Do we REALLY need another "survey" to explain the obvious:
BIG-money and BIG lies in advertising, faux-media and false-news via tweets, etc, gerrymandering, voter-suppression, and election tampering (by a hostile foreign power, no less!) on one side, and utter and complete political ineptitude on the other!
The Dems desperately need NEW LEADERSHIP and the ability to run on issues, not just "don't vote for the Republicans"!
Say what you will about the Repubs, after defeats, THEY get new leadership! Meanwhile, the Dems are STILL stuck with the inept Pelosi and the once-admirable-but-now-Senator-from-Wall-Street" Schumer.
And the writer's assertion that "the country seems to be getting more liberal" is risible! Politics has sewed so far to the RIGHT that former middling--conservative Republicans are now in sync with moderate Democrats! To wit: James Baker is now a national voice on the environment!
Enjoyed this. Thank you. And I'm a tough critic. =)
1
Agree, and I usually differ from Mr. Douthat. As others have noted, however, the Democrats lack an effective message as well as effective messengers
3
"A better center for our divided polity does exist. Maybe someday one of our leaders will succeed in claiming it."
"A better center" DID exist. It was called Rockefeller Republican, fiscally moderately conservative; socially moderately progressive and liberal; moderate foreign policy espousing foreign national cooperation with foreign expansion of American business.
The Rockefeller Republicans were killed off by the Goldwater Republicans who later became supporters of Ronald Reagan who prepared the politically ground for W and, ultimately Trump.
"A better center" DID exist. It was called Rockefeller Republican, fiscally moderately conservative; socially moderately progressive and liberal; moderate foreign policy espousing foreign national cooperation with foreign expansion of American business.
The Rockefeller Republicans were killed off by the Goldwater Republicans who later became supporters of Ronald Reagan who prepared the politically ground for W and, ultimately Trump.
12
It is somewhat curious and ironic that Barry Goldwater, an Air Force General in the reserves, told my Air War College class in 1974, that he couldn't stand evangelical zealots. Goldwater's granddaughter has verified this.
3
If you read the entire paper and all the charts, you see one key difference between Trump voters and Clinton voters was attitudes towards African Americans and, to some extent, attitudes towards Muslims. Trump voters of all ages and economic brackets have negative attitudes towards African Americans and slightly less negative attitudes towards Muslims. To me, those are the biggest points of difference between Democratic and Republican voters. As a liberal Democrat and Clinton supporter, I would not want my party to embrace the racial attitudes of the Trump voters, no matter how close we may be on economic areas. If we are willing to discriminate against minorities, we cannot also be for economic justice.
9
If you collapse down the 1.0 to .75 on the right side of "Figure 2"-there are basically no people over there-, it would move the cross-hairs, and the Democrats and Republicans would be symmetrical in their corners. If the center is not in the center it isn't the center.
3
There might be a bi-modal distribution, with totally progressive people supporting the Dems, and everyone else not. The not only have Republicans to turn to.
And here I have to take exception to Douthat... It only seems that the Democratic Party's base has consolidated "farther left" because the Republican party has moved off the charts to the right. The mainstream Democratic Party, not the Bernie contingent, is really what's left of the center in the country.
"The answer (one of them, at least) is that as the country has moved left, the Democratic Party’s base has consolidated even farther left"
"The answer (one of them, at least) is that as the country has moved left, the Democratic Party’s base has consolidated even farther left"
4
I would beg to differ with the suggestion that the Democratic Party base will no longer tolerate the kind of "self consciously moderate liberalism" of a Bill Clinton. After all, Hillary Clinton received millions more votes than Bernie Sanders in the primaries and millions more than Trump in the election. If not for the quirks of our Electoral College (and some interference from the Russians), she'd be president, and she'd be practicing more or less exactly that sort of moderate liberalism.
It's true that many of the loudest voices within the Democratic Party and the media condemned Clinton as part of the "elite" and "the establishment," and that played some role in her defeat (along with her own lack of charisma and rather paranoiac secretiveness). But neither the party faithful nor the electorate at large rejected her politics. On the contrary, they voted for her by the millions, and she received more votes than Trump, more than Obama did in 2012, and the highest percentage of any of the five candidates who won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College.
It's true that many of the loudest voices within the Democratic Party and the media condemned Clinton as part of the "elite" and "the establishment," and that played some role in her defeat (along with her own lack of charisma and rather paranoiac secretiveness). But neither the party faithful nor the electorate at large rejected her politics. On the contrary, they voted for her by the millions, and she received more votes than Trump, more than Obama did in 2012, and the highest percentage of any of the five candidates who won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College.
8
There is no moderate liberalism, it died with the so called Blue Dogs. Great point that the electoral college rejected her policies, many of them are not so greedy, selfish, or entitled to expect the federal government to take care of them.
Ross brings the same brilliant and incisive analysis to the current political state as that which informed his many columns prior to the 2016 election on the primary campaign. Such insight, such perspicacity, such depth, such accuracy. Always a pleasure to read. How does one man do it?
Ross, how about this...
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/angry-democrats-blame-game-aft...
"...Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), one of the party’s rising stars, said Democrats have been distracted by the investigation in Trump’s alleged ties to Russia and need to focus more on making a concrete impact on voters' lives...
"...We’ve been hyper-confused for the past five years...Some of the time we’re talking about economic growth, some of the time we’re talking about economic fairness...
"We need to be hyper-focused on this issue of wage growth and job growth — I think Democrats are scared of this message because it’s what Republicans have been talking about...
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/angry-democrats-blame-game-aft...
"...Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), one of the party’s rising stars, said Democrats have been distracted by the investigation in Trump’s alleged ties to Russia and need to focus more on making a concrete impact on voters' lives...
"...We’ve been hyper-confused for the past five years...Some of the time we’re talking about economic growth, some of the time we’re talking about economic fairness...
"We need to be hyper-focused on this issue of wage growth and job growth — I think Democrats are scared of this message because it’s what Republicans have been talking about...
4
That would make them Trump!!!
1
vx - no...
But it might make them Senators and Representatives...
But it might make them Senators and Representatives...
You write: "as the country has moved left, the Democratic Party’s base has consolidated even farther left"
But, in fact, the whole country, including Democrats have moved to the right. Bill Clinton moved the party right, Bush II took it farther right, and Barack Obama was almost certainly to the right of Richard Nixon. (Nixon, after all, had a guaranteed annual income proposal, and a health care plan more liberal than the ACA -- but we liberals found him much too conservative) Democrats cannot win elections by being "Republican Light": for example, Republican in public policy, but without the racism. To succeed, the party must become a twentyfirst century advocate for working people, as FDR was for citizens during the Great Depression. Even better policy prescriptions, however, will not win elections in the face of gerrymandering, appeals to racism, and GOP lies.
But, in fact, the whole country, including Democrats have moved to the right. Bill Clinton moved the party right, Bush II took it farther right, and Barack Obama was almost certainly to the right of Richard Nixon. (Nixon, after all, had a guaranteed annual income proposal, and a health care plan more liberal than the ACA -- but we liberals found him much too conservative) Democrats cannot win elections by being "Republican Light": for example, Republican in public policy, but without the racism. To succeed, the party must become a twentyfirst century advocate for working people, as FDR was for citizens during the Great Depression. Even better policy prescriptions, however, will not win elections in the face of gerrymandering, appeals to racism, and GOP lies.
6
No dems moved left. In the past your sexual orientation was a private thing, not something that politics would be involved in. Neither would be the use of a bathroom. Not to mention free stuff.
The formula Bill Clinton used - triangulation - is one of the key reasons that the Dems keep losing. Clinton sold out the working and middle class to get the support he needed from the power centers, and then mollified the traditional Dem base with identity-driven platforms. It worked for a time, until the working and middle class realized that they were getting short changed economically, This awakening bloomed when Trump offered an alternative to this Clintonian status quo. Sadly for the Dems, and America, they ignored Sanders' message which would've actually dealt with this problem, and given working and middle class voters good reason to vote Democratic. Left with the choice between the Unknown and the Status Quo, the voters chose the former, figuring they had already tried the latter for a couple of decades and things were only getting worse. This is one of the real weaknesses of our two-party system: lack of real choice.
The Dems could very well take advantage of the the inability of Trump and the Republicans to actually deliver on the promises made by Trump the candidate, but from the evidence so far, the party leaders still believe that triangulation and identity politics are the right path, despite clear evidence to the contrary. They need to stop pandering to their identity-fractured base, and stop selling out their once-former base - the working and middle class - and build a platform on the TRUE populism of Huey Long and FDR, or continue to lose.
The Dems could very well take advantage of the the inability of Trump and the Republicans to actually deliver on the promises made by Trump the candidate, but from the evidence so far, the party leaders still believe that triangulation and identity politics are the right path, despite clear evidence to the contrary. They need to stop pandering to their identity-fractured base, and stop selling out their once-former base - the working and middle class - and build a platform on the TRUE populism of Huey Long and FDR, or continue to lose.
4
Mr. Douthat's analysis seems intellectually rigorous on the surface, but it also feels divorced from the decision-making of voters. The majority of voters on both sides, but especially on the right, seem more entranced by nursery rhyme simplicity than by reasoned analysis of logical positions. Thus, regardless of the "truth" behind such things, people respond to visceral calls for "law and order," "build the wall," "better healthcare for all," "gun freedom (unless you're black)," and the most vacuous of all "Make America Great Again" have nothing to do with actual policy choices.
So, while Mr. Douthat's analysis sounds worthwhile for Democrats to listen to, it may just be a distraction. As Trump has amply demonstrated (and Bernie also trucked in), logical positions and truth have nothing to do with winning in today's America. Hillary probably lost because she was too truthful - because she thought voters cared about truth. Wrong. They care about being told things they want to hear without concern for whether a candidate can follow through on them. That's what gets a person elected. Unfortunately, the same phenomenon undermines accomplishment while governing. Thus, because of the fairy-tale vacuousness of the American electorate, we have an incredibly dysfunctional government.
To win, Democrats should determine what the majority of voters want to hear in the most simplistic terms possible, then promise them that, regardless of ability to deliver on it.
So, while Mr. Douthat's analysis sounds worthwhile for Democrats to listen to, it may just be a distraction. As Trump has amply demonstrated (and Bernie also trucked in), logical positions and truth have nothing to do with winning in today's America. Hillary probably lost because she was too truthful - because she thought voters cared about truth. Wrong. They care about being told things they want to hear without concern for whether a candidate can follow through on them. That's what gets a person elected. Unfortunately, the same phenomenon undermines accomplishment while governing. Thus, because of the fairy-tale vacuousness of the American electorate, we have an incredibly dysfunctional government.
To win, Democrats should determine what the majority of voters want to hear in the most simplistic terms possible, then promise them that, regardless of ability to deliver on it.
7
"Hillary probably lost because she was too truthful". Whah? Hillary was laced in
politically coached idioms and dogma. Voters of all persuasions with any savvy saw through her coiffured image in 60 seconds.
politically coached idioms and dogma. Voters of all persuasions with any savvy saw through her coiffured image in 60 seconds.
2
Democrats lost because of election fraud, practiced by the oh-so-Christianist GOP.
1
By your "coiffured image" snide remark, you prove that one reason she lost was that she committed the crime of being a woman. There is a hard core of men in this country that despise women for anything but the occasional you know what. There is a smaller, but active core of traditional women who do not like women who are different from them-- outspoken, an equal in their marriage, educated, successful. I am not saying this was THE factor, but Howard Clinto wold have been palatable to many of the voters who rejected HRC. Gender bias is something most working women have experienced. It has not diminished in the 40 years since I entered the workforce as a woman far closer to Hillary than to any of the women of the rust belt..
The right... or should I say the republican party... beginning mostly with Reagan's "ideas", and fed steroids with Gingrich, Delay, and even Hastert's (he of the "Hastert rule") atrocious tactics poisoned our politics and destroyed the center.
8
PLEASE -- the gerrymandering of this country allows state after state to have majority Democratic voters and minority party representation. In fact, in the vaunted WI, MI, PA the imbalance is grotesque.
Draw all the diagrams you want Ross ... we've already got the picture.
Draw all the diagrams you want Ross ... we've already got the picture.
7
"But on both sides of the Atlantic, if you sought to place the elite consensus on the same chart, it be much closer to the emptiest of quadrants"
Mr. Douthat's ("unwitty", if you will, given the proper inclusion of "would" in the like instance in the graf prededing) "street" locution, right after his closing comma, suggests a restyling of a classic Algonquin Round Table anecdote:
Male friend (rubbing playwright Marc Connelly's bald head): Marc, your scalp is as smooth as my wife's behind.
Connelly (rubbing to verify): So it be ... so it be ...
Mr. Douthat's ("unwitty", if you will, given the proper inclusion of "would" in the like instance in the graf prededing) "street" locution, right after his closing comma, suggests a restyling of a classic Algonquin Round Table anecdote:
Male friend (rubbing playwright Marc Connelly's bald head): Marc, your scalp is as smooth as my wife's behind.
Connelly (rubbing to verify): So it be ... so it be ...
1
Ross, regarding tri-angulation in the Clinton years: those voters were White and recognized that the Clinton welfare and justice program was aimed at minorities. Poor white people seem to enjoy suffering by voting for people who eviscerate the social programs that they use, as long as they can say, "look, those people aren't getting any hand-outs." It's racism, Ross, plain and simple for so many people.
Regarding abortion rights: the dems have not shifted further to the left. They want the decision left up to the woman, not the state.
For the GOP that purports to want government out a person's life, when it comes to biology, they want in, bigly.
Regarding abortion rights: the dems have not shifted further to the left. They want the decision left up to the woman, not the state.
For the GOP that purports to want government out a person's life, when it comes to biology, they want in, bigly.
6
That's it: the coalition of the ignorant and the rich. The ignorant will vote for the agenda of the rich and against their own economic self-interest in order to withhold benefits from minorities - "those people".
The answer is for the Democrats to focus strongly on economic equality issues, which the union movement used to do for them. Instead we have Clinton and now Obama getting hundreds of thousands in fees from Wall Street, hiring Wall Street bankers in a Democratic administration, etc.
The answer is for the Democrats to focus strongly on economic equality issues, which the union movement used to do for them. Instead we have Clinton and now Obama getting hundreds of thousands in fees from Wall Street, hiring Wall Street bankers in a Democratic administration, etc.
I can't really argue with Ross's evidence that the lower right quadrant is fairly empty. On the other hand, I am firmly a member of the lower right quadrant and am not going to change my views just because a majority of Americans disagree with me. All hail Simpson-Bowles and Macron, and maybe we can do a better job at persuasion.
1
This man is not interested in finding the "American center" at all, and fools excatly no one that he is. He simply wants to nail the somewhat nearer Right as the "Center" and leave the marker right there--forever.
1
Ahem. Evidence, please. Otherwise this comes across as pure bias. Our political system needs purging of bias of every stripe.
1
Astute and fairly free of Ross's usual biases and proclivities.
2
Ross, you focus on the a single scatter graph & make conclusions that aren't necessarily held up in Figure #1 that shows how we are divided. We "extremist" liberals might do better on immigration, yes but as the study states,
"The gaps between the Clinton and Trump voters on questions of racial resentment, immigration, attitudes toward Muslims, and moral issues are consistently wide. There is very little overlap between the two camps on these issues."
It's more than simple immigration. What also separates us is concern with inequality in social issues as well as economic issues. And as the study states, many Trump voters are in more of a middle on economic issues but they are "former Democrats" therefore the concern with the economy moves with them into new territory.
Also stated in the study which explains the Trump voter center on economic issues that you miss:
"Since Republicans have picked up more economically liberal voters (and may continue to do so since there are still some populists who vote for Democrats), it may be harder for Republicans to continue to push a traditional conservative free-market agenda. If so, this would leave conservatives with little place to go."
Unfortunately since many voters now vote for tribes rather than for ideas or ideology, does it matter? For Trump voters who voted on ideas I believe they will be disappointed & will blame anyone but themselves for voting for a charlatan.
"The gaps between the Clinton and Trump voters on questions of racial resentment, immigration, attitudes toward Muslims, and moral issues are consistently wide. There is very little overlap between the two camps on these issues."
It's more than simple immigration. What also separates us is concern with inequality in social issues as well as economic issues. And as the study states, many Trump voters are in more of a middle on economic issues but they are "former Democrats" therefore the concern with the economy moves with them into new territory.
Also stated in the study which explains the Trump voter center on economic issues that you miss:
"Since Republicans have picked up more economically liberal voters (and may continue to do so since there are still some populists who vote for Democrats), it may be harder for Republicans to continue to push a traditional conservative free-market agenda. If so, this would leave conservatives with little place to go."
Unfortunately since many voters now vote for tribes rather than for ideas or ideology, does it matter? For Trump voters who voted on ideas I believe they will be disappointed & will blame anyone but themselves for voting for a charlatan.
As long as liberals continue to believe their opponents policy differences are simply racially motivated, the Republicans will have no problem winning elections from here on out.
3
Good point, Rex. Liberals need to clean their particular swamp of preconceived political correctness to become the party Americans will again vote for.
1
It's opponent's (if you mean singular) or opponents' (if you mean plural).
The GOP is the party of every shade of bigotry, not just against blacks. They also hate education and science because it conflicts with their fairy tales. Their tight bible belts limits blood flow to the brain.
1
It no longer exists!
When I lived in the SF Bay Area, it was just a given that anyone moving office furniture, doing landscaping, laying bricks, clearing tables, cleaning offices, carrying sacks of cement, cleaning hotel rooms, washing dishes in a restaurant or clearing tables would be Latino. Definitely not the case here in the Northwest corner of Arkansas where I now live, right across the state line from several of the poorest counties in Missouri. Here one sees white people performing all of the above labors, and on a daily basis. Conflating exclusionary attitudes towards immigrants with racism seems enormously popular in these sidebars, but I would suggest what is really happening has way more to do with competition for jobs down at the bottom end of the employment ladder. The Democratic party is going to have to resolve its schizophrenia on this issue if it is ever going to reach those legions of white, working class voters who consistently turn out for elections year after year. Just telling people they have been "left behind by the global economy, and oh, by the way, here are 12 million more semi-skilled undocumented workers living four to a room for you to compete with" isn't going to do it.
4
No workingman's political party in the advanced nations would even dream of imposing the kind of insane and self-destructive policies that both parties have foisted on the working class citizens of the US.
Neither Canada nor France nor Sweden nor any other social democratic country tolerates illegal immigration. They deport illegals, swiftly and without hesitation or regret.
The notion of a party of the left that cuts the legs out of its working-class citizenry for the sake of locking up the votes of an ethnic voting bloc imported from abroad is literally unthinkable to them.
Only American Democrats drunk on identity politics would conjure up idiocies such as "sanctuary cities", "dreamers", "undocumented immigrants".
Neither Canada nor France nor Sweden nor any other social democratic country tolerates illegal immigration. They deport illegals, swiftly and without hesitation or regret.
The notion of a party of the left that cuts the legs out of its working-class citizenry for the sake of locking up the votes of an ethnic voting bloc imported from abroad is literally unthinkable to them.
Only American Democrats drunk on identity politics would conjure up idiocies such as "sanctuary cities", "dreamers", "undocumented immigrants".
2
Glenn Baldwin: Your comment should really be an NYT pick. It won't be, though, because of a very real blind spot which is part of the Dems' problem.
Pulling out of TPP does not make Trump an economic progressive.
Every single other policy Trump has actually pursued since taking office is hardline economic conservative (anti-safety net; tax cuts for the wealthy; pro-corporations; starve-the-beast).
Once again, the GOP uses social issues to turn out voters while paying lip-service to economic issues, then governs hard in the interest of the economic elite. Trump is no different than "compassionate conservatism", i.e., cut taxes for the rich while cutting off access to family planing to appease the base.
Everything else is window dressing.
Every single other policy Trump has actually pursued since taking office is hardline economic conservative (anti-safety net; tax cuts for the wealthy; pro-corporations; starve-the-beast).
Once again, the GOP uses social issues to turn out voters while paying lip-service to economic issues, then governs hard in the interest of the economic elite. Trump is no different than "compassionate conservatism", i.e., cut taxes for the rich while cutting off access to family planing to appease the base.
Everything else is window dressing.
8
The GOP uses gerrymandering to win elections, as well as the Russians.
2
Ross, the objective center is a gazillion miles left of the present political alignmment. Everybody is on the right side of the center, even Bernie Sanders would not pass as a leftist in the rest of the world.
2
'Money is the mother's milk of politics'. (Jesse Unruh-California legislator & State Treasurer.
Money speaks loudly and politicians feel dependent on big donors. So politicians running will say whatever is necessary to appeal to voters in one or more of the more populated quadrants.After being elected or re-elected, on issues affecting the significant or vital interests of the 3.8% fourth quadrant, their interests will prevail except on the rare occasions when such a position could cost someone re-election. It is interesting to note that politicians as diverse as John Kasich and Rahm Emmanuel, in brief hiatuses from politics end up in high finance/Wall Street where they were able to earn millions upon millions in a brief period before returning to politics.
Money speaks loudly and politicians feel dependent on big donors. So politicians running will say whatever is necessary to appeal to voters in one or more of the more populated quadrants.After being elected or re-elected, on issues affecting the significant or vital interests of the 3.8% fourth quadrant, their interests will prevail except on the rare occasions when such a position could cost someone re-election. It is interesting to note that politicians as diverse as John Kasich and Rahm Emmanuel, in brief hiatuses from politics end up in high finance/Wall Street where they were able to earn millions upon millions in a brief period before returning to politics.
3
The American political scene has been taken over by uncompromising, unbending, ideologues of both the left and right. These groups are fueled by gerrymandered districts, special interest millionaires/billionaires and ratings hungry partisan trolls in the media. These “holy warriors” make it difficult for government to function as intended, eschewing any type of reasonableness or compromise with the despised “other”.
As a result, we are left with a government unable to deal with a plethora of pressing issues, from crumbling infrastructure, far too expensive health care, endless fiscal and trade deficits, actuarially busted entitlement programs, incredibly complicated and economically distorting tax codes and a broken and irrational immigration system.
At some point, one can only hope that moderation, compromise and reasonableness will once again take center stage in our politics and government. If not, we are all in for a very bumpy ride.
As a result, we are left with a government unable to deal with a plethora of pressing issues, from crumbling infrastructure, far too expensive health care, endless fiscal and trade deficits, actuarially busted entitlement programs, incredibly complicated and economically distorting tax codes and a broken and irrational immigration system.
At some point, one can only hope that moderation, compromise and reasonableness will once again take center stage in our politics and government. If not, we are all in for a very bumpy ride.
6
Democrats lose elections because Republicans are much better at propaganda and scaring people and much less concerned with truth or accuracy. Democrats used to be transparently dishonest about racial matters in order to win in the South, but LBJ had a conscience in this area so Republicans picked up their old dishonesty and it has paid off handsomely for them.
Republicans have no positions; their budgets do not balance or add up. and their view of deficits is to run them up to be large enough to scare people into shrinking safety nets to avoid supposed economic collapse. Their position on guns leads to more deaths, and their position on global warming is pure ostrich emulation. Their position on matters sexual leads to more abortions and more children whose upbringing is drastically underfunded. Their position on gayness is the closet (even though the closet door is now wide open and they have no idea how to get it closed again). Many want to do what (they think) God commanded them to do and fake the evidence that it works when it doesnt.
Moderation in the quest for reality is a recipe for waste and endless troubles.
Republicans have no positions; their budgets do not balance or add up. and their view of deficits is to run them up to be large enough to scare people into shrinking safety nets to avoid supposed economic collapse. Their position on guns leads to more deaths, and their position on global warming is pure ostrich emulation. Their position on matters sexual leads to more abortions and more children whose upbringing is drastically underfunded. Their position on gayness is the closet (even though the closet door is now wide open and they have no idea how to get it closed again). Many want to do what (they think) God commanded them to do and fake the evidence that it works when it doesnt.
Moderation in the quest for reality is a recipe for waste and endless troubles.
9
In 2014 in Pennsylvania, the vote by party for the national House of Representatives showed that more votes for Democrats where higher than votes for Republicans. However, due to gerrymandering, Republicans wound up with 13 representatives and Democrats with 5, even when Democrats had more votes.
Makes perfect sense to me. And it means that all your illustrations about why Democrats can't win elections are out the window. Here are the two reasons: 1) Gerrymandering. 2) Electoral College (more voting value for President by a Wyoming resident than for a California resident). It's that simple.
Makes perfect sense to me. And it means that all your illustrations about why Democrats can't win elections are out the window. Here are the two reasons: 1) Gerrymandering. 2) Electoral College (more voting value for President by a Wyoming resident than for a California resident). It's that simple.
20
As long as we are stuck in the 18th century, Presidential candidates that lose the popular votes can win the election due to the electoral college. The founders wanted only white men with property to vote; but now all citizens can vote. If we changed that, why can't we change the way Presidents are elected??????? Aren't we ready for democracy yet?
3
No, not in the Bible Belt.
1
The problem for the Democratic leadership is they are socially liberal and economically conservative. This is needed to maintain donor contributions. Obamacare was originally developed by the Heritage Foundation, endorsed by Gingrich, and adopted by Mitt Romney as governor of Massachusetts. Dodd-Frank was not reinstating Glass-Steagall. Bill Clinton's team fought creating a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and ended Glass-Steagall. Democratic leaders admonish us to accept identity groups but could not take a lead in protecting the social safety net, much less vigorously support expanding and improving it. Bottom line - the Democrats need to stop being Wall Street's second party and return to their economic populist roots.
6
Americans generally want the same outcomes; affordable healthcare, economic growth, quality education, etc. What they disagree on is the methods of achieving these goals.
4
10 million voters in the 2016 General Election are conspicuously missing from this analysis. Those who voted Libertarian, Green, or independent. Additionally missing are those millions more who went to the polls and cast ballots but did not vote in the presidential election. And the tens of millions more who were qualified to vote, but did not vote, or who attempted to vote and were denied the vote. But let's just start with the missing 10 million independent party voters, and throw this oped and the "centrist" junk science it promotes, out the window.
10
Not thinking they'll all be voting for Elizabeth Warren.
It’s become commonplace to assert that the American electorate is hopelessly divided; that the partisan divided has reached levels of toxicity never seen since the 1960s.
But polling indicates that there’s widespread agreement on many key issues, even on those that supposedly divide us. Most Americans favor comprehensive immigration reform. Most Americans favor investment in our crumbling infrastructure. Most Americans favor universal background checks for the sales of firearms. Most Americans support our entitlement programs and the social safety net. Now that they understand it better, more Americans support Obamacare and its reform than support its repeal and replacement. Most Americans have come to accept that people should be able to marry whomever they chose. Most Americans agree that climate change is a serious problem and that human activity is to blame. And so on.
Our democracy is clearly dysfunctional when the public agrees on so many vital policy issues but our elected representatives are unable to express the will of the people in the form of legislation to address these problems. Even as voter frustration grows, I see little hope that Congress will put party politics aside and search for solutions favored by the electorate. What to do?
But polling indicates that there’s widespread agreement on many key issues, even on those that supposedly divide us. Most Americans favor comprehensive immigration reform. Most Americans favor investment in our crumbling infrastructure. Most Americans favor universal background checks for the sales of firearms. Most Americans support our entitlement programs and the social safety net. Now that they understand it better, more Americans support Obamacare and its reform than support its repeal and replacement. Most Americans have come to accept that people should be able to marry whomever they chose. Most Americans agree that climate change is a serious problem and that human activity is to blame. And so on.
Our democracy is clearly dysfunctional when the public agrees on so many vital policy issues but our elected representatives are unable to express the will of the people in the form of legislation to address these problems. Even as voter frustration grows, I see little hope that Congress will put party politics aside and search for solutions favored by the electorate. What to do?
6
The feeling I had and many others watching the past election unfold was the Trump misrepresentation of his republican positions on the safety net and economic policy. He attracted enough past Obama voters that allowed him to win the electoral college. I was betting sure he would never deliver on better health care or protect working class folks from the upper classes who seemed to never be satisfied with their share of the pie. Why people thought this gold brick huckster would advance their cause instead of his fellow oligarchs amazes me.
8
Every person who voted for Trump should take a short course in the Republican establishments guiding economic principles. Then they should notice that Trump's populist promises are seldom kept and that the policies of the GOP establishment inevitably serve the interests of the GOP's plutocratic donors.
As a public service, I offer the following short course:
(1) competition guarantees equilibrium and fair outcomes among all market factors, including prices, wages, rents, job availability, etc.;
(2) nonetheless, private monopolies--too-big-to-fail enterprises--are preferable to government regulation of the market;
[Note the tension between (1) and (2). GOP pols generally ignore it.]
(3) corporations must pursue short-term profits, minimize the interests of employees and consumers, and thereby enhance shareholder value and executive compensation;
(4) if it is politically expedient to put a public-private initiative in place--say for healthcare reform or infrastructure repair--make sure the initiative is complex, and assures the socialization of risks and the privatization of benefits;
(5) always exaggerate the dangers associated with government debt and minimize the dangers associated with ballooning private sector debt.
(6) privatization, financial and environmental deregulation and massive tax reductions for the "makers" will permit tiny trickle-down benefits for the "takers.”
Surprise! Surprise! GOP donors' interests are served above those of all others!
As a public service, I offer the following short course:
(1) competition guarantees equilibrium and fair outcomes among all market factors, including prices, wages, rents, job availability, etc.;
(2) nonetheless, private monopolies--too-big-to-fail enterprises--are preferable to government regulation of the market;
[Note the tension between (1) and (2). GOP pols generally ignore it.]
(3) corporations must pursue short-term profits, minimize the interests of employees and consumers, and thereby enhance shareholder value and executive compensation;
(4) if it is politically expedient to put a public-private initiative in place--say for healthcare reform or infrastructure repair--make sure the initiative is complex, and assures the socialization of risks and the privatization of benefits;
(5) always exaggerate the dangers associated with government debt and minimize the dangers associated with ballooning private sector debt.
(6) privatization, financial and environmental deregulation and massive tax reductions for the "makers" will permit tiny trickle-down benefits for the "takers.”
Surprise! Surprise! GOP donors' interests are served above those of all others!
10
Lol...you're asking Trump voters to take a short course...now thats funny! Maybe if it comes with fruit punch and a chic-afil (sp?) sandwich. Take a course...wow, they already know everything, just like their self-proclaimed messiah.
1. Build a wall.
2. Undermine all govt institutions.
3. Trust bloggers and conspiracy theorists (ala Alex Jones)over any MSM outlet.
4. Take no lessons from foreign nations such as on a healthcare system.
5. Vilify anything and anyone who doesnt festoon theircars with cliches of patriotism.
6. Sane gun laws are socialist and those who favor them should be shot.
7. Build a wall...
Rinse, repeat...
1. Build a wall.
2. Undermine all govt institutions.
3. Trust bloggers and conspiracy theorists (ala Alex Jones)over any MSM outlet.
4. Take no lessons from foreign nations such as on a healthcare system.
5. Vilify anything and anyone who doesnt festoon theircars with cliches of patriotism.
6. Sane gun laws are socialist and those who favor them should be shot.
7. Build a wall...
Rinse, repeat...
4
If we can't correct or see a generational correction to this slide into blind tribalism we are experiencing, it bodes ill for us and our children. We will have left behind a lesser version of America than the one entrusted to us.
Can't anyone here tell the truth?
Republican ascendancy's main driver is the feeling among middle class independent white voters that the Democratic Party exists to serve minorities and gives short shrift to white people.
Trump is the manifestation of this feeling of betrayal. When Ferguson burned and Bernie Sanders allowed his stage to be forcefully taken by a couple of young women from Black Lives Matter, I imagined a backlash was coming.
Well, here it is and I wonder if the ever-so-pure guardians of liberal orthodoxy are happy about it? Unless and until the left is willing to acknowledge that Identity Politics is a loser, that this country must control its borders, and that life is not so easy for working and middle class whites we will all have to suffer the consequences of continued right-wing rule.
Republican ascendancy's main driver is the feeling among middle class independent white voters that the Democratic Party exists to serve minorities and gives short shrift to white people.
Trump is the manifestation of this feeling of betrayal. When Ferguson burned and Bernie Sanders allowed his stage to be forcefully taken by a couple of young women from Black Lives Matter, I imagined a backlash was coming.
Well, here it is and I wonder if the ever-so-pure guardians of liberal orthodoxy are happy about it? Unless and until the left is willing to acknowledge that Identity Politics is a loser, that this country must control its borders, and that life is not so easy for working and middle class whites we will all have to suffer the consequences of continued right-wing rule.
7
Supporting minorities that have been marginalized takes nothing away from whites. Whites have had 400 years of pro-white affirmative action in America under various disguises. Legacy acceptance, for one. Whites have little trouble police, motels, restaurants, neighborhoods. Whites, like spoiled children, need to learn how to share. I am white, but also a first generation American. Anglo-Saxons had few problems compared with Italians, Irish, Poles, etc. same for Christians, especially Protestants, compared with Jew, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.
Whites still have white privilege.
Whites still have white privilege.
3
True. The class of whites being referred to by Paul, are those who want what they believe they are entitled to. Good paying, low skill jobs, requiring little education, that are dead-end, back breaking, mind numbing jobs. Where they can go from High School, to "work the line" get paid well, have to do nothing more to educate themselves for the rest of their adult life. Get Cadillac benefits, live in their white enclaves, perform their patriotic rituals a few times a year by charring meat, and swilling beer, and firing off fireworks, and/or their guns. With no police harassment.
That demographic actually believes Trump can return them to their apathetic, uneducated paradise. Which he might well do...but it'll cost us all the Republic.
That demographic actually believes Trump can return them to their apathetic, uneducated paradise. Which he might well do...but it'll cost us all the Republic.
2
Right, Bo.
Learning is a lifelong responsibility. My father was a Scottish immigrant that started in the West Virginia coal mines. I never went hungry, nor wore second clothes, but didn't have many pricey toys. My best friends were the free public library and outstanding upstate New York public schools. The Airce Force sent me to NYU, MIT, and the University of Washington. I am 81, and if I could walk more comfortably, I would be in school today. I make do by reading, reading, reading. My mother realized her life long dream by attending a low cost community college and becoming an RN at age 54.
Learning is a lifelong responsibility. My father was a Scottish immigrant that started in the West Virginia coal mines. I never went hungry, nor wore second clothes, but didn't have many pricey toys. My best friends were the free public library and outstanding upstate New York public schools. The Airce Force sent me to NYU, MIT, and the University of Washington. I am 81, and if I could walk more comfortably, I would be in school today. I make do by reading, reading, reading. My mother realized her life long dream by attending a low cost community college and becoming an RN at age 54.
An excellent article by Mr. Douthat who sounds a bit gloomy with reason. America is not known for 'Moderation'. Ask any of your friends, some from our Allied Countries, the latter who are turning away from this presidency. They can not support a Trump presidency of dangerous absurdities and intrigue.
When this American first noticed the disintegration of the Republican Party, it was around the time of the Tea Party babbling, the attempt of the House Speaker, Mr. Boehner, and other government officials to place obstacles in front of President Obama. Stupid it was and sloppy too, and now White Supremacy is on the rise, while we struggle to come out of this Recession.
What Trump has done is to make politics more entertaining, more salacious and cheap. Those of us who did not vote during the Presidential Elections are probably not going to vote in 2018.
George Will apparently once wrote on writing a column 'The amazing thing is that something this fun isn't illegal'. All to say, hoping that you will not give up, Mr. Douhat, during these challenging times because some of us need your input to balance the tarnished scales.
If the New York Times could offer its team of journalists and assistants in the right spirit of the moment, a pay raise that would be just fine too. We the People are not at war with each other in The Land of the Free, but there is a tremendous amount of challenges that we are facing.
Keep moving.
When this American first noticed the disintegration of the Republican Party, it was around the time of the Tea Party babbling, the attempt of the House Speaker, Mr. Boehner, and other government officials to place obstacles in front of President Obama. Stupid it was and sloppy too, and now White Supremacy is on the rise, while we struggle to come out of this Recession.
What Trump has done is to make politics more entertaining, more salacious and cheap. Those of us who did not vote during the Presidential Elections are probably not going to vote in 2018.
George Will apparently once wrote on writing a column 'The amazing thing is that something this fun isn't illegal'. All to say, hoping that you will not give up, Mr. Douhat, during these challenging times because some of us need your input to balance the tarnished scales.
If the New York Times could offer its team of journalists and assistants in the right spirit of the moment, a pay raise that would be just fine too. We the People are not at war with each other in The Land of the Free, but there is a tremendous amount of challenges that we are facing.
Keep moving.
2
Democrats who complain about the power of money to sway elections, poured money into the Georgia race. (smile).
2
Gee, but the Republicans poured in a lot more. Are you suggesting that the Republicans should pour in as much money as they want to while Democrats should be "true to themselves" and not try to support their candidate with outside money? Well, let's put that l'il ole shoe on the other foot and let me suggest that tax paying Democrats from Blue states pay a whole lot more money to support Red states than vice versa. In fact there is no vice versa. We blue guys support you red guys, and you red guys seem to just love takin' the money and then complaining about government. So, here's what we're gonna do - secede. And put our money where it counts - into our own states, so we can get ourselves some sane government. And you'll never have to take our money or complain about us ever, ever again. (smile)
To be consistent and fair, if you use the term, "elite" as in your statement, "...if you sought to place the elite consensus on the same chart..."; please use "lower class or riffraff" to refer to people who do not fall into this category. Otherwise, just refer to them as liberal or conservative. Much obliged highbrow conservative.
1
Sanders disciples who voted for Clinton did so in the hope that she wasn't faking her newfound, strident progressivism -- many suspected she was. I voted for her hoping she WAS faking it. The base wouldn't allow her to run as a center leftist, and she was (mistakenly) far more concerned with going after Sanders diehards than center rightists. By the time progressives were done with her, Clinton was to the left of any Democratic nominee in decades.
The Democratic base is becoming more isolationist, socialist, and intolerant of dissent. They aren't concerned with reaching across the aisle. In their view, such reaching has produced a neoliberal selling-out of the American Worker ("Listen, Liberal"). Nor are they interested in softening their social liberalism; they see any moves in that direction as giving in to Old White-Male America.
I don't think the Left likes representative democracy. It has a tendency to be hijacked by elites; they don't see it as representative. Direct democracy shall give us the true voice of the People! No country can be well-governed in the absence of breathing space. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/more-professionalis...
"The act of voting is a delegation of authority, not a game of 'Mother, May I?' in which the elected official should have to pause at every move to make sure the voter has okayed it. ... Disintermediation is not the solution to our problems; disintermediation is the problem."
The Democratic base is becoming more isolationist, socialist, and intolerant of dissent. They aren't concerned with reaching across the aisle. In their view, such reaching has produced a neoliberal selling-out of the American Worker ("Listen, Liberal"). Nor are they interested in softening their social liberalism; they see any moves in that direction as giving in to Old White-Male America.
I don't think the Left likes representative democracy. It has a tendency to be hijacked by elites; they don't see it as representative. Direct democracy shall give us the true voice of the People! No country can be well-governed in the absence of breathing space. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/more-professionalis...
"The act of voting is a delegation of authority, not a game of 'Mother, May I?' in which the elected official should have to pause at every move to make sure the voter has okayed it. ... Disintermediation is not the solution to our problems; disintermediation is the problem."
2
It's not 1850 anymore, David.
Americans have been sold out by greedy plutocrats, who know they can con white bigots, by pretending to thump the Bible.
Americans have been sold out by greedy plutocrats, who know they can con white bigots, by pretending to thump the Bible.
enough with the "liberalism" tag on this lot who've taken the democratic party away from the people it was meant to represent and given it over to...well, name its components as you will but the sum is rather elitist than populist and that sum is, in turn, has begot mistrust and, so can't win an election, (besmirching the very name of the party and dragging "progressive" into the mud as well).
the times, from its high place calls the election "largely" a referendum on trump (who might have said "hugely" and been ridiculed for it)...the election, to reiterate some, was yet another shout out (joe scarborough, always last to get it, calls it a "wake up call"!) from a voice that was once the voice of the democratic party, a voice betrayed and disdained ("yclept deplorable and irredeemable" as the new york shalespeare festival might express it in their next political cartoon reduction of the bard)...the voice of the america that goes to work every day, no matters it differences.
give mr douthhat credit for trying but all the comma splice conjecture, not to mention h(r)c style blamegaming, won't bring the flock back into the barn...
what's needed is a total fumigation, a cleaning out of the stifling, self-serving clinton gang that not only killed one of its own when it took out bernie, but also cut off the oxygen that might support new life (the kind that might have beaten another uninspiring R candidate in georgia).
time to begin at the beginning...or else its trump till '24.
the times, from its high place calls the election "largely" a referendum on trump (who might have said "hugely" and been ridiculed for it)...the election, to reiterate some, was yet another shout out (joe scarborough, always last to get it, calls it a "wake up call"!) from a voice that was once the voice of the democratic party, a voice betrayed and disdained ("yclept deplorable and irredeemable" as the new york shalespeare festival might express it in their next political cartoon reduction of the bard)...the voice of the america that goes to work every day, no matters it differences.
give mr douthhat credit for trying but all the comma splice conjecture, not to mention h(r)c style blamegaming, won't bring the flock back into the barn...
what's needed is a total fumigation, a cleaning out of the stifling, self-serving clinton gang that not only killed one of its own when it took out bernie, but also cut off the oxygen that might support new life (the kind that might have beaten another uninspiring R candidate in georgia).
time to begin at the beginning...or else its trump till '24.
I fear that there is no longer and "American Center". We have become, simply, two warring political parties. Neither of which knows how to lead and improve the USA. No matter how many votes, A President like our Twitterer-in-Chief cannot achieve much using 140 character thoughts. Many with characters left over, unused........
The last sentence of Douthat's article is the one that resonates for me. However, I think the implication that "one of our leaders " may claim a "better center" is way off. We need a larger percentage of the voting members of Congress (535 leaders) to be willing to walk across the aisle.
5
Interesting, but it this analysis relies too much on one study of one election.
Before we read too much into this analysis remember this: Trump lost the popular vote and Republicans use jerrymandering to overcome THEIR, in fact, minority status. And now that corporations are people and money is speech the political landscape devolved into a propaganda engine fueled by money. American political culture has taken a decidedly mercantile turn for the worse. Lying is now "protected speech" as long you have the money to spread it.
10
How do you gerrymander a presidential election?
Please look up the meaning -- it's not all that difficult to gerrymander an election.
It never ceases to amaze me that seemingly intelligent people keep mistaking the war of ideas for actual political reality. It should be obvious that mainstream voters are not far left or right, yet those who are most conservative or liberal ignore this in the belief that their ideologies are the only answers. They are not.
Moderate center-left to center-right is where democracy works and things get done. Blaming gerrymandering for Republican victories at national and state levels pretends that making the Democratic party even more liberal is the answer. It isn't. Moderates have always made governance work despite party differences, and that simply isn't going to change. When the true believers go left and right, the rest of us need to stay in the middle where majority rule can actually function.
Eclectic Pragmatism — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
Moderate center-left to center-right is where democracy works and things get done. Blaming gerrymandering for Republican victories at national and state levels pretends that making the Democratic party even more liberal is the answer. It isn't. Moderates have always made governance work despite party differences, and that simply isn't going to change. When the true believers go left and right, the rest of us need to stay in the middle where majority rule can actually function.
Eclectic Pragmatism — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
2
Mr B. labels progressives and conservatives as ideologues, but this post is a reminder that those in the mushy middle are in fact the most ideological people of all, because they presume that their middle-of-the-road views somehow comport with common sense and "actual political reality." While it is true--assuming that voters are distributed along some sort of bell curve--that most voters will be in the middle, and that a significant majority of voters ought to be able to, as he says, get things done. Politics is about the advocacy of ideas. As one who is not in the middle, I don't necessarily expect to win--but neither am I willing to have my ideas derided as loony dogma.
On the other hand, does Mr. B. really believe that the U.S. government is currently functioning well?! Gerrymandering is real, and has been amply documented, and the U.S. Supreme Court recently decided to consider this problem, which actually does "rig" the vote and make our legislature unrepresentative--and less moderate, an issue Mr. B. should care about. The role of money and powerful interests in our politics was also well-documented in 2014 by political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, who concluded that the U.S. is effectively an oligarchy: when "the people" and powerful vested interests disagree, powerful interests win. See:
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_a...
On the other hand, does Mr. B. really believe that the U.S. government is currently functioning well?! Gerrymandering is real, and has been amply documented, and the U.S. Supreme Court recently decided to consider this problem, which actually does "rig" the vote and make our legislature unrepresentative--and less moderate, an issue Mr. B. should care about. The role of money and powerful interests in our politics was also well-documented in 2014 by political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, who concluded that the U.S. is effectively an oligarchy: when "the people" and powerful vested interests disagree, powerful interests win. See:
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_a...
1
"Politics is about the advocacy of ideas"? No, it's not. It is about those who have and advocate for their ideas dealing with others whose ideas may be and usually are different. Politics is about debate and argument, but the meat of it is the bargaining table, that vital territory where the various factions and their allies make their proposals and counter-proposals, trying to gain as much and give up as little as their skills and the numbers will allow. The ones who take their stand and refuse to compromise are not doing politics, they are doing war. Only in war do you have enemies; in politics, as in legal matters, you have opponents. The difference is not only vital to the practice of politics, I believe utterly that it is also vital to the preservation of the Republic.
I will agree that compromise is necessary in politics and to democracy. But I certainly am not about to retract my statement about the importance of ideas--really, I was just trying to counter Mr. B's dichotomy, in which "ideologues" right and left merely yammer about vacuous, impractical ideas, while "pramatists" in the middle actually accomplish real work. You seem to accept the importance of ideas, too, given your statement that, "Politics is about debate and argument." Words and ideas, as William James noted, are things--that is, they are among the tools that we use to accomplish tasks, including political tasks. Citizens advocate for their position, and try to win others over to it. Ultimately, of course, unanimity is unattainable on almost every issue, and compromise is, as you say, necessary. I said as much myself when I admitted that I don't necessarily expect to win a lot of political debates, but that will not stop me from expressing my views. I don't think that the "war" metaphor is apt, although American politics, according to the study that Ross Douthat cites, is now deeply divided along lines of identity. So maybe our politics is so deeply divided along partisan lines that it is now a battle, rather than a negotiation.
2
Obama has always been and still is very popular. Obama was a moderate Democrat. Many Obama voters voted for Trump. When something disagreeable has happened since January 2017, Trump has blamed Obama; when something agreeable has happened since January 2017, Trump has claimed the credit. Perhaps the Democrats should focus on being moderate and seek advice from Obama.
1
They will not do this. The coastal elites will use this as an excuse to go even further to the left.
I hope so.
Very interesting. Like most political junkies, I have tried for months now to understand the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, and Mr. Douthat's column and Mr. Drutman's article and accompanying charts are instructive regarding Hillary Clinton's failure to retain some usual members of the Democratic coalition, who voted instead for Donald Trump.
Mr. Douthat hopes for a politician astute enough to endorse moderate views that reflect the electorate's opinion. I predict that these charts of voters' opinions will not sway many Representatives or Senators, who are held in thrall by big donors and corporations. So I guess I am one of those populists who has temporarily lost faith in our political system.
On a happier note, I did learn a new vocabulary word: rigorist.
Mr. Douthat hopes for a politician astute enough to endorse moderate views that reflect the electorate's opinion. I predict that these charts of voters' opinions will not sway many Representatives or Senators, who are held in thrall by big donors and corporations. So I guess I am one of those populists who has temporarily lost faith in our political system.
On a happier note, I did learn a new vocabulary word: rigorist.
Let's be honest about this: if you add up all the voting opportunites, and divide them by the number of possible voters, the average American doesn't vote.
The true center is apathetic and submissive.
The true center is apathetic and submissive.
3
Hillary Clinton is a moderately liberal politician from the pragmatic wing of the party. Barack Obama was too (though he did get ORomneycare passed), as were Al Gore and Bill Clinton. John Kerry was a conventional liberal but not some sort of Bernie Bro. Harry Reid was a westerner who was pro-life and pro-gun, he balanced out Pelosi's big-city urban liberalism. Schumer is liberal, but he's Wall Street's liberal. Sorry, Mr. Douthat, but your analysis is weak. The moderate, pragmatic wing of the Democratic party is strong, and much stronger than the Bernie wing (and Bernie is not even a Democrat). Conservative pro-lifers are adamantly opposed to the moderate view (Bill Clinton: keep it safe, legal, and rare) so we will never win them over. Characterizing the Democratic position on immigration as "open borders," is ridiculous. When are you going to confront the truth? The Democratic position on civil rights for blacks, women, and sexual minorities turns off the entire south and huge swaths of the midwest. It would be nice to hear a Republican acknowledge this once in a while, but that Republican will never be you.
6
As a former New Yorker, MD,MBA "deplorable" in a moderate California county where 80% of my co-workers were anti-HRC or pro-Trump, you have no concept of us. My Black,Hispanic asian co-workers aren't anti Black, the Women(majority voted for DT) weren't anti women and no one cares about sexual minorities.
I appreciate democrats being clueless.
My daughter goes to Oberlin College in Ohio and every yard sign in this liberal enclave near Cleveland was for Trump.
WE WON YOU LOST
BOOYAH!
I appreciate democrats being clueless.
My daughter goes to Oberlin College in Ohio and every yard sign in this liberal enclave near Cleveland was for Trump.
WE WON YOU LOST
BOOYAH!
Hillary told a Goldman Sachs audience she favored trans continental Open Borders. Elites love Open Borders and endless waves of amnesty for endless waves of illegal immigrants. And maybe they are right to. Voters who determine election outcomes HATE it.
And this is where we are now. Pure tribalism. Screaming and baring our red-or-blue painted chests at the football game. Rooting for "our" guys no matter what, even when the quarterback is repeatedly accused of sexual assault, domestic abuse, or dog fighting. Happy as long as our "enemy"—who, let's face it, is basically just a caricature for us— is suffering.
Amid all this heaving to work toward an analysis, there is a glaring error: Trump and the Republicans do not have majority status. The column states: "...his party’s majority could very easily unravel..." Not so, unless Douthat is referring to the congressional majority. Trump certainly fell far short of a majority of the vote in 2016 with almost 11 million more votes, in total, cast against him than for him. This fact does not require a complex chart with overlaying facts of political orientation to understand. Trump was opposed by a majority of American voters. Got it?
Because of the Electoral College system, the votes cast for third party and no party candidates are treated as having been thrown away, but they reflect the serious intentions of voters. For millions, it was a way of saying, "I don't like either candidate, so I am showing that my true choice is either not available or someone who is very unlikely to win."
This is more than a mere protest vote. A stronger Democratic candidate, one who hadn't been under attack for 25 years, would have won in 2016 and we wouldn't be having all these discussions about realignment of American politics.
Because of the Electoral College system, the votes cast for third party and no party candidates are treated as having been thrown away, but they reflect the serious intentions of voters. For millions, it was a way of saying, "I don't like either candidate, so I am showing that my true choice is either not available or someone who is very unlikely to win."
This is more than a mere protest vote. A stronger Democratic candidate, one who hadn't been under attack for 25 years, would have won in 2016 and we wouldn't be having all these discussions about realignment of American politics.
3
As a resident of Kentucky, Illinois, Tennessee, Ohio, Maryland, Texas, Mississippi, and now California (for 30 years), I can say that Ross is nailing it when it comes to the source of discontent in this country. And the "quadrant" provides a visual explanation for it. The pace of cultural change during the Obama years left cultural conservatives feeling "alien" "nation". When a shrewd pathological liar focuses the general discontent on outside "alien" groups and promises to "bring back the jobs", people will follow the pied piper to their own self-destruction. As long as Democrats are tone-deaf to the cry of emotional/cultural dislocation, shysters and the legion of charlatans that support them will have their way many.
2
I am not sure that readers of the New York Times really see the message which Ross is sending. What they see is a Republican party winning because of racism and gerrymandering.
But they are ignoring other issues. I was alarmed by Obama's bathroom order. I was alarmed when Kim Davis was sent to prison for refusal to sign certain documents even while 11 million people are defying our immigration laws and are protected by sanctuary cities. And I was really terrified when Hillary Clinton said that she wanted a no fly zone over Syria. Why IS Syria so important that we risk war with a nuclear power?
But the commentators see NONE of this. All they see is racism and gerrymandering.
You CANNOT understand the other if all you see is what is wrong with them, and never see what is right with them or what is wrong with you.
But they are ignoring other issues. I was alarmed by Obama's bathroom order. I was alarmed when Kim Davis was sent to prison for refusal to sign certain documents even while 11 million people are defying our immigration laws and are protected by sanctuary cities. And I was really terrified when Hillary Clinton said that she wanted a no fly zone over Syria. Why IS Syria so important that we risk war with a nuclear power?
But the commentators see NONE of this. All they see is racism and gerrymandering.
You CANNOT understand the other if all you see is what is wrong with them, and never see what is right with them or what is wrong with you.
3
By his own words and actions Trump is a vulgar bigoted narcissist with a short attention span. I don't see anything right in that and it has nothing to do with politics.
1
I read both the column, and the study. A couple of things jump out, and speak to the flaws in the underlying research. It's all predicated on 12 issues, with everything laid on axes based on "traditional" party affinities with "standard" issues, and assumptions about the historical affinities of the parties.
Speaking on party platforms (not voter attitudes) -There is no traditional Democratic view on the rigged system. The two parties have a muddled view of Muslims - Republicans love the business, but are scared of the people. Democrats vice versa. There is no analysis of women, either as an issue or as a population to be viewed separate from men.
The one thing that really jumped out at me, bold face ... It's remarkable how many Trump voters (and Republicans generally) hold to a party line regarding blacks. It's perhaps their single most clearly defining characteristic. It's even more defining than opposition to Muslims (second place.)
I'm a left-leaning independent, past ticket splitter, somewhat conservative economically. It's hard for me not to see racism as the single unifying characteristic of the Republicans, in practice.
Speaking on party platforms (not voter attitudes) -There is no traditional Democratic view on the rigged system. The two parties have a muddled view of Muslims - Republicans love the business, but are scared of the people. Democrats vice versa. There is no analysis of women, either as an issue or as a population to be viewed separate from men.
The one thing that really jumped out at me, bold face ... It's remarkable how many Trump voters (and Republicans generally) hold to a party line regarding blacks. It's perhaps their single most clearly defining characteristic. It's even more defining than opposition to Muslims (second place.)
I'm a left-leaning independent, past ticket splitter, somewhat conservative economically. It's hard for me not to see racism as the single unifying characteristic of the Republicans, in practice.
136
Has name calling ever changed anyone's mind?
Go to the research. Look at the numbers, draw your own conclusion. I'm a ticket splitter, who doesn't think Dems have it all figured out. I've been resisting this conclusion for months. It's pretty depressing.
Mostly very interesting, but one big complaint is that it's more the perception of Democrats as overly liberal rather than the reality. Consider that under Obama more illegals were kicked out than any administration before, and Clinton wasn't really significantly to the left of Obama on that. But the Republicans managed to paint the Democrats as 'open border' supporters, and frankly Clinton did an awful job of dispelling that notion. Similarly on guns and abortion.
I truly believe that even on most social issues the Democrats are operationally closer to the 'norm' than the Republicans. But perception is king. Part of the problem is that I believe the Democrats need to tone down 'identity' issues and double down on economic ones. My $.0.02
I truly believe that even on most social issues the Democrats are operationally closer to the 'norm' than the Republicans. But perception is king. Part of the problem is that I believe the Democrats need to tone down 'identity' issues and double down on economic ones. My $.0.02
85
Both Bush's and Obama's administrations counted those apprehended at the border and returned as "deported". Clearly that presents a distorted view. The actual number of true deportation increased dramatically under Bush and continued under Obama.
As for doubling down on economic issues, had Obama done that rather than ram through his takeover of health insurance, Hillary would be president today.
As for doubling down on economic issues, had Obama done that rather than ram through his takeover of health insurance, Hillary would be president today.
1
Totally agree that "the Democrats need to tone down 'identity' issues and double down on economic ones." Seems like there is much-too-much concentration on gay rights, trans-gender issues, abortion, women's issues. The unions used to educate blue-collar workers about economic issue, but no more. Of course, a lot "progressives" don't even like blue-collar unions e.g. the Times' own Kristoff) and see them as yahoos.
The "middle" is a myth. There is no compromising with people who believe things that aren't true. Republicans say that there were 3 million cases of voter fraud, and that's why Clinton won the popular vote. Democrats say there were zero cases of voter fraud (or at least an insignificant number), which is the truth. We can't "compromise" on 1.5 million cases of voter fraud. It would be like trying to reach agreement with someone who thinks ten fairies make the sun rise every morning, by "compromising" on five fairies, instead of insisting on the truth, zero fairies. Reasoning with people who believe lies is not possible.
4
Republicans can only hope that more people like you just keeping talking and talking about how smart people agree with you and dumb deplorable don't.
"Given populism’s derangements and divisions, this elite consensus can still win elections — witness Macron’s recent triumphs."
In the absence of great [popularly recognized] leaders,
popular elections become unpredictable and are often decided by
wedge issues, and negative campaigning.
But when a great leader is available, s/he acts to bring clarity to the issues.
We lack leadership, in many areas, not just politics. In a sense, our social-political-educational system is under-going 'disruption', which may have started as far back as WWI, resulting in the Great Depression, and WWII. Perhaps our last great leader was FDR, who oversaw changes that had been in the making since the Progressives at the dawn of the 20th century.
If so, then I think Americans would benefit most from a revitalizing of the New Deal.
In the absence of great [popularly recognized] leaders,
popular elections become unpredictable and are often decided by
wedge issues, and negative campaigning.
But when a great leader is available, s/he acts to bring clarity to the issues.
We lack leadership, in many areas, not just politics. In a sense, our social-political-educational system is under-going 'disruption', which may have started as far back as WWI, resulting in the Great Depression, and WWII. Perhaps our last great leader was FDR, who oversaw changes that had been in the making since the Progressives at the dawn of the 20th century.
If so, then I think Americans would benefit most from a revitalizing of the New Deal.
One more time: social security and m Medicare r not entitlements...I paid dearly for these programs when I worked. Please stop making Sr citizens feel like a pariah on society. Just for the record, I am a retired citizen, who never had a double income, made a very modest living, and never received a pension. My savings were all tied to a 401k plan.
1
Or maybe, like most countries, you should form more parties, such as a part of the moderate Centre that would force compromise and represent the views of the majority of your citizens.
3
I despise the very nature of political parties (as George Washington i reported to have felt). But I would be glad to see more of them, IF they could be a moderating effect on one another.
I don't see that happening. I believe that we have coallesced to a "two party system" because people have chosen one of their primary principles to determine which party they belong to or favor. While there should, perhaps, be 4 parties represented in "fig 2," one quadrant or its neighbor dominates so its members get a better shot at institutionalizing its prefered principle. And the two parties like it better that way, since it consolidates their search for the money it takes to win an election.
So this is where I get to mount my hobby horse and ask - again - why can I legally belong to only one political party, and why is that affiliation a matter of public record?
Why can I vote in only one party's primary elections when that election is the one more likely to select who will eventually win the general election for that office?
I don't see that happening. I believe that we have coallesced to a "two party system" because people have chosen one of their primary principles to determine which party they belong to or favor. While there should, perhaps, be 4 parties represented in "fig 2," one quadrant or its neighbor dominates so its members get a better shot at institutionalizing its prefered principle. And the two parties like it better that way, since it consolidates their search for the money it takes to win an election.
So this is where I get to mount my hobby horse and ask - again - why can I legally belong to only one political party, and why is that affiliation a matter of public record?
Why can I vote in only one party's primary elections when that election is the one more likely to select who will eventually win the general election for that office?
Thanks for an exceptionally well-argued column.
2
I read the Drutman report and find it worthless. The main reason is the arbitrarily chosen 12 "issue dimensions." I can see no reason, and the report gives no reason, why these and only these dimensions are the best issues on which to analyse cohesion vs. diversity within party affiliations -- or, indeed, to analyze anything at all.
I'm no longer up to date on the statistical techniques that can be used to identify the most important dimensions that divide (or group) a population among a large number of variables. When I did such analysis, in the 1970s, a technique called "factor analysis" was the most commonly used. Whether this is still the best, or has been modified or superceded, I don't know. But just picking twelve arbitrary dimensions is no basis for any analysis. Even if the conclusions were correct, there is no basis for knowing that, in this paper.
In short it's trash.
I'm no longer up to date on the statistical techniques that can be used to identify the most important dimensions that divide (or group) a population among a large number of variables. When I did such analysis, in the 1970s, a technique called "factor analysis" was the most commonly used. Whether this is still the best, or has been modified or superceded, I don't know. But just picking twelve arbitrary dimensions is no basis for any analysis. Even if the conclusions were correct, there is no basis for knowing that, in this paper.
In short it's trash.
4
What makes me have hope: More of the GOP base are dying off, daily.
And just wait until their " healthcare" plans are in effect. Seriously.
And just wait until their " healthcare" plans are in effect. Seriously.
4
Republicans do not vote on policy issues, they vote on hate. There is little or no middle ground there for Democrats to embrace.
Republicans for the past half-century have worked vigorously to demonize gay people (Catholic Douthat included) and to demonize people of color (Trump's birther campaign). It is unconvincing to assert that Republicans are not racist when they vote for a flagrantly hateful white supremacist.
There is no mystery about why Republican voters vote against their own interests: they hate their opponents more than they love themselves or their children. Kansas provides proof of this sorry state.
Republicans for the past half-century have worked vigorously to demonize gay people (Catholic Douthat included) and to demonize people of color (Trump's birther campaign). It is unconvincing to assert that Republicans are not racist when they vote for a flagrantly hateful white supremacist.
There is no mystery about why Republican voters vote against their own interests: they hate their opponents more than they love themselves or their children. Kansas provides proof of this sorry state.
8
If one speaks to voters of either party today, you will hear the same complaints:
• Washington is completely broken and dysfunctional.
• Both parties cater exclusively to the corporatists and 1%, ignoring all others.
• Our infrastructure is broken and nobody in Congress will allocate the funds to fix it, despite having trillions of dollars for all-war-all-the-time.
• We have to stop intervening in other countries' internal civil wars.
• Health care needs to be fixed once and for all with a single-payer program.
• Wall Street is rigged against the small investor.
This is the real middle, and neither party honestly cares one whit about these needs and concerns of everyday working American men and women. That is the essence of the problem, Mr. Douthat. Both parties are serving the oligarchs, war profiteers, corporatists, and Wall Street criminals at the expense of the voting public. Your party is just as corrupt as the Democratic Party, but you like to philosophize and use arcane words, while the voters and the nation suffers.
• Washington is completely broken and dysfunctional.
• Both parties cater exclusively to the corporatists and 1%, ignoring all others.
• Our infrastructure is broken and nobody in Congress will allocate the funds to fix it, despite having trillions of dollars for all-war-all-the-time.
• We have to stop intervening in other countries' internal civil wars.
• Health care needs to be fixed once and for all with a single-payer program.
• Wall Street is rigged against the small investor.
This is the real middle, and neither party honestly cares one whit about these needs and concerns of everyday working American men and women. That is the essence of the problem, Mr. Douthat. Both parties are serving the oligarchs, war profiteers, corporatists, and Wall Street criminals at the expense of the voting public. Your party is just as corrupt as the Democratic Party, but you like to philosophize and use arcane words, while the voters and the nation suffers.
3
" The tree of liberty must be fed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson. Is anyone listening ?
1
"We have to stop intervening in other countries' internal civil wars."
Yes, Trump said it, but not Hillary.
Hillary said about Muammar Gaddafi, "We came, we saw, he died."
But Democrats who oppose such interventions voted for Hillary any way.
Anyway, Trump has been tamed by the Deep State. He too has become a hawk in the last month or so.
Yes, Trump said it, but not Hillary.
Hillary said about Muammar Gaddafi, "We came, we saw, he died."
But Democrats who oppose such interventions voted for Hillary any way.
Anyway, Trump has been tamed by the Deep State. He too has become a hawk in the last month or so.
This all may or may not be true, but the crux is that it's too fussy by a mile.
What is missing on the part of the Left, with the exception of Sanders, is proper leadership via motivational politics, and the best example this is true is that Trump is President and not on policy, because his unrealistic policies were never meant to be enacted. Sanders himself was too soft in his own very good firebrand rhetoric and that's why he got huge crowds of people who are still with him. If Hillary Clinton had just once become fed up with a vulgar oaf billionaire onstage, and had gotten in his face & told him he was rude and disgusting and if she were a man she'd belt him upside the head, she would have steamrolled him, no matter what her policies.
People don't do analyses to discern a resonance with a voting preference, they use feel. Trump voters liked the feel, he was their mouthpiece, emotionally. Hillary refused to be emotional against what was ugly, it was below her to dirty he hands. Working class people resent this. When Trump went low she should not have gone high, she should have stamped her heel down on him like a bug.
What is missing on the part of the Left, with the exception of Sanders, is proper leadership via motivational politics, and the best example this is true is that Trump is President and not on policy, because his unrealistic policies were never meant to be enacted. Sanders himself was too soft in his own very good firebrand rhetoric and that's why he got huge crowds of people who are still with him. If Hillary Clinton had just once become fed up with a vulgar oaf billionaire onstage, and had gotten in his face & told him he was rude and disgusting and if she were a man she'd belt him upside the head, she would have steamrolled him, no matter what her policies.
People don't do analyses to discern a resonance with a voting preference, they use feel. Trump voters liked the feel, he was their mouthpiece, emotionally. Hillary refused to be emotional against what was ugly, it was below her to dirty he hands. Working class people resent this. When Trump went low she should not have gone high, she should have stamped her heel down on him like a bug.
4
The Center has so vastly faded, it remains but a small ball which in the end cannot hold. And when the Center gives way, that's it folks. That's all she wrote. We are living in interesting times. That is an old Chinese saying. It is both a blessing and a curse. We shall see what these interesting times brings forth from this democratic republic more than two centuries old. We are about take a measure of our mettle very soon. We are going to have to decide whether we want to steer hard to starboard and go the way of a dictatorial chief executive and his equally demented Republican party or steer hard to port and return a more fair and equitable distribution of power and wealth to those in the Middle who have made this nation the greatest and most powerful on Earth. We are at those crossroads. Batten down the hatches, we're in for one helluva ride, the perfect storm is on the horizon.
DD
Manhattan
DD
Manhattan
6
Macron won 2/3rds of the vote for president and his party won more votes for parliament than the mainstream left and right parties combined. If you're calling 2/3rds of the country "elites," you should rethink how you are defining that term.
Our national ethos is distorted by malignant evangelicals and their inbred bigotry. They are immune to reason.
7
Stuff and nonsense, disguised as false equivalency and a desire to call the pretty-far-right (as opposed to the frothing-at-the-mouth right) a true center. Nowhere in this attempt at explanation do the roles of the abandonment of truth, disenfranchisement of people who might contest the establishment so beloved by Ross, the revival of the legitimacy of racist and sexist policies and practices, and just simple, plain graft appear.
2
You close with the following: "A better center for our divided polity does exist. Maybe someday one of our leaders will succeed in claiming it."
Several commenters here have used phrases such as "fairness for all" and "dignity for all" to describe their vision of the way forward. I think and hope those commenters were using those phrases in good faith and that they intended a normal meaning free of distortion.
That viewpoint, sensibility, and phrasing seems crucial to me and a vital part of any better political center you might imagine. If we can hold onto that as a baseline, perhaps we can then have a reasoned and spirited discussion about the proper areas and scope for individual initiative, voluntary group associations, and the public sector.
One striking example that illustrates well why I Just Can't For The Life Of Me Seem To Understand The Democrats is the fact that they did not widely and persistently defend the Affordable Care Act by talking about how this particular government action promoted individual freedom. They didn't talk a lot about freedom from worrying about coverage for preexisting conditions or the related freedom to more easily change jobs or start a business.
The Scandinavians seem to know how to talk this way. But many commenters to Christy Ford Chapin's 6/19 NYT piece on our current health care mess seemed to reject this sort of sensibility.
Several commenters here have used phrases such as "fairness for all" and "dignity for all" to describe their vision of the way forward. I think and hope those commenters were using those phrases in good faith and that they intended a normal meaning free of distortion.
That viewpoint, sensibility, and phrasing seems crucial to me and a vital part of any better political center you might imagine. If we can hold onto that as a baseline, perhaps we can then have a reasoned and spirited discussion about the proper areas and scope for individual initiative, voluntary group associations, and the public sector.
One striking example that illustrates well why I Just Can't For The Life Of Me Seem To Understand The Democrats is the fact that they did not widely and persistently defend the Affordable Care Act by talking about how this particular government action promoted individual freedom. They didn't talk a lot about freedom from worrying about coverage for preexisting conditions or the related freedom to more easily change jobs or start a business.
The Scandinavians seem to know how to talk this way. But many commenters to Christy Ford Chapin's 6/19 NYT piece on our current health care mess seemed to reject this sort of sensibility.
2
Douthat: "Whether they succeed or fail [in passing the AHCA], that disconnect is a big part of why Trump’s approval ratings are weak in a strong economy, and why his party’s majority could very easily unravel." It is good to hear a conservative admit that the last eight years have produced a strong economy. It is a stark contrast with the Republican administration of the previous eight years. How quickly the electorate seems to forget.
And in terms of abortion rights, what exactly are the "Democrats['] ... old attempts at moderation"? There are two clear sides: one says that the federal government must dictate that pregnancies be carried to completion; the other says the decision should be between the woman and her doctor. Is there a middle ground?
Finally, if indeed "the Democrats are now almost an open-borders party", we need to fix that. In my opinion, that is a right-wing perception, not an accurate representation of our true position--which is far more nuanced.
And in terms of abortion rights, what exactly are the "Democrats['] ... old attempts at moderation"? There are two clear sides: one says that the federal government must dictate that pregnancies be carried to completion; the other says the decision should be between the woman and her doctor. Is there a middle ground?
Finally, if indeed "the Democrats are now almost an open-borders party", we need to fix that. In my opinion, that is a right-wing perception, not an accurate representation of our true position--which is far more nuanced.
3
The report does explain Trump's coalition. Drutman also helps inform the shift from Obama to Trump. There is one pretty big problem with the analysis presented here though: You're only looking at a single data point. I know figure 2 is a scatter plot representing the electorate but it's fairly useless to draw vast theoretical conclusions from a single election. Before you start telling me the problem liberals face or where the center should be, you need to do a bit more analysis. Namely, you need the same data over time.
Are liberals really concentrating in quadrant 3 or is this a one time anomaly? I'll wager you'd find more spread with different candidates. Are social conservatives really as economically diverse as this chart suggests? There's a good chance the field only looks diverse right now. I'd build the time series for you but you'd have to pay me. The initial criticism is correct: one chart does not explain everything. This chart is no exception. You'll need to try a little harder next time.
Are liberals really concentrating in quadrant 3 or is this a one time anomaly? I'll wager you'd find more spread with different candidates. Are social conservatives really as economically diverse as this chart suggests? There's a good chance the field only looks diverse right now. I'd build the time series for you but you'd have to pay me. The initial criticism is correct: one chart does not explain everything. This chart is no exception. You'll need to try a little harder next time.
1
The chart actually offers a fairly basic conclusion: GOP/Trump voters tend to be social conservatives and economic right centrists (probably reflecting the pull of populist, pro-entitlement groups), while Democrats, as Douthat correctly notes, do tend to be more off-center, clustering decidedly leftist in both politics and social policy. What’s far more interesting, if one bothers to examine Chart 1 in the study Douthat cites, is the bipolarity of GOP/Trump voters, who support Medicare and Social Security as strongly as Democrats, yet broadly disapprove of “government intervention.” Evidently an entitlement that has been embedded in the economic expectations of aging conservatives is no longer a “government giveaway,” but rather “it’s mine and I earned it.” The real news in both charts is that if the GOP returns to its Paul Ryan-led war on entitlements and Democrats adopt a more Bernie Sanders-like leftist economic populism that would equally excite white working class economic nationalists and the younger voters who did not turn out for Clinton, the mere re-defection of Trump's working class defectors could tilt the country sharply left, to real redistributionist economic policies. Perhaps the age of big government isn’t over after all.
2
For myself, as a moderate independent, although I voted for HRC, I do not want a far left swing. The idea of 'income redistribution', doesn't work on a broad basis. Making health insurance available to all is a no brainer. Expecting Big Government to solve all problems seems simply no brain. Another issue that 'hides in the closet' is that of the in your face LGBT movement. What is enough? If a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for your wedding, go somewhere else. From an older white guy, too much, too fast. Politically correct speech? I've got my opinion, you've got yours. Sometimes we'll disagree, maybe even hurt the others feelings. So What? As long as speech remains just that, get over it. As I said I voted for HRC, to wit: slow down far left, your time might come, but in this political climate, you could be pushing more voters towards Trump as the less of the evils. And THAT is scary.
Mr Douthat's analysis of the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group findings is a good one and the report itself is well worth reading.
Perhaps the key element ignored by Mr Douthat is the yawning gap between socially conservative people and socially liberal people on the topics of immigration, Muslims, race and generally, what constitutes an "American" identity. According to the study, those who moved from Obama supporters to Trump differed from Hillary voters primarily on these issues. Basically, the democratic agenda emphasizing identity politics, open door immigration, and generally more sympathetic attitudes to such notions as minorities are more unfairly treated by systemic racism and systemic repression than whites have just failed to win a majority of white voters.
The core of the democratic voters are minorities. The core of the republican voters are white. That is the reality of the political state today. Call it what you will, but if you intend to win elections, you must be able to address this issue.
The majority of white voters don't view themselves as racists whether dealing with American minorities or foreign ethnicities or religions. They view themselves as pragmatic and concerned that overly permissive social agendas threaten the stability of the society while at the same time undermining what it means to be "American."
Until the democratic party appeals to more white voters, they will continue to lose elections. It's really that simple.
Perhaps the key element ignored by Mr Douthat is the yawning gap between socially conservative people and socially liberal people on the topics of immigration, Muslims, race and generally, what constitutes an "American" identity. According to the study, those who moved from Obama supporters to Trump differed from Hillary voters primarily on these issues. Basically, the democratic agenda emphasizing identity politics, open door immigration, and generally more sympathetic attitudes to such notions as minorities are more unfairly treated by systemic racism and systemic repression than whites have just failed to win a majority of white voters.
The core of the democratic voters are minorities. The core of the republican voters are white. That is the reality of the political state today. Call it what you will, but if you intend to win elections, you must be able to address this issue.
The majority of white voters don't view themselves as racists whether dealing with American minorities or foreign ethnicities or religions. They view themselves as pragmatic and concerned that overly permissive social agendas threaten the stability of the society while at the same time undermining what it means to be "American."
Until the democratic party appeals to more white voters, they will continue to lose elections. It's really that simple.
5
The core of the Democratic Party are rational people, educated people who mostly use their intellect to think things through. The core of the Republican Party are zealots who take mythology seriously. A national safety net for the unfortunate is Christianity at its best. Bigotry on how we were born, regarding ethnicity, and sexual orientation, is religion at its worst.
1
Fascinating but probably over-complicated. If one doesn't look at numbers, regions, and the effect of gerrymandering, none of this matters very much.
Nevertheless, Routhat's final point is probably correct. Yet, the ideal "centrist" leader will need to understand the difference between policy and rhetoric, and exploit the latter to open up a new issue entirely: the need for understanding and compromise.
Nevertheless, Routhat's final point is probably correct. Yet, the ideal "centrist" leader will need to understand the difference between policy and rhetoric, and exploit the latter to open up a new issue entirely: the need for understanding and compromise.
Let's start by looking at who won the vote and who won the election. Clinton actually won the popular vote by 2.9 million but lost the election. Any time you have results like that, it is going to lead to distortions in the system. When the political parties can focus on a few select states instead of campaigning nationwide, you are more likely to get someone outside the middle.
6
I disagree with what you say about abortion. I think a lot of us just want a woman to be able to choose without interference from the government. I think we are very moderate in that regard. It's the republican's who are extreme, making it almost impossible for lower income women to obtain an abortion in many states run by the republicans. If you think we are extreme, no we're not, we're just trying to keep a woman's right to choose about her health and life a viable option.
19
Look, I'm pro-choice. But from a pro-life perspective you are not moderate at all. You do not want the least restriction on/discouragement of murder. Rowe v Wade did not go that far. It allowed for banning 3rd trimester abortions (do you think abortion in the 8th month of pregnancy should be between a woman and her doctor?) and allowed for regulation of 2nd trimester abortion. That was moderate. No one supports Rowe v Wade any more.
1
A very insightful analysis. But what do the familiar labels, "left" and "even farther left," actually mean? What do such people (people like me) actually believe, and what would they do if they were in power? One of the problems we all face today is that Republicans have succeeded, with a broad spectrum of the public, across the center to the far right, in selling a gross misrepresentation of opinions and life-styles and political priorities on the other side of the aisle. Democrats have their prejudices too, but not so iron-clad and dehumanizing as those of the ideologues on the "right."
4
I don't agree that the Democrats' problem is their message. It has more to do with their concentration on the coasts which skews the electoral college Republican and Republican gerrymandering. Please don't forget that Hillary Clinton won nearly 3 million more votes than did Trump. We would do well to abolish the electoral college and to establish a federal electoral commission that would be responsible for establishing congressional districts on a bipartisan basis.
6
Yes, gerrymandering and demographic distribution are factors. But as a liberal Democrat, I also believe the Dems' message - or, rather, lack of a coherent one - is a problem. There used to be plenty of Democratic districts between the coasts, and they lost many of them because they had nothing to say to a multitude of small communities (typically company towns) that lost their livelihoods.
This is by far the best analysis of the current state of our socio-economic vs. political divide that I have read to-date. Instead of “Bill Clinton’s self-consciously moderate liberalism and George W. Bush’s compassionate conservatism,” maybe we need the strong, moral leadership of a pragmatic “compromiser,” such as, George H.W. Bush – whose one-term presidency, in hindsight, increasingly looks like a very successful one from both, a domestic and a foreign policy standpoint.
5
That the previous division between left and right has shifted far to the right is evidenced by my near complete agreement with almost everything that Mr Douthat writes these days!
3
In order to build a better, more practible, more enduring, more prosperous, society.....we are at the crossroads where we must, WE MUST, destroy the old guard.
The DNC represents the old guard. This does not mean that the Democrat Party will be destroyed. It means that the corporate organization, the corrupt money laundering decieptful manipulative overlord operation.....the DNC.....must be destroyed.
It must be destroyed....if the Demcorat Party intends to survive another 200 years.
The Republicans, bless their hearts, are basicly a Keystone Kops operation....as is scripted by its shorter history, the Republicans easily splinter into fractious 3rd and 4th parties at the right moments in US history,,,,and effectively allow the Democrat Party to grab the new mantel of leadership for a NEW Era.
Donald Trump, a leadership style not unlike "MacAuthur with a Chainsaw", has already effectively destroyed the Republican Party.....exposing the Establishment Repubs for being little more than willing foils to DNC Agendas....and at the same time rubbing the Tea Party Agenda right back into the Tea Party's face!
This is a valuable service to the country, Trump the Destroyer, Shiva with Orange Hair, Johnny Rotten....we must destroy the DNC in order for the real Democrat Party to emerge with a new vision for the 21st Century.
The DNC represents the old guard. This does not mean that the Democrat Party will be destroyed. It means that the corporate organization, the corrupt money laundering decieptful manipulative overlord operation.....the DNC.....must be destroyed.
It must be destroyed....if the Demcorat Party intends to survive another 200 years.
The Republicans, bless their hearts, are basicly a Keystone Kops operation....as is scripted by its shorter history, the Republicans easily splinter into fractious 3rd and 4th parties at the right moments in US history,,,,and effectively allow the Democrat Party to grab the new mantel of leadership for a NEW Era.
Donald Trump, a leadership style not unlike "MacAuthur with a Chainsaw", has already effectively destroyed the Republican Party.....exposing the Establishment Repubs for being little more than willing foils to DNC Agendas....and at the same time rubbing the Tea Party Agenda right back into the Tea Party's face!
This is a valuable service to the country, Trump the Destroyer, Shiva with Orange Hair, Johnny Rotten....we must destroy the DNC in order for the real Democrat Party to emerge with a new vision for the 21st Century.
1
Neither you nor the study you link to explains what makes for Conservative or Liberal economics. Yes, Republican voters want to enable corporations to cheat them and poison them, and they want the rich to get a free ride while their own taxes go up and the government services they receive disappear, but even Republican voters want to protect Social Security and Medicare. And can you really call it Liberal to promote the destruction of American jobs through "free" trade as well as downward pressure on working class wages through open borders?
If the Democrats want support outside the cities they need to address the people Out There's concerns. And they need to remind people (constantly) that no matter what Donny Small Hands said about protecting Social Security and Medicare, his party will never stop trying to kill them.
If the Democrats want support outside the cities they need to address the people Out There's concerns. And they need to remind people (constantly) that no matter what Donny Small Hands said about protecting Social Security and Medicare, his party will never stop trying to kill them.
5
We should not only have two major political parties. This is what invites a widening schism that can increasingly no longer be bridged. It turns politics into football. You're either on this team or on that one. You're either on the right or the left, a liberal or a conservative, right or wrong. Everything becomes black and white. There is no middle ground. Instead, we should have many parties with many ideas. As a dual citizen of France and America who recently voted in the French presidential elections, I am constantly reminded of how things in America do not need to be this way.
8
Sdh,
I keep thinking of Gulliver's Travels and the schism between those that would crack open the egg on the blunt end and those that would crack open the egg on the pointy end.
America is divided by two paries fighting about how best to grow the economy. It seems to me that growing the largest most successful economy that ever was is NOT the problem, America needs to examine what its society should look like.
Back in 1980 when Jimmy Carter asked the question the American electorate voted for Reagan because he never asked the most difficult questions.
The truth is that both political parties know how to grow the economy but neither is willing to consider what a 21st century nation state should look like especially one that is the wealthiest most powerful nation that ever existed.
It seems to me that Macron was elected not because he is a centrist whatever that might be but because France understands it is 2017 and the real question is, Who and what are we?
America is nothing like the nation it pretends to be and until it looks in the mirror I am afraid this is is the way it needs to be. Jesus is no longer weeping he is clinically depressed.
I keep thinking of Gulliver's Travels and the schism between those that would crack open the egg on the blunt end and those that would crack open the egg on the pointy end.
America is divided by two paries fighting about how best to grow the economy. It seems to me that growing the largest most successful economy that ever was is NOT the problem, America needs to examine what its society should look like.
Back in 1980 when Jimmy Carter asked the question the American electorate voted for Reagan because he never asked the most difficult questions.
The truth is that both political parties know how to grow the economy but neither is willing to consider what a 21st century nation state should look like especially one that is the wealthiest most powerful nation that ever existed.
It seems to me that Macron was elected not because he is a centrist whatever that might be but because France understands it is 2017 and the real question is, Who and what are we?
America is nothing like the nation it pretends to be and until it looks in the mirror I am afraid this is is the way it needs to be. Jesus is no longer weeping he is clinically depressed.
2
Given the American political system, since we don't govern by coalitions, having more than two political parties is nonfunctional. A better answer is to have no political parties.
Douthat's claim, common on the right, that the Democratic Party has moved left, is absurd. Harry Truman backed socialized medicine. Humphrey-Hawkins, enacted by the 95th congress, authorized public sector jobs to maintain 4% unemployment. Ronald Reagan signed immigration reform granting citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants.
Note the Atlantic article he links to refers to the effects of legal immigration. I observe there were no questions during the presidential debates about legal immigration. No suggestion to amend the 1968 law, signed by LBJ.
Democrats have become more concerned about immigrants already here than about new illegal immigration (and enforcement) because, what, that's the current actual problem. Net illegal immigration has been near zero for ten years. Meanwhile, we have people living here illegally, at great human and economic cost. Democrats would like to address that real situation realistically.
"Moderation" on abortion? Is moderation in defense of liberty now a virtue after all? Abortion has been legal in this country for 45 years. Popular opinion has hardly budged in that time. Even most Republicans don't want to ban abortion. They just want poor people to pay for it themselves.
So the evidence supporting Douthat's claim is nil.
Note the Atlantic article he links to refers to the effects of legal immigration. I observe there were no questions during the presidential debates about legal immigration. No suggestion to amend the 1968 law, signed by LBJ.
Democrats have become more concerned about immigrants already here than about new illegal immigration (and enforcement) because, what, that's the current actual problem. Net illegal immigration has been near zero for ten years. Meanwhile, we have people living here illegally, at great human and economic cost. Democrats would like to address that real situation realistically.
"Moderation" on abortion? Is moderation in defense of liberty now a virtue after all? Abortion has been legal in this country for 45 years. Popular opinion has hardly budged in that time. Even most Republicans don't want to ban abortion. They just want poor people to pay for it themselves.
So the evidence supporting Douthat's claim is nil.
8
James K. Loudon writes: "Douthat's claim, common on the right, that the Democratic Party has moved left, is absurd. Harry Truman backed socialized medicine. Humphrey-Hawkins, enacted by the 95th congress, authorized public sector jobs to maintain 4% unemployment. Ronald Reagan signed immigration reform granting citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants."
I agree. The Republicans have moved to the right more than the Democrats have moved to the left. Note also that Nixon started the EPA, and George W. Bush spoke out forcefully on behalf of American Muslims after 9/11.
I agree. The Republicans have moved to the right more than the Democrats have moved to the left. Note also that Nixon started the EPA, and George W. Bush spoke out forcefully on behalf of American Muslims after 9/11.
I am happy to contribute to Planned Parenthood. Humans are not an endangered species due to lack of breeding partners. Our human population is endangered by excessive population and ignorance on matters like anthropogenic climate change. One mountain gorilla infant is more important to me than umpteen aborted fetuses. Other species are valuable to our quality of life, not just hairless apes like us.
Back when the Democratic party cared more about majorities than ideological purity, they had members of Congress who favored guns or opposed abortion. They took those positions because their constituents demanded it. Over the last 10-20 years, the Democratic party has come around to the view that they would rather lose than let the impure into their club. Looking around the country, what is consistently true is that Democratic candidates (take Ossof, for example) are of lower political quality than their Republican opponents. This is clearly because, in candidate selection, the Democratic party values passing a series of litmus tests higher than choosing a candidate that constituents recognize as somebody like them. This lack of tolerance for a diversity of views that reflects the American people is what is keeping the Democratic party out of power.
Republicans, in contrast, have representatives with a wider range of views, which makes it hard for them to pass legislation, but having a majority means they at least get to try.
Republicans, in contrast, have representatives with a wider range of views, which makes it hard for them to pass legislation, but having a majority means they at least get to try.
2
Your point is good as far as it goes, but can you cite some examples of the wide range of views in the Republican party? They have always struck me as being pretty lock-step. Who are the pro-choice Republicans on abortion? Which Republicans truly oppose the NRA?
1
Yesterday I read a piece in the Guardian by Carol Graham titled Is The American Dream Really Dead?
It is far better written than anything I could write and Ms Graham of the Brookings Institute who is certainly loaded for bear with the data and research. The truth may hurt but America is still the richest most powerful nation on Earth. It is time to stop arguing about how best to grow the economy and start talking about real human needs. America's center is far removed from America's real problems which have absolutely nothing to do with the most successful economy ever created.
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/jun/20/is-the-american-dream...
It is far better written than anything I could write and Ms Graham of the Brookings Institute who is certainly loaded for bear with the data and research. The truth may hurt but America is still the richest most powerful nation on Earth. It is time to stop arguing about how best to grow the economy and start talking about real human needs. America's center is far removed from America's real problems which have absolutely nothing to do with the most successful economy ever created.
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/jun/20/is-the-american-dream...
3
Both parties are long bought and paid for before the citizenry go to the voting booth. They are just a reflection of us, a "Woohoo" Nation that is devoid of all the characteristics that made this country a wonderful place: honesty, accountability and humility. We ourselves are a self congratulatory people, covering our insecurity by bombast!
3
The details, the IMPORTANT details about the GOP healthcare 'plan' are not hidden at all: huge tax cuts for the wealthy. Everyone knows that, everyone sees that. The specifics as to how they get there are unimportant.
3
Doesn't this presume that people actually vote with issues in mind. How many people voted for Trump because they hated Hillary and vice versa. How many last minute deciders stayed home due to Comey's letter or the latest E mail dump trashing the Dems. How many Republican voters in the South vote against economic interest because the Democrats have been painted the wrong color. The hateful rhetoric so common now for decades sadly is the effective message. Even though a majority of voters favor much of the progressive agenda, they don't vote that way. I wonder how many people who voted against Hillary actually favor government healthcare, taxing the rich over giving them huge tax breaks, believe in climate change, don't want Medicaid slashed or don't want a Sessions inspired pushback on Civil Rights.
8
Well the center isn't where you think it is Ross. Not even close. The other day, reading an interview with Naomi Klein I was reminded just how far off center things are as I had the realization that the enshrinement and celebration of the benevolence of the leftist rich was but another form of that which the left abhor, "trickle down economics". "Trickel Down", disguised as Philanthropy. The Neoliberals selling Republican lite, or not so lite in this case. The center must always be measured by its purest incarnation in society, income distribution. Any other measure is going to be skewed. Lets see, 8 people have as much as the bottom half of the world. THE WORLD. Find the center of that Ross.
4
Folks (like Douthat) are still overthinking an election lost, pouring over statistics, looking at charts, and still and yet and forever (it seems), not facing the problem square in the face- dealing with what's REALLY wrong with the Democratic party as an electable entity.
The many on the left are suffering a hangover from what might be called Clintonitis, this translates today as identity politics- break everyone into definable groups and create a message around each group to capture votes. This strategy is out of date, doesn't unite, and doesn't work.
The answer is not to be found in left, right or center. The answer is people. The Democrats have the wrong people in charge, plain and simple.
The opportunity was there (in 2016) to promote Bernie, but the party machine was too strong and the establishment was not for change- it still isn't. Sure, they will 'allow' the roll out Bernie back and forward now, but this is just an another attempt to 'capture' another identified group in the greater (outdated democratic establishment) scheme of things.
You need to reinvent what it means to be a Democrat, you need fresh new faces, and you need to craft a fresh, new coherent central message that unites rather than divides. You need to destroy your party establishment and rebuild from the ground up. Simply being against something (Trump) does not work long haul, and it certainly does not unite.
ICONOCLAST REQUIRED - APPLY WITHIN.
The many on the left are suffering a hangover from what might be called Clintonitis, this translates today as identity politics- break everyone into definable groups and create a message around each group to capture votes. This strategy is out of date, doesn't unite, and doesn't work.
The answer is not to be found in left, right or center. The answer is people. The Democrats have the wrong people in charge, plain and simple.
The opportunity was there (in 2016) to promote Bernie, but the party machine was too strong and the establishment was not for change- it still isn't. Sure, they will 'allow' the roll out Bernie back and forward now, but this is just an another attempt to 'capture' another identified group in the greater (outdated democratic establishment) scheme of things.
You need to reinvent what it means to be a Democrat, you need fresh new faces, and you need to craft a fresh, new coherent central message that unites rather than divides. You need to destroy your party establishment and rebuild from the ground up. Simply being against something (Trump) does not work long haul, and it certainly does not unite.
ICONOCLAST REQUIRED - APPLY WITHIN.
3
Ye cats, what a load of nonsense.
Here's a clue. Ross -- there is no center. This is a deeply polarized country; there are people who lean left, and people who lean right, and in any given election, depending on their level of enthusiasm or disgust with the candidate of the party who theoretically represents them, they either show up to vote or stay home.
Period, full stop, end of story.
Here's a clue. Ross -- there is no center. This is a deeply polarized country; there are people who lean left, and people who lean right, and in any given election, depending on their level of enthusiasm or disgust with the candidate of the party who theoretically represents them, they either show up to vote or stay home.
Period, full stop, end of story.
The "center" of a swamp that has shifted conspicuously to the right is not a comfy place to be.
This analysis is not useful, since it is accompanied by dishonesty and deception on the part of the current GOP. The category of "economically liberal and socially conservative" is a fantasy. The social conservatives who purport to be economically liberal are those "heartland" Republicans who are pleasantly bigoted, cheerfully exclusive, cluelessly pro-life and blindly faithful. Nonetheless they are economically "liberal" because they are not rich. They are the naive who supported Trump (or anyone in the current GOP leadership) believing that they could remain pleasantly bigoted, cheerfully exclusive, cluelessly pro-life and blindly faithful AND have an economic safety net. Surprise!! The GOP didn't and doesn't care about them at all.
Surveys and analyses have value only when measuring and assessing things that are reasonable true. The GOP is fundamentally fraudulent and that renders Douthat's musings irrelevant.
This analysis is not useful, since it is accompanied by dishonesty and deception on the part of the current GOP. The category of "economically liberal and socially conservative" is a fantasy. The social conservatives who purport to be economically liberal are those "heartland" Republicans who are pleasantly bigoted, cheerfully exclusive, cluelessly pro-life and blindly faithful. Nonetheless they are economically "liberal" because they are not rich. They are the naive who supported Trump (or anyone in the current GOP leadership) believing that they could remain pleasantly bigoted, cheerfully exclusive, cluelessly pro-life and blindly faithful AND have an economic safety net. Surprise!! The GOP didn't and doesn't care about them at all.
Surveys and analyses have value only when measuring and assessing things that are reasonable true. The GOP is fundamentally fraudulent and that renders Douthat's musings irrelevant.
2
This is all navel gazing Ross. An educated citizen and the end of Gerrymandering will put the current GOP where it belongs, in a sanitarium for the chronically venal.
4
The middle class know that they are losing ground but can't agree on why. Those in my middle American area believe that it is because of immigration, gays, unions, welfare slackers, God's punishment on those who don't embrace church, etc. It's rare I hear anyone say that maybe it's because the wealth is trickling upward and once those at the top own it all, those at the bottom and middle are no longer needed and may be disposed of. But they keep voting the way they do because voting for a Democrat is voting for Satan himself.
It's really pretty simple.
It's really pretty simple.
13
(of which there is some, here and there) He couldn't resist, could he. This is the secret to Douthat - an old resentment, clothed in education and intelligence.
1
Good God. Some of the NYTs commenters wake up at 4am to Shame Ross Douthat out of existence. Impressive.
Ross, I think you evidenced great technical insight over our current predicament.
You've correctly identified the historical moments in which "wisdoms" were reconciled and wide consensus was built and seized upon.
The difficult question underneath this is, perhaps the divisions we see today are indicative of sempiternal distinctions? Meaning, it could be that those historical moments of grand consensus were, in reality, merely an externally imposed artificial reconciliation of wisdoms on what was (is) surreptitiously a very divided body.
Ross, I think you evidenced great technical insight over our current predicament.
You've correctly identified the historical moments in which "wisdoms" were reconciled and wide consensus was built and seized upon.
The difficult question underneath this is, perhaps the divisions we see today are indicative of sempiternal distinctions? Meaning, it could be that those historical moments of grand consensus were, in reality, merely an externally imposed artificial reconciliation of wisdoms on what was (is) surreptitiously a very divided body.
1
Congratulations Mr. Douthat on writing yet another Fantasy Land piece for the NYTimes which is unambiguously based not upon the facts, alternative or otherwise, but rather on your preconceived prejudices. Given your political bias you are not one in search of the political center. In particular there are two characterizations in today’s article which stand out and make this point.
Given the generally accepted definition of the word “secularization” (no longer under the control or influence of religion) your usage speaks volumes about an underlying pre-critical belief that only a particular brand of religion, that of the religious right, represents The legitimate expression of the divine. How does this world view essentially differ from that of fundamentalist Islamists [e.g. Daesh (ISIL or ISIS)]?
The second is the continuing attempt of country club Republicans, like yourself, to hawk the conclusion that “compassionate conservatism” was something more than a slick marketing campaign turn of phrase by a professional patrician politician. What can you possibly posit to counter this observation?
Given the generally accepted definition of the word “secularization” (no longer under the control or influence of religion) your usage speaks volumes about an underlying pre-critical belief that only a particular brand of religion, that of the religious right, represents The legitimate expression of the divine. How does this world view essentially differ from that of fundamentalist Islamists [e.g. Daesh (ISIL or ISIS)]?
The second is the continuing attempt of country club Republicans, like yourself, to hawk the conclusion that “compassionate conservatism” was something more than a slick marketing campaign turn of phrase by a professional patrician politician. What can you possibly posit to counter this observation?
3
What a great analysis.
It explains the republican control of virtually everything outside city zip codes. And it explains the uselessness of democrats' strategy centered around attacking Trump.
Maybe 30% of Americans regard Trump as their messiah. He will purify the sins committed by Americans who dared to elect a black president twice, and restore them to the top of the socioeconomic and political hierarchy in America. Them and their guns and bibles.
But one too many seems to care less about Trump; they just think the other side is profligate, coddles the wrong people (blacks, browns, terrorists, foreign borns, non-Christians), exhibits an unacceptable color-palette, out of touch with their (imaginary) reality defined by the trifecta of hate church, AM radio, and Fox.
There is no American center Ross. You are either with the demon who will save you (Trump), or you are a self-satisfied, smug, "refusing to vote to show them up" liberal.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Kalidan
It explains the republican control of virtually everything outside city zip codes. And it explains the uselessness of democrats' strategy centered around attacking Trump.
Maybe 30% of Americans regard Trump as their messiah. He will purify the sins committed by Americans who dared to elect a black president twice, and restore them to the top of the socioeconomic and political hierarchy in America. Them and their guns and bibles.
But one too many seems to care less about Trump; they just think the other side is profligate, coddles the wrong people (blacks, browns, terrorists, foreign borns, non-Christians), exhibits an unacceptable color-palette, out of touch with their (imaginary) reality defined by the trifecta of hate church, AM radio, and Fox.
There is no American center Ross. You are either with the demon who will save you (Trump), or you are a self-satisfied, smug, "refusing to vote to show them up" liberal.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Kalidan
Oh Mr. Douthat! Thank you! Thank you! That was most illuminating. I have a story to tell.
Roe versus Wade came when? 1973, I think. i was in graduate school. My professor and his wife had a bunch of us over for dinner. They both were classic, card-carrying liberals
Roe versus Wade came up. "I think," said my professor's wife, "getting an abortion should be as quick and painless as a visit to the supermarket."
Another young wife was present. Her husband--as liberal as they come. She stared in astonishment. "Well," she began diffidently, "I could hardly go along with you on that!"
Oh you Democrats! On so many things I agree with you. But listen up! Abortion? Hey guys! It's a moral issue too, you know. On some level or other, abortion IS destroying ,. . . well . . . .SOME kind of life. No one wants to call themselves "pro-death" as opposed to "pro-life." But (in a manner of speaking) you ARE "pro-death." Come on! You are!
Tricky question? Absolutely! No easy answers! Absolutely! Heart-wrenchingly painful for millions of unwed, poverty-stricken moms? Absolutely! I agree.
But you Democrats! Don't talk as if doubts and scruples were mere whims--tyrannical fancies evolved by cigar-smoking, potbellied white males. WOMEN oppose Roe versus Wade too, you know. Millions of women. I know some.
LISTEN--for a change! Listen to people on the right. Acknowledge the moral dilemmas raised by abortion.
And pray heaven they start listening to you.
Roe versus Wade came when? 1973, I think. i was in graduate school. My professor and his wife had a bunch of us over for dinner. They both were classic, card-carrying liberals
Roe versus Wade came up. "I think," said my professor's wife, "getting an abortion should be as quick and painless as a visit to the supermarket."
Another young wife was present. Her husband--as liberal as they come. She stared in astonishment. "Well," she began diffidently, "I could hardly go along with you on that!"
Oh you Democrats! On so many things I agree with you. But listen up! Abortion? Hey guys! It's a moral issue too, you know. On some level or other, abortion IS destroying ,. . . well . . . .SOME kind of life. No one wants to call themselves "pro-death" as opposed to "pro-life." But (in a manner of speaking) you ARE "pro-death." Come on! You are!
Tricky question? Absolutely! No easy answers! Absolutely! Heart-wrenchingly painful for millions of unwed, poverty-stricken moms? Absolutely! I agree.
But you Democrats! Don't talk as if doubts and scruples were mere whims--tyrannical fancies evolved by cigar-smoking, potbellied white males. WOMEN oppose Roe versus Wade too, you know. Millions of women. I know some.
LISTEN--for a change! Listen to people on the right. Acknowledge the moral dilemmas raised by abortion.
And pray heaven they start listening to you.
1
"But (in a manner of speaking) you ARE 'pro-death.' Come on! You are!"
It would be easier to listen to people on the right if I weren't attacked right off the bat with a nasty crack based on twisted logic. No, I am not pro-death, anymore than I am a man because I had a hysterectomy. I was anti-cancer.
And try not to characterize us based on a conversation you had more than 40 years ago, okay? Most of the liberals I've talked to over those years are fully aware of the gravity of the issue. Our views are similar to those of comedian Wanda Sykes, who calls abortion "an unfortunate decision between a woman and her doctor." None of us has ever compared it to a trip to the supermarket, and we wouldn't respect anyone who did.
On the other hand, we don't think the process should be as prolonged, painful and humiliating as possible, which seems to be the goal in many states. And we don't think making it illegal will solve anything, because it didn't solve anything before Roe. When you hear us fighting for abortion rights, consider that we are fighting to make the procedure safe, legal--and rare, which means extending access to effective, long-term contraception to every woman who wants it.
I suspect there's more middle ground than people think. For example: Can we start by agreeing that access to birth control is a good idea? That has done more to reduce the number of abortions than all the prayer vigils, clinic protests, and ugly laws combined.
It would be easier to listen to people on the right if I weren't attacked right off the bat with a nasty crack based on twisted logic. No, I am not pro-death, anymore than I am a man because I had a hysterectomy. I was anti-cancer.
And try not to characterize us based on a conversation you had more than 40 years ago, okay? Most of the liberals I've talked to over those years are fully aware of the gravity of the issue. Our views are similar to those of comedian Wanda Sykes, who calls abortion "an unfortunate decision between a woman and her doctor." None of us has ever compared it to a trip to the supermarket, and we wouldn't respect anyone who did.
On the other hand, we don't think the process should be as prolonged, painful and humiliating as possible, which seems to be the goal in many states. And we don't think making it illegal will solve anything, because it didn't solve anything before Roe. When you hear us fighting for abortion rights, consider that we are fighting to make the procedure safe, legal--and rare, which means extending access to effective, long-term contraception to every woman who wants it.
I suspect there's more middle ground than people think. For example: Can we start by agreeing that access to birth control is a good idea? That has done more to reduce the number of abortions than all the prayer vigils, clinic protests, and ugly laws combined.
1
Let me amend an earlier comment: You calling me pro-death because I support a woman's right to choose abortion is like me calling you pro-death because you want to make it harder, if not illegal, to get one--which will push desperate women to endanger their lives by pursuing other means of aborting.
Much of this analysis is spot on, but it ignores the increasing geographic distribution of party affiliation (the country is moving left, but that shift is concentrated at the densely populated coasts), and the increasing ideological divide between educated and uneducated Americans.
Very simple solution.
ABOLISH PLURALITY VOTING!
If you get rid of plurality voting, then an enterprising politician running on a platform of the right-of-center social policy with left-of-center economic policy would need approval from neither the PC-police to run as a Democrat, nor the ACU to run as a Republican. If voters were to rate all candidates on the ballot instead of marking their top choice and ignoring everyone else, then such a pol could just run in the general election and assemble a coalition among all voters to compete against consistent liberalism as well as assembling a separate coalition among all voters to compete against consistent conservatism.
ABOLISH PLURALITY VOTING!
If you get rid of plurality voting, then an enterprising politician running on a platform of the right-of-center social policy with left-of-center economic policy would need approval from neither the PC-police to run as a Democrat, nor the ACU to run as a Republican. If voters were to rate all candidates on the ballot instead of marking their top choice and ignoring everyone else, then such a pol could just run in the general election and assemble a coalition among all voters to compete against consistent liberalism as well as assembling a separate coalition among all voters to compete against consistent conservatism.
1
There are now twice as many Americans as there were during the 1950s, when America was at its peak.
There were under 3 billion people in the world then, and now there are over 11 billion.
Politics is the process of managing people and resources. With this many people clamoring for space and resources it becomes overwhelming to the normal brain. We can't figure it out, so we take comfort in our political views as the "answer."
But, actually, those political views are not that much of a driver of what we are experiencing. Instead, the main driver is that we are experiencing fear of a world that we find incomprehensible.
The world will lurch along. The key thing people want is the feeling that at least "somebody" understands it and is doing something about their fear. That's what Obama did, that what Sanders does for a few people, and that's what Trump did. Clinton was not as successful on this dimension. You had to dig deep into her policies to be reassured, and who has the time for that? (we should, but we don't take time to).
Because if we believe that somebody "gets it," then our fears are reduced. We feel hope.
It matters less what quadrant a candidate is in. It matters more whether s/he can communicate that s/he has it figured out, knows the answer, has hope themselves, can take care of it for us, etc.
Nobody on the horizon that I know of is like that. So, we end up taking pot shots at each other. We need hope.
There were under 3 billion people in the world then, and now there are over 11 billion.
Politics is the process of managing people and resources. With this many people clamoring for space and resources it becomes overwhelming to the normal brain. We can't figure it out, so we take comfort in our political views as the "answer."
But, actually, those political views are not that much of a driver of what we are experiencing. Instead, the main driver is that we are experiencing fear of a world that we find incomprehensible.
The world will lurch along. The key thing people want is the feeling that at least "somebody" understands it and is doing something about their fear. That's what Obama did, that what Sanders does for a few people, and that's what Trump did. Clinton was not as successful on this dimension. You had to dig deep into her policies to be reassured, and who has the time for that? (we should, but we don't take time to).
Because if we believe that somebody "gets it," then our fears are reduced. We feel hope.
It matters less what quadrant a candidate is in. It matters more whether s/he can communicate that s/he has it figured out, knows the answer, has hope themselves, can take care of it for us, etc.
Nobody on the horizon that I know of is like that. So, we end up taking pot shots at each other. We need hope.
4
A third party that lives in the center looks like a logical step forward to an American citizen with a Canadian past
3
This is basically what I've been saying for years.
The "center," as pushed by establishment politicians and media pundits has no natural constituency, except for the corporations and billionaires who make the vast majority of campaign contributions and, who own all of the global corporate mass media, which pays the pundits.
But Douthat tries to portray that the Clinton wing of the party as bridging the gap, when really they are in that empty spot, identity politics (which I have sought for) and globalist free trade.
It's amazing anyone voted for the Democrats st all.
Notice that Republicans Party is also in an empty spot, radical free trade, which they sell to their base using social issues.
The main point though is that the actual middle of the country is not represented by the corporate "center." It is much closer to Bernie Sanders! who emphasises economic issues, where there is more consensus, over social issues which are more divisive.
This explains why partisan politics is so volatile. The politicians pundits tell us are "electable" don't represent the interests of the voters, so we keep switching back and forth between parties trying to find a fit.
Trump at least appeals to his base with his rhetoric, while doing the opposite.
Democratic Centrists are actually opposed to what it's own base wants, and they are not shy about saying so, alienating its own bae.
That big blue blob represents a power base. This power base can change the world, if we help it.
The "center," as pushed by establishment politicians and media pundits has no natural constituency, except for the corporations and billionaires who make the vast majority of campaign contributions and, who own all of the global corporate mass media, which pays the pundits.
But Douthat tries to portray that the Clinton wing of the party as bridging the gap, when really they are in that empty spot, identity politics (which I have sought for) and globalist free trade.
It's amazing anyone voted for the Democrats st all.
Notice that Republicans Party is also in an empty spot, radical free trade, which they sell to their base using social issues.
The main point though is that the actual middle of the country is not represented by the corporate "center." It is much closer to Bernie Sanders! who emphasises economic issues, where there is more consensus, over social issues which are more divisive.
This explains why partisan politics is so volatile. The politicians pundits tell us are "electable" don't represent the interests of the voters, so we keep switching back and forth between parties trying to find a fit.
Trump at least appeals to his base with his rhetoric, while doing the opposite.
Democratic Centrists are actually opposed to what it's own base wants, and they are not shy about saying so, alienating its own bae.
That big blue blob represents a power base. This power base can change the world, if we help it.
1
Excellent pointers for both Democrats and Republicans, and one hopes they are paying attention. France's recent parliamentary election is an example of voter discontent with the two major groupings resulting in Mr. Macron's brand new party capturing the center and a whopping majority. Of our two major parties, the Democrats have a bigger problem. Their elitist wisdom does not attract the public's wisdom sufficiently. Leaders such as Sanders, Wassermann Schultz, Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren are a losing proposition. The GOP's issues are a lack of coherence. Long term kowtowing to Trump is a recipe for self destruction. But, they still seem to have more of the center and hence, their narrow victories.
2
Mr. Douthat,
Your opinion piece misses the bigger point: The two- party system itself no longer serves the needs of “we, the people” as referred to in Thomas Friedman’s opinion piece in today’s Times.
The two-party system is not mandated by the Constitution or by law. It grew up independently of both and with much trepidation from many of the Founding Fathers, including George Washington who warned of the dangers of factionalism.
Too many Americans have been caught up with a single issue political concern (take your pick … abortion; gun controls; climate change concerns, and the list goes on). A two-party system with its “big tent” underpinnings is obsolete in the internet and social media world.
This is the core reason why third party candidates from outside of the two major parties, such as Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and others, or from inside such as Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, have done so well.
A multi-party system in some form is inevitable in America (and probably would have long ago evolved but for the obstinate opposition of the two monolithic political parties. Why is it that one of the few major laws upon which the two could agree was campaign finance reform (McCain-Feingold) which was designed to raise the bar to entry by third parties?
In addition, it is not only leaders that we need. More importantly, we need informed followers. Ironically, in the information age, Americans are less informed and more confused. It is by design, folks. Wake up.
Your opinion piece misses the bigger point: The two- party system itself no longer serves the needs of “we, the people” as referred to in Thomas Friedman’s opinion piece in today’s Times.
The two-party system is not mandated by the Constitution or by law. It grew up independently of both and with much trepidation from many of the Founding Fathers, including George Washington who warned of the dangers of factionalism.
Too many Americans have been caught up with a single issue political concern (take your pick … abortion; gun controls; climate change concerns, and the list goes on). A two-party system with its “big tent” underpinnings is obsolete in the internet and social media world.
This is the core reason why third party candidates from outside of the two major parties, such as Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and others, or from inside such as Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, have done so well.
A multi-party system in some form is inevitable in America (and probably would have long ago evolved but for the obstinate opposition of the two monolithic political parties. Why is it that one of the few major laws upon which the two could agree was campaign finance reform (McCain-Feingold) which was designed to raise the bar to entry by third parties?
In addition, it is not only leaders that we need. More importantly, we need informed followers. Ironically, in the information age, Americans are less informed and more confused. It is by design, folks. Wake up.
2
Absolutely. I am French-American and it is a much greater pleasure to vote in the French elections. I also appreciate that the campaigns are not a two year long circus over there as they are here. It's exhausting and ridiculous. Can we change that too?
1
What I'd like to be able to do, assuming I'm alive in 20 years, is to look back at this whole thing and say that we learned how to be a better country. Americans learned that money wasn't everything, that capitalism and the free market aren't the panacea business and politicians say they are, and that we have more in common than we thought. I said I'd like to be able to do that but I doubt I will.
I'm 58 years old. Thanks to Trump's cuts in funding for a program that funded my job I'm unemployed again. Thanks to politicians in previous decades saving for retirement became impossible even though I've saved some. Thanks to the way our health care system "works" I gave up caring for myself because I never know when I'll have a job, what will be covered or not, if a doctor I use in network, etc. I'm tired of living in a country that has told me since I graduated from college that I'm worthless no matter how hard I've worked, that the only thing that matters is spending money to support the economy, and that if I'm out of work I can just drop dead. And I'm not the only one who feels this way. Ask any person who has lived through being unemployed more than a few times, who has had to forgo medical care, who cannot plan for tomorrow or 6 months into the future and you'll hear the same complaints.
I wish this dance of stupidity in DC and around the country would cease. We deserve better but we need to elect smarter.
I'm 58 years old. Thanks to Trump's cuts in funding for a program that funded my job I'm unemployed again. Thanks to politicians in previous decades saving for retirement became impossible even though I've saved some. Thanks to the way our health care system "works" I gave up caring for myself because I never know when I'll have a job, what will be covered or not, if a doctor I use in network, etc. I'm tired of living in a country that has told me since I graduated from college that I'm worthless no matter how hard I've worked, that the only thing that matters is spending money to support the economy, and that if I'm out of work I can just drop dead. And I'm not the only one who feels this way. Ask any person who has lived through being unemployed more than a few times, who has had to forgo medical care, who cannot plan for tomorrow or 6 months into the future and you'll hear the same complaints.
I wish this dance of stupidity in DC and around the country would cease. We deserve better but we need to elect smarter.
4
I rarely agree totally with anything anybody says but this is spot on.
1
There is no "American Center" anymore, because there is no common ground to be found in either party -- Republicans are torn into the same varying factions, as the Democrats, and the trains don't meet.
Nobody seems interested in serving from a centrist position anymore because everyone is scrambling to assert their own private sphere of influence on the very public arena.
Those who deny that the G.O.P. has been co-opted by the hard-right are fooling themselves -- the recent presidential election is proof enough of that claim.
Just as those who insist the Democratic Party kowtow to Bernie Sanders' message in order to be "true Democrats", are also missing the message -- not only because Sanders isn't a Democrat, but because he skewers far too left for most moderates.
And in the midst of all this, we have a country that seems ready to shift back into the past, simply because the president feels more at ease with "the good old days".
The only problem with that is, they weren't so "good" for everyone.
If America doesn't change it's course, finding its "center" will become ever more difficult to come by -- and that's not a luxury we can afford to have happen if we want to preserve the Union this country once stood for.
Nobody seems interested in serving from a centrist position anymore because everyone is scrambling to assert their own private sphere of influence on the very public arena.
Those who deny that the G.O.P. has been co-opted by the hard-right are fooling themselves -- the recent presidential election is proof enough of that claim.
Just as those who insist the Democratic Party kowtow to Bernie Sanders' message in order to be "true Democrats", are also missing the message -- not only because Sanders isn't a Democrat, but because he skewers far too left for most moderates.
And in the midst of all this, we have a country that seems ready to shift back into the past, simply because the president feels more at ease with "the good old days".
The only problem with that is, they weren't so "good" for everyone.
If America doesn't change it's course, finding its "center" will become ever more difficult to come by -- and that's not a luxury we can afford to have happen if we want to preserve the Union this country once stood for.
4
We are returning to the age of absolutism. Around the globe we see more-and-more political and religious movements that are based in the belief that there can be only one doctrine enforced by one absolute power at the center. There is no longer a middle ground. The terms are: you are either one of us or you are the enemy.
We are even seeing this in our Constitutional Democratic Republic. While the results of elections show that the nation is almost evenly divided on all political issues, the winners of this tight elections claim a mandate to push the absolutist position of their political party and totally disregard those who did not vote for their position. From my reading of history, this is not what the framers of The Constitution envisioned. If anything, The Constitution is meant to drive all issues to a reasonable compromise understanding that there are various positions and understandings of every issue.
The real question is: can we, as a nation, return to a political reality where compromise is the order of the day? If we cannot, then we are doomed to become yet-another failed attempt at absolutist rule. Yes, all absolutists eventually fail because the circle of who is in conformance with the absolutist leadership has to get smaller-and-smaller until there is only one pure absolutist left and a single individual cannot rule the planet, even if they think they have that right.
We are even seeing this in our Constitutional Democratic Republic. While the results of elections show that the nation is almost evenly divided on all political issues, the winners of this tight elections claim a mandate to push the absolutist position of their political party and totally disregard those who did not vote for their position. From my reading of history, this is not what the framers of The Constitution envisioned. If anything, The Constitution is meant to drive all issues to a reasonable compromise understanding that there are various positions and understandings of every issue.
The real question is: can we, as a nation, return to a political reality where compromise is the order of the day? If we cannot, then we are doomed to become yet-another failed attempt at absolutist rule. Yes, all absolutists eventually fail because the circle of who is in conformance with the absolutist leadership has to get smaller-and-smaller until there is only one pure absolutist left and a single individual cannot rule the planet, even if they think they have that right.
4
The dramatic differences between liberals and conservatives is largely based on facts. Most people I know who oppose Obamacare think it is an expensive entitlement that has made a major contribution to the National Debt. The truth is that Obamacare was designed to be revenue neutral and according to the CBO a straight repeal of Obamacare would actually increase the debt. Most conservatives think that illegal immigration is over running the country, but the fact is that in the last year of the Obama Administration illegal immigration was at a 45 year low. Most people who voted for Trump are terrified of Islamic terrorism even though most of them have never met a Muslim, and since 9/11 eight times more Americans have been killed by lawn mowers. Most conservatives blame the fact that the National Debt doubled under Obama on his profligate spending, when it was actually caused by the Bush recession - the deepest since the Great Depression, and none of them believe you when you tell them that Obama inherited a budget deficit of $1350 billion dollars and reduced it to under $500 billion in 8 years making it the biggest deficit reduction in history. When people don't know the facts it is impossible to have a discussion about how to go about solving problems.
143
Amen.
Agree completely. It is amazing how many Republicans simply forgot the Bush created Recession and blame the economy on Obama. Republicans live in their own alternate universe and will never grasp reality.
Not long ago it would have been unthinkable to run a federal deficit to finance the elimination of the Estate Tax a/k/a Death Tax. In fact, it was Donald Trump that was willing to impose a national wealth tax of 14% to pay off the entire debt before justifying the demise of the Death Tax. See Trump’s book, “The America We Deserve”. It is profound to recognize that the, “Republican Party as an institution, or at least its congressional incarnation, has long been well to the right of its own voters on economics”. It is not clear when the deficit and the debt became unimportant to the GOP. Tax cuts for the rich have become so important that millions of poor people will soon lose health care and tens of millions of young people will have to pay off the debt in the decades to come. Of course, Trust Fund babies financed by the elimination of the Estate Tax will be exempt.
Perhaps we need a return to real Christian values that reward the Good Stewards and make sure that the idle rich pay their fair share. A net worth tax up to 2% is a small price to pay for all the government services that protect the concentrated assets of the very rich. Better yet, tax wealth and income inversely so the productive wealthy (Good Stewards) can have lower income tax rates (perhaps 8%) while those who avoid tax on their accumulated wealth (i.e. most billionaires) pay a higher income tax rate (up to 28%).
Perhaps we need a return to real Christian values that reward the Good Stewards and make sure that the idle rich pay their fair share. A net worth tax up to 2% is a small price to pay for all the government services that protect the concentrated assets of the very rich. Better yet, tax wealth and income inversely so the productive wealthy (Good Stewards) can have lower income tax rates (perhaps 8%) while those who avoid tax on their accumulated wealth (i.e. most billionaires) pay a higher income tax rate (up to 28%).
6
If Dems expect to win anything in 2018, they need a strong populist message: Take Back America or Fairness for All, emphasizing more and better jobs that reflect a commitment to new technologies and the environment, higher wages, single payer healthcare, and free public education through college. They are open to national service, other than the military, as a way of moving their country forward.
Right now, within the Democratic Party, there's only infighting and an over-emphasis on identity politics. The country wants none of it. Young people, especially, want another way. And they want a leader who reflects their youth and energy. They want want to be inspired to work for a better future, not just told how the economy is rigged. People vote for something, not against it.
Right now, within the Democratic Party, there's only infighting and an over-emphasis on identity politics. The country wants none of it. Young people, especially, want another way. And they want a leader who reflects their youth and energy. They want want to be inspired to work for a better future, not just told how the economy is rigged. People vote for something, not against it.
7
The political center is actually in an interesting place, if you look at any major opinion poll - where the mass of voters from both parties meet is distrust of Wall Street, big corporations, and the wealthy, and concern that there's too much money in the political system and politicians are consequently bought and paid for.
For a few frustrating reasons you're not going to see the parties elevate these issues anytime soon.
For a few frustrating reasons you're not going to see the parties elevate these issues anytime soon.
2
Let's look at history to see why smart people are not "fiscally responsible"
Every time we had a balanced budget for more than 4 years, that period was immediately followed by a depression. This has happened 6 times. Deficits are necessary for prosperity.
Government deficits decrease private sector debt. All of the 11 recessions we had since 1952 have been preceded by an increase in private sector debt. See 3rd graph at http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/mmt-basics-you-cannot-consider-the-...
In 1946 the pubklic debt was 109% of GDP--47% higher than we have today. We had deficits for 21 of the next 27 years; debt increased 75%. And we had prosperity. The GDP grew at an average of 3.8%; real household income surged 74%.
On the other hand look at what happened after WWI. We had balanced budget (surpluses) from 1920 - 1930. We reduced the debt by 38%, On October 25, 1929 the debt was only 16% of GDP. AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED?
As another commenter put it, "A growing economy needs a growing money supply or there will be deflation as X amount of dollars chases greater amounts of goods and services. A fiscal surplus destroys money, exacerbating the problem. Accordingly, regularly running surpluses is like bleeding a patient..."
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" - source unknown
"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it." - Edmund Burke or George Santayana
Every time we had a balanced budget for more than 4 years, that period was immediately followed by a depression. This has happened 6 times. Deficits are necessary for prosperity.
Government deficits decrease private sector debt. All of the 11 recessions we had since 1952 have been preceded by an increase in private sector debt. See 3rd graph at http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/mmt-basics-you-cannot-consider-the-...
In 1946 the pubklic debt was 109% of GDP--47% higher than we have today. We had deficits for 21 of the next 27 years; debt increased 75%. And we had prosperity. The GDP grew at an average of 3.8%; real household income surged 74%.
On the other hand look at what happened after WWI. We had balanced budget (surpluses) from 1920 - 1930. We reduced the debt by 38%, On October 25, 1929 the debt was only 16% of GDP. AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED?
As another commenter put it, "A growing economy needs a growing money supply or there will be deflation as X amount of dollars chases greater amounts of goods and services. A fiscal surplus destroys money, exacerbating the problem. Accordingly, regularly running surpluses is like bleeding a patient..."
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" - source unknown
"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it." - Edmund Burke or George Santayana
6
It's very simple. When we practice austerity, we starve the economy. Any good business owner knows you have to invest to reap returns. That's what ROI is. You have to spend money to make money. But most republicans have no clue how a business works (most are likely unemployable) and think you can create economic grown by putting a stopper on spending. The result? Our infrastructure is falling apart (what business would allow its equipment to fall into disrepair? How could it compete?). Our workers are underpaid and unhealthy (a healthy workforce is more effective and efficient). Our environment is being degraded (what business would function well if it were drowning in sewage?) ... the economic ruling class of today is comprised of bankers, the bean counters of finance, people who have never sweated or built anything, who don't like to spend. They believe wealth is created by reapply no (or raping) the payouts from stocks and dividends. And they're going to run the country into the ground. You have to water a plant and enrich the soil if you want it to grow.
1
The figure described by Mr. Douthat provides food for thought but does not really explain what happened in last fall's election: A mendacious populist won with three million fewer popular votes than his rival, and across the country, the GOP sent more Reps to the House than it deserved based on statewide vote counts. It's simple - the electoral system is broken. The Democrats are left to fight for scraps in swing states and districts and hope for less gerrymandering after the 2020 Census. Meanwhile, the Blue states do more than their share to keep the federal government liquid and the economy churning.
11
Two things, Mr. Douthat. 1) Republicans keep winning elections — although the country is moving left — because of unprecedented and likely unconstitutional gerrymandering. To wit: Austin, TX has not one liberal representative to reflect this most liberal of cities. And 2) the public has remained steady on abortion rights, but the Republican elite has not. In service to the religious right, they have been picking and clawing at Roe since 1973, slowly but surely eroding that decision where they can. This is not, as you claim, inflexibility on the behalf of liberals.
36
Gee do you think that all these Republican wins are due to the "Russian Interference"? It seems more likely to me that the GOP wins due to gerrymandering, loads of $ and corruption behind closed doors...I suspect many of our Congressmen have accepted big $ and favors.....I see many of them as paid hacks who do the bidding of their real masters.....clearly NOT the American people who they are being paid to serve.
It seems that the dems had a centrist willing to experiment with outreach to the minority party in the form of president Barack Obama - especially during his first term, and they were met with unrelenting obstructionism. The more recent shift to a hard left seems to be simply an attempt to copy a strategy that (sadly) was quite effective.
20
Characterizing the Democratic party as "almost an open borders party" is misleading, and grounded on what, exactly?
You reference Beinart's piece in the Atlantic to substantiate the claim? But he provides no evidence for the characterization --a few word changes in the party platform, none of which resulted in the positive claim for "open borders." In fact, he points out that Bernie Sanders was aghast at the notion.
"Open borders" is freighted symbolism, irresponsibly deployed.
You reference Beinart's piece in the Atlantic to substantiate the claim? But he provides no evidence for the characterization --a few word changes in the party platform, none of which resulted in the positive claim for "open borders." In fact, he points out that Bernie Sanders was aghast at the notion.
"Open borders" is freighted symbolism, irresponsibly deployed.
43
Exactly. What open borders party? And don't opinion polls show that Americans have long supported a path to citizenship for illegals who have been in this country a long time? Didn't George Bush propose such a measure? What Democrats do acknowledge is that America has always been a haven for immigrants. The diversity it brings has been a major American strength. And the wall that Trump has been pushing is a feel good solution looking for a problem. Most illegals do not come across the border. They fly into the country and then overstay their visas.
What Douthat conveniently overlooks is the Republican created Gerrymandering in the red states that allows a minority of Americans to dominate our government.
And the greatest motivating power of all, money issues, is the primary reason the Republicans dominate. They, aided by the right wing media, have for decades brainwashed Americans to believe that government is ineffective. Less government is more. So if you no longer believe that government can help make America greater you might as well vote Republican as they will allow you to keep more of your money.
What Douthat conveniently overlooks is the Republican created Gerrymandering in the red states that allows a minority of Americans to dominate our government.
And the greatest motivating power of all, money issues, is the primary reason the Republicans dominate. They, aided by the right wing media, have for decades brainwashed Americans to believe that government is ineffective. Less government is more. So if you no longer believe that government can help make America greater you might as well vote Republican as they will allow you to keep more of your money.
Well if you are against securing the border and deporting illegal immigrants that is pretty much "open borders."
"Characterizing the Democratic party as "almost an open borders party" is misleading, and grounded on what, exactly?"....In the last year of the Obama Administration illegal immigration into the U.S. was at a 45 year low.
Isn't it true that only a slight majority of Americans identify with either party? More than 40% of Americans identify with neither party. That shows that the center exists. It just lacks a party.
11
The problem is that the real center I call it the middle, is no where near where the corporate establishment beltway "center" keeps saying it is.
That is what is polarizing the electorate, the "center" doesn't represent them, so they have to go to the extremes.
Meanwhile the extremes have a lot more on common than they are led to believe. Both sides want money out of politics. Both sides are more interested in helping regular people than global corporations.
But the debate is framed so that the corporations blame the government and the government blames the corporations, when the same people are in both at the same time, the Trump administration being people examples.
That is what is polarizing the electorate, the "center" doesn't represent them, so they have to go to the extremes.
Meanwhile the extremes have a lot more on common than they are led to believe. Both sides want money out of politics. Both sides are more interested in helping regular people than global corporations.
But the debate is framed so that the corporations blame the government and the government blames the corporations, when the same people are in both at the same time, the Trump administration being people examples.
Was this election about policy and political philosophy? Where is the chart showing the anger and distrust of government exhibited by many voters? Failing to take that into consideration is leading to a faulty conclusion.
4
It's hard to believe a right winger when he's moralizing about the imaginary American center.
RD must have missed the GOP purging all moderates in 1980. Nothing has changed. See Georgia last night electing another extreme GOP hack, frothing at her mouth to end your health care.
RD must have missed the GOP purging all moderates in 1980. Nothing has changed. See Georgia last night electing another extreme GOP hack, frothing at her mouth to end your health care.
18
Pundits ( including you Ross ) continue to extrapolate grandiose theories about America's demographics, when in reality JUST 77,000 ( across 3 states ) made the difference in voting in this administration.
That is of course with the possibility of help by a foreign country in tipping the scale for said results. If it had gone the other way, we would not have all ths puffed up punditry.
Pick any Progressive policy and there are clear majorities for them.
~ Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Single Payer, Living Wages, Benefits, Human Rights, Saving the Planet, A truly progressive tax system, Gun Safety
on and on etc...
What happens time and time again, is that a select portion ( that makes the marginal difference ) votes for party ( republicans ) over country. Go one step further and there are many in this group that are voting on one issue over everything else ( even if they vote against themselves ) It could be for the 2nd amendment, abortion or just pure nationalism.
On the Progressive side , we are going through a catharsis that we will not accept robot candidates that are corporatists any longer. We want true Progressives that will demand change now and not somewhere down the road. WE are not going to bargain away rights for a tax cut any longer. We are going to call out lies ( as we should ) which is why there is the perception that there is such vitriol.
No, we are just not going to take the crap any longer.
That is of course with the possibility of help by a foreign country in tipping the scale for said results. If it had gone the other way, we would not have all ths puffed up punditry.
Pick any Progressive policy and there are clear majorities for them.
~ Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Single Payer, Living Wages, Benefits, Human Rights, Saving the Planet, A truly progressive tax system, Gun Safety
on and on etc...
What happens time and time again, is that a select portion ( that makes the marginal difference ) votes for party ( republicans ) over country. Go one step further and there are many in this group that are voting on one issue over everything else ( even if they vote against themselves ) It could be for the 2nd amendment, abortion or just pure nationalism.
On the Progressive side , we are going through a catharsis that we will not accept robot candidates that are corporatists any longer. We want true Progressives that will demand change now and not somewhere down the road. WE are not going to bargain away rights for a tax cut any longer. We are going to call out lies ( as we should ) which is why there is the perception that there is such vitriol.
No, we are just not going to take the crap any longer.
21
I think you are correct, and that you also call out a fallacy of Mr. Douthat's argument, and that is that the party is reflective of its base. I would argue that at present, it is not. The base never fully embraced Hillary Clinton. They supported her only to the extent that she was the flag bearer and Trump was such an obvious (to them if not the country as a whole) disaster-in-waiting. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was symbolic of this disconnect, and the party as a structure is still as disconnected today as it was at election time. The party still does not have well formulated policies that would appeal to the actual base as well as to the establishment.
6
I believe Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.
Cook political report:
Clinton: 65,844,610
Trump: 62,979,636
Other: 7,804,213
Cook political report:
Clinton: 65,844,610
Trump: 62,979,636
Other: 7,804,213
12
I still find it hilarious that all of the same Democrats that had no problem with Democratic Party rules that let super delegates and other shenanigans tilt the primaries away from Bernie, because "he knew the rules going in," go on and on about the electoral college, even though it is part of the constitution for two hundred years.
You are not going to get the small states to vote against the electoral college, so figure out a way to win using it. Whining about it is a waste of breath, or pixels.
You are not going to get the small states to vote against the electoral college, so figure out a way to win using it. Whining about it is a waste of breath, or pixels.
What a superficial analisis.
Obama deports more than any other president, and dems dont want borders?
Hillary lost because she was too centrist/corporate, but dems lose because they take extreme left positions?
No real coherency, just pot shots at democrats. Ny times please find a thoughtful conservative to write op-eds.
Obama deports more than any other president, and dems dont want borders?
Hillary lost because she was too centrist/corporate, but dems lose because they take extreme left positions?
No real coherency, just pot shots at democrats. Ny times please find a thoughtful conservative to write op-eds.
15
Another verse of Douthat Doggerel. And he has a chart that looks for all the world like a target that someone has tried mightily to zero his rifle on and, while managing to get a couple fairly tight groupings, just can't seem to find the "10" circle. This means that when our gunner goes afield, he has to rely to Kentucky elevation and Tennessee windage to bring home the bacon. Just more of the biggest of the three types of lie. You know, lies, damned lies and statistics.
Question: How many of you have ever been polled (by a legitimate polling agency, the ones named in news reports)?
Question: How many of you have ever been polled (by a legitimate polling agency, the ones named in news reports)?
6
"Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton supporters didn’t differ very much on the actual issues."
Hardly. In Ross' Figure 2 there are two indices that determine a Clinton supporter: what we might call "dignity for all" or "stronger together" on one axis, and get government involved in fixing the job situation on the other axis.
Clinton pushed the "dignity for all" index for all it was worth and ignored the jobs index almost entirely. Bernie supported both.
The alarming aspect of Figure 2 is that it shows a Bernie approach won't affect Trump voters at all, who don't give a damn about either of these themes. The hope of the Dems has to be to rally more folks interested in these themes. That increased support is more likely if both buttons are pushed than only one of them.
Unfortunately, pursuing the jobs issue is seen by the Dem leaders as threatening their donor support among the corporate elite, who have a hands-off view of government involvement. That bullet has to be bitten.
Hardly. In Ross' Figure 2 there are two indices that determine a Clinton supporter: what we might call "dignity for all" or "stronger together" on one axis, and get government involved in fixing the job situation on the other axis.
Clinton pushed the "dignity for all" index for all it was worth and ignored the jobs index almost entirely. Bernie supported both.
The alarming aspect of Figure 2 is that it shows a Bernie approach won't affect Trump voters at all, who don't give a damn about either of these themes. The hope of the Dems has to be to rally more folks interested in these themes. That increased support is more likely if both buttons are pushed than only one of them.
Unfortunately, pursuing the jobs issue is seen by the Dem leaders as threatening their donor support among the corporate elite, who have a hands-off view of government involvement. That bullet has to be bitten.
3
In Search of the American Center:
The center ; is the promise of our democracy.....every single citizen
does have rights....a right to be represented justly.
Corruption of our Democracy: Collective Corruption of Individual Rights.
This is what Russia has tried to impose on us....Our democracy...our
individual rights are NOT being represented...because our rights have
been corrupted by ....corrupt campaign financing....for distorting our
democracy....so Ross Douthat find the correlation between Citizens United
and the way Citizens United has and is ruining our Democracy..
That's an assignment that perhaps Pulitzer would have you make your
next theme.
The center ; is the promise of our democracy.....every single citizen
does have rights....a right to be represented justly.
Corruption of our Democracy: Collective Corruption of Individual Rights.
This is what Russia has tried to impose on us....Our democracy...our
individual rights are NOT being represented...because our rights have
been corrupted by ....corrupt campaign financing....for distorting our
democracy....so Ross Douthat find the correlation between Citizens United
and the way Citizens United has and is ruining our Democracy..
That's an assignment that perhaps Pulitzer would have you make your
next theme.
6
Too much thinking here. Political success depends on one thing, as the last election tells us, and it does not speak well for the public or democracy: marketing. A "new and improved" label on the product (even if its neither) and a loud-mouthed salesman (that would be Trump.) As long as the charlatan promising the goods is convincing the goods make no difference. Until they have been purchased, that is. Well, we've bought them and are finally seeing what we have, and it looks like some of the buyers are beginning to recognize the value of the bill of goods they were sold.
3
"the party’s base has no patience anymore for the kind of careful triangulation that Bill Clinton practiced on issues like crime and welfare policy" because Clinton was a sellout. Clinton gave us the repeal of Glass Steagall, extraordinary racist incarceration, further collapse of unions and union activity, export of manufacturing jobs to China, failure to crush Al Qaeda. Clinton also gave us the Presidency of George W. So, why did Hillary get to run?
Sanders had genuine appeal to the white working class, to the unrepresented that gave Trump his wins in many states. Sanders was ignored by the media despite his support throughout the country while the media gave Trump billions of free press and treated Hillary as the anointed one. Sanders was sabotaged by the DNC elite, by Wasserman Schultz despite his support among the young and the old.
Analysis that excludes Sanders and the hubris of the DNC is absurd. The liberal and moderate wings of the DNC were given the elite candidate: Clinton. Moderates held their noses and voted for Clinton. Others, the under employed, the angry, the hopeless voted for Trump.
Then there are the impact of Comey and Putin on the election. Also ignored.
Comey's blunder and Putin's vendetta against Clinton did change the outcome. Voters stayed home who would have voted for Clinton, or voted for Trump because they wanted to vote for change and Sanders was not available. There is also the cyber attack on Clinton supporters other Russian interference.
Sanders had genuine appeal to the white working class, to the unrepresented that gave Trump his wins in many states. Sanders was ignored by the media despite his support throughout the country while the media gave Trump billions of free press and treated Hillary as the anointed one. Sanders was sabotaged by the DNC elite, by Wasserman Schultz despite his support among the young and the old.
Analysis that excludes Sanders and the hubris of the DNC is absurd. The liberal and moderate wings of the DNC were given the elite candidate: Clinton. Moderates held their noses and voted for Clinton. Others, the under employed, the angry, the hopeless voted for Trump.
Then there are the impact of Comey and Putin on the election. Also ignored.
Comey's blunder and Putin's vendetta against Clinton did change the outcome. Voters stayed home who would have voted for Clinton, or voted for Trump because they wanted to vote for change and Sanders was not available. There is also the cyber attack on Clinton supporters other Russian interference.
There is no center remaining in our country. Read Bill Bishop's book, "The Big Sort". He documents how we have "sorted" ourselves into conclaves of liberals and conservatives. We no longer interact or even speak with each other. Our country is polarized and divided from the neighborhood up.
2
In that case, why not give control back to the states? Each group can then get exactly the sort of government they want, and those who don't like it can move.
1
Jonathan-that is exactly the government that we had up until the Civil War. Lincoln and the Republicans established the all powerful federal government and its power has grown ever since relative to the states. Since we can't divide the USA in half, one half red and the other blue, reverting to strong states rights does offer a solution since in time people can choose where they are most comfortable and businesses can operate under laws that are best for them. The federal government will still have to manage the armed forces but they should be reduced as we dissolve the American empire. This would certainly reduce the hatred that we now have which is directly the result of applying uniform policies to a very diverse country.
Right now in the health care debate we up until now were looking for a few courageous moderate Republicans. I would suggest that now we actually should be looking for a few courageous moderate Democrats to buck the far left Democratic orthodoxy and entice the Republcans with something that does not have to use Senate reconciliation rules. I doubt it will happen but at least then I know what will happen for Democrats in 2018. It will be 51% to 48%!! The centrists are not budging!
1
They ripped off this two-axis grid from PoliticalCompass.org, which has been around since 2000 at least, and which gives a much better explanation of their methodology. You can take a questionnaire to find out where you reside on the grid.
Aside from that, you are wrong that democrats are becoming more liberal. The rank and file liberal voters have occupied the same place for fifty years. It is their leaders, such as the Cllintons, who keep moving to the right in an effort to peel off a few votes from the republicans, who have been moving towards fascism at break-neck speed ever since Reagan.
Aside from that, you are wrong that democrats are becoming more liberal. The rank and file liberal voters have occupied the same place for fifty years. It is their leaders, such as the Cllintons, who keep moving to the right in an effort to peel off a few votes from the republicans, who have been moving towards fascism at break-neck speed ever since Reagan.
13
"A better center": MainStream.
“The unhinged left is endorsing and applauding shooting Republicans.”
That’s an ad that ran in the Georgia runoff election. It’s right out of the Newt Gingrich playbook, and unless it stops, hate, not logic, not policy, not reconciliation, will rule our politics going forward. Every day I read more articles by both left leaning and right leaning pundits and data analysts where they continue to keep their heads buried firmly in the sand. You desperately want our politics to be rational, but our politics are not rational. It’s not about issues, it’s about hate. That was Trump’s campaign platform: cater to the haters and promise them whatever they want. Call everyone who challenges you a liar. Label the legitimate press ‘fake news.’
Ross, you can dredge up as many charts as you want. People can nitpick the numbers all day. It doesn’t matter. You can suggest that we need better leaders to get us to “center,” but you are deluding yourself. It’s not about anything whatsoever rational, it’s about polarization brought about by hate politics.
In this country, we used to be debate what the tax rate should be, how high the deficit should go. Now, taxes are evil. The government is evil. Regulations are evil. All of this is the fault of evil Democrats who are killing your jobs to line their pockets. Don’t you see what’s happened, Ross? Are you that blind?
That’s an ad that ran in the Georgia runoff election. It’s right out of the Newt Gingrich playbook, and unless it stops, hate, not logic, not policy, not reconciliation, will rule our politics going forward. Every day I read more articles by both left leaning and right leaning pundits and data analysts where they continue to keep their heads buried firmly in the sand. You desperately want our politics to be rational, but our politics are not rational. It’s not about issues, it’s about hate. That was Trump’s campaign platform: cater to the haters and promise them whatever they want. Call everyone who challenges you a liar. Label the legitimate press ‘fake news.’
Ross, you can dredge up as many charts as you want. People can nitpick the numbers all day. It doesn’t matter. You can suggest that we need better leaders to get us to “center,” but you are deluding yourself. It’s not about anything whatsoever rational, it’s about polarization brought about by hate politics.
In this country, we used to be debate what the tax rate should be, how high the deficit should go. Now, taxes are evil. The government is evil. Regulations are evil. All of this is the fault of evil Democrats who are killing your jobs to line their pockets. Don’t you see what’s happened, Ross? Are you that blind?
18
The Democratic Party should be about love politics, and the policies that would follow. Instead they want to be Republican lite, never directly confronting the policies of hate, because they don't want to offend the haters.
Two things to help our democracy:
1) Open primaries.
2) Get the big corporate money out of politics.
1) Open primaries.
2) Get the big corporate money out of politics.
7
I wonder if the enter is reclaimable. It certainly has not held. And that rough beast that was crouching toward Bethlehem? It has made it to Washington DC.
It seems that Trump supporters believe you can separate economic issues from moral ones and Liberals believe that economics and moral issues are bound together.
Are these issues economic or moral or both?
- Climate Change
- Immigration
- Healthcare
- Social Security
- Human Rights
- General Welfare
- Common Defense
- Gun regulation
- Terrorism
Maybe Mr Doubthat should re-read Chantal Mouffe, "The Democratic Paradox."
Are these issues economic or moral or both?
- Climate Change
- Immigration
- Healthcare
- Social Security
- Human Rights
- General Welfare
- Common Defense
- Gun regulation
- Terrorism
Maybe Mr Doubthat should re-read Chantal Mouffe, "The Democratic Paradox."
6
Alix: you are absolutely right. Even the quintessential "moral" issues of the punditry, like abortion, are profoundly economic (abortion restrictions basically affect only those who can't afford to pay out of pocket for, or travel for, abortions). The idea that economic policy and moral values are distinct is pure right wing spin. It allows Republicans to pretend not only that the economic interests of the wealthy are the same as everyone else's, but also that the interests, say, of sexual minorities & immigrants, are at odds with the interests of the white working class, which is completely untrue. But Democratic politicians tend to play by the Republican rules on this framing, because being more honest would be threatening to "moneyed" interests.
1
"..why can’t Democrats win more elections?"
First, money in politics (which doesn't fund a Republican nominee's positions, but vilifies the Democratic (or other) nominee's character and motives. A citizen who leans Republican in their social and economic views cannot stomach voting for a non-Republican who has been characterized as a Stalinist socialist who hates America. That is what big money in politics does; it shouts loud, drowning out the voices of real citizens; it shouts hatred, lies and ugliness.
Which brings us to the second reason Democrats (and others) are not winning elections. Citizens leaning Republican and rural America listen to and view propaganda media without exception. They hear Hannity and Limbaugh vilify anyone who veers from the Republican ideology of "cut taxes on the wealthy", "fend for yourself only", "if you are sick, don't have healthcare, lost a job, can't find a job, you are to blame, so go away and leave us alone!" They view FOX exclusively and are misinformed about everything; climate change is a hoax, Russians did not interfere in our elections, Trump is being persecuted by the evil Liberals,...and on and on.
Democrats (and others) can take any position which represents the will of the people, but that position will be vilified by the Republican Party, big moneyed interests and propaganda outlets as disastrous, anti-Christian, anti-American.
Democrats (and others) will win elections when America deserves them. Perhaps never.
First, money in politics (which doesn't fund a Republican nominee's positions, but vilifies the Democratic (or other) nominee's character and motives. A citizen who leans Republican in their social and economic views cannot stomach voting for a non-Republican who has been characterized as a Stalinist socialist who hates America. That is what big money in politics does; it shouts loud, drowning out the voices of real citizens; it shouts hatred, lies and ugliness.
Which brings us to the second reason Democrats (and others) are not winning elections. Citizens leaning Republican and rural America listen to and view propaganda media without exception. They hear Hannity and Limbaugh vilify anyone who veers from the Republican ideology of "cut taxes on the wealthy", "fend for yourself only", "if you are sick, don't have healthcare, lost a job, can't find a job, you are to blame, so go away and leave us alone!" They view FOX exclusively and are misinformed about everything; climate change is a hoax, Russians did not interfere in our elections, Trump is being persecuted by the evil Liberals,...and on and on.
Democrats (and others) can take any position which represents the will of the people, but that position will be vilified by the Republican Party, big moneyed interests and propaganda outlets as disastrous, anti-Christian, anti-American.
Democrats (and others) will win elections when America deserves them. Perhaps never.
7
The key here is that Trump not only ran against the Republican establishment, he ridiculed it. In similar fashion, Bernie Sanders ran against the Democratic establishment. Most American citizens realize that party establishments on both sides have encouraged economic inequality and corporate malfeasance. When Trump has proven to be the false prophet of economic change, will either party find a candidate who can articulate and effect a new New Deal? That's the fundamental question.
5
Per the Clinton doctrine, "it's the economy stupid". Economic policies are generally more important to most people than social policy, and if you look at Douthat's chart, far more people are on the "liberal" side economically.
In addition, American elections hinge on turnout, which is generated by enthusiasm. Give the folks in the "blue cluster" on the chart what they want, and they will turn out in droves, along with a fair chunk of the economically liberal but socially conservative brigade. That's why polls routinely showed Bernie Sanders trouncing Trump by 10 points or more during the primaries, while Clinton struggled to maintain a clear lead.
The last thing Democrats need is more of the "triangulation" that has their core constituents staying home in election after election. Trump is sitting in the Oval Office right now precisely because he ignored the American centre and made a direct appeal to the "forgotten" right. There's a far bigger constituency of forgotten people on the left, for anyone bold enough to acknowledge them.
In addition, American elections hinge on turnout, which is generated by enthusiasm. Give the folks in the "blue cluster" on the chart what they want, and they will turn out in droves, along with a fair chunk of the economically liberal but socially conservative brigade. That's why polls routinely showed Bernie Sanders trouncing Trump by 10 points or more during the primaries, while Clinton struggled to maintain a clear lead.
The last thing Democrats need is more of the "triangulation" that has their core constituents staying home in election after election. Trump is sitting in the Oval Office right now precisely because he ignored the American centre and made a direct appeal to the "forgotten" right. There's a far bigger constituency of forgotten people on the left, for anyone bold enough to acknowledge them.
3
"Things fall apart; the center cannot hold. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world." --Yeats, "The Second Coming."
2
At least its good that Ross continues to be blatantly open about the FOX-newsiness of his opinions.
He's not one of those sneaky conservatives that always say one thing and then do the opposite and then look at you like your off your meds.
Nope. Ross just lays it right out there. Like his straight-faced furthering of the "Democrats are for open borders" meme.
First, what even are open borders? What do you mean, Ross?
How does that relate to the reality the President Obama more aggressively charged and deported illegal immigrants than any other President, ever?
How does "open borders" account for the fact that illegal immigration decreased and then nearly reversed itself under President Obama?
Why is it you so love saying the words "Democrats" and "Open borders" together. What electric thrill does that give you?
Finally, Ross, if you're so high on strict border controls, how do you justify the "If you give my kids a half-million dollars, I'll let you into America no questions asked" program promoted by the senior Trump and all the avaricious little Trumpkins?
Or is it true what so many people are saying about conservatives, that they love money more than they love their country?
He's not one of those sneaky conservatives that always say one thing and then do the opposite and then look at you like your off your meds.
Nope. Ross just lays it right out there. Like his straight-faced furthering of the "Democrats are for open borders" meme.
First, what even are open borders? What do you mean, Ross?
How does that relate to the reality the President Obama more aggressively charged and deported illegal immigrants than any other President, ever?
How does "open borders" account for the fact that illegal immigration decreased and then nearly reversed itself under President Obama?
Why is it you so love saying the words "Democrats" and "Open borders" together. What electric thrill does that give you?
Finally, Ross, if you're so high on strict border controls, how do you justify the "If you give my kids a half-million dollars, I'll let you into America no questions asked" program promoted by the senior Trump and all the avaricious little Trumpkins?
Or is it true what so many people are saying about conservatives, that they love money more than they love their country?
4
I am a registered Democrat but I'm also a middle-of-the-road moderate. My party has left me but Republicans have gone so far to the right that I can't support them. I believe in an economic and social safety net but realize that we can't go too far left with it. I don't believe in censorship or in government policies that legislate morality but I think morals and ethics have become too loose. I believe in a woman's right to choose and in LGBT rights to marry and live in a country without prejudice. I believe people of all races, cultures, and religions should be treated with respect and have equality under the law. I believe we need to have an immigration policy that allows non-citizens to have work permits. I believe in DACA and the humane treatment of all immigrants.
1
In my state the Republicans are so rabidly right wing that I could never supoort them so I always opt for the Democratic candidates. In North Carolina, the Democrats are moderate. I would like to see a national Democratic Party that is moderate also but given the electorate, I don't think moderates can win.
1
Then why do you say that the Democrats have left you? It sounds to me like you are pretty much right in the middle of the ideology they preach. You need to look at what the party actually stands for, not what the conservative media says they stand for. I think you will find that you are still safely at home in your party.
1
I am not looking at how the conservative media portrays Democrats. Just look in the comments section of this newspaper to see how progressives are labeling themselves.
1
Putting people's political views on a two-axis chart is seriously misleading. Look at the study's figure 1. The two biggest divisions between Republicans and Democrats are on economic issues: attitudes toward economic inequality and attitudes toward government intervention. The fact that the parties are close together on a few specific issues (Social Security, Medicare, foreign trade) obscures these deep divisions.
I'm not troubled by our disagreements on moral issues. Americans are divided about abortion, but we're no more divided about the issue now than we were in the 1980s. The new divisions are about issues of sexual orientation and gender identity. Millenials are overwhelmingly in favor of same sex marriage. The older generations are gradually changing their minds. There's also a slow but steady shift in opinion on transgender issues. In thirty years, sexual orientation and gender identity will be non-issues in America.
The division that worries me the most is the division about race. Homophobia and transphobia are dying (partly because people are dying and partly because people are changing their minds). Racism is not dying. We can't have a just country until it does. That's both because racism is itself unjust and because racial divisions make it more difficult to make progress on issues of economic justice.
I'm not troubled by our disagreements on moral issues. Americans are divided about abortion, but we're no more divided about the issue now than we were in the 1980s. The new divisions are about issues of sexual orientation and gender identity. Millenials are overwhelmingly in favor of same sex marriage. The older generations are gradually changing their minds. There's also a slow but steady shift in opinion on transgender issues. In thirty years, sexual orientation and gender identity will be non-issues in America.
The division that worries me the most is the division about race. Homophobia and transphobia are dying (partly because people are dying and partly because people are changing their minds). Racism is not dying. We can't have a just country until it does. That's both because racism is itself unjust and because racial divisions make it more difficult to make progress on issues of economic justice.
4
Well said. And racism in America is so ubiquitous that it's invisible, so it goes largely unexamined, even among well-meaning people who want to eradicate it. Its effects are insidious. Implicit bias is baked into our bones, as racism is baked into our economy. We are the most wealthy nation on the planet because our economy was founded on hundreds of years of slavery. The long-term benefits to an economy built on the free labor of millions of people can't be understated. And those who were harmed were not only the slaves and their descendants, but all poor and working class people, since an economic system that employs millions of unpaid workers forces down the wages of the lowest paid. Most Americans can't see this, and won't acknowledge it. We still operate under that ridiculous myth that everyone is equal, has an equal start and chance, and all we need do is tug harder on those bootstraps.
I was told in a college freshman orientation lecture by a noted historian (in 1986) that the basis of 'American Exceptionalism' was that a center emerged in the US legislature to allow a government designed to paralyze itself to not do so and continue conducting the business of the people.
It's possible that the appearance of such a center was a long-running optical illusion based on disenfranchisement of racial or sociocultural groups excluded from the governing consensus.
It's possible that the appearance of such a center was a long-running optical illusion based on disenfranchisement of racial or sociocultural groups excluded from the governing consensus.
4
" ... as the country has moved left, the Democratic Party’s base has consolidated even farther left, and in the process the party has lost the ability to speak to persuadable voters who disagree with the liberal consensus on a few crucial issues."
The Democratic Party's base hasn't moved left--but a sizeable chunk of on-again-off-again fellow travelers has certainly made it seem that way. Consider that the Democratic base listened politely to Bernie Sanders--and nominated Hillary Clinton by a very comfortable margin.
That base has been crumbling away since 1980, however, and we risk losing even more in 2018 if we don't tone down the overheated, self-righteous rhetoric of our Left. Some of those folks offend ME, and I've been a liberal Democrat all my life. During long committee meetings, I've seen more centrist Democrats shut down completely when subjected to a Sanders-style rant. We can't afford that right now.
The Democratic Party's base hasn't moved left--but a sizeable chunk of on-again-off-again fellow travelers has certainly made it seem that way. Consider that the Democratic base listened politely to Bernie Sanders--and nominated Hillary Clinton by a very comfortable margin.
That base has been crumbling away since 1980, however, and we risk losing even more in 2018 if we don't tone down the overheated, self-righteous rhetoric of our Left. Some of those folks offend ME, and I've been a liberal Democrat all my life. During long committee meetings, I've seen more centrist Democrats shut down completely when subjected to a Sanders-style rant. We can't afford that right now.
3
How would you frame the Democratic platform, then, in a way that doesn't simply react to the Republican agenda? The problem with this approach (which is akin to telling gay people to "calm down and not throw it in others' faces") is that many very good ideas from the left or center-left would be very appealing to millions who voted for Trump (which they'll soon regret since he has no intention of keeping his promises to them) but the scolds in the Democratic party won't allow those ideas to gain any traction. In truth, many of these folks would have been considered moderate Republicans (a beast which no longer exists with the new sheriff in town) and their ideas aren't that different from the kinds of ideas promoted by someone like Romney. But Bernie's rise shows that there is a huge chunk of the Democratic party that wants a real progressive agenda, and there are millions who voted for Trump who could just as well have voted for Bernie. There is a core constituency with common concerns that overlaps both parties. If the Democrats who aren't part of this core can open their minds, the party can capture this group, many of whom are not ideologically hidebound and would switch if they found the message resonant.
1
" ... here are millions who voted for Trump who could just as well have voted for Bernie."
Magical thinking. If Bernie couldn't win over Democrats, who are more progressive-minded than the average liberal Republican (they still exist, they're just very shy), he couldn't win the general election--especially after the GOP Reputation Mangling Machine got through with him.
This may shock you, but there are millions of Americans who find the idea of free healthcare and university unappealing, if not disgusting. They liked Sanders' talk of better wages, but suspected that if they did achieve higher incomes, they would also pay higher taxes to offset the cost of free healthcare and college for people who aren't working at all.
" ... the party can capture this group, many of whom ... would switch if they found the message resonant."
Ah, magical messages! Trump had one: MAGA, a cool acronym that fit on a baseball cap. And it is worn--proudly!--by many of the people you think would have voted for Sanders. Whereas the message of the Left has been Rich People Suck for years, and it doesn't seem to have as much traction.
Wordsmithing is not the answer. If you actually read the DNC platform you would see that it is largely proactive and covers the issues close to the progressive's heart: No surprise, since Sanders basically wrote it. It still didn't resonate with enough voters. Let's not double down on what didn't work, okay?
Magical thinking. If Bernie couldn't win over Democrats, who are more progressive-minded than the average liberal Republican (they still exist, they're just very shy), he couldn't win the general election--especially after the GOP Reputation Mangling Machine got through with him.
This may shock you, but there are millions of Americans who find the idea of free healthcare and university unappealing, if not disgusting. They liked Sanders' talk of better wages, but suspected that if they did achieve higher incomes, they would also pay higher taxes to offset the cost of free healthcare and college for people who aren't working at all.
" ... the party can capture this group, many of whom ... would switch if they found the message resonant."
Ah, magical messages! Trump had one: MAGA, a cool acronym that fit on a baseball cap. And it is worn--proudly!--by many of the people you think would have voted for Sanders. Whereas the message of the Left has been Rich People Suck for years, and it doesn't seem to have as much traction.
Wordsmithing is not the answer. If you actually read the DNC platform you would see that it is largely proactive and covers the issues close to the progressive's heart: No surprise, since Sanders basically wrote it. It still didn't resonate with enough voters. Let's not double down on what didn't work, okay?
That is a good chart. The problem with our current politics is that there are two axis, the horizontal axis which is economic and the vertical axis which is social and cultural. In normal times there is only one axis, the economic, and in the election process one can find a stabilizing middle point. But with two axis, no such point can be found. The solution would be to get rid of the vertical axis. This would require achieving a new cultural and social consensus. This might be difficult, but the chart makes clear that this is where our efforts will have to be if we are going to restore a more civil and rational politics.
1
A highly educated, thoughtful and introspective observer like Ross Douthat is predictably expected to construct some rational, social scientific structure to explain a phenomenon by way of voter decisions based mostly on class position and interest.
Truth is, in no other presidential election that I have ever observed in my seventy-five years did more people vote by what their gut instructed them to. Never has a candidate been so successfully, and wrongly, portrayed as the personification of evil than Hillary Clinton. It mattered little to these gut-directed folks what her proposals were--left, right or center.
Draw up all the fancy charts and analysis you wish, but Donald Trump and whatever mish-mash of policies he promotes was put in office by folks who simply lost their minds and ability to reason.
Truth is, in no other presidential election that I have ever observed in my seventy-five years did more people vote by what their gut instructed them to. Never has a candidate been so successfully, and wrongly, portrayed as the personification of evil than Hillary Clinton. It mattered little to these gut-directed folks what her proposals were--left, right or center.
Draw up all the fancy charts and analysis you wish, but Donald Trump and whatever mish-mash of policies he promotes was put in office by folks who simply lost their minds and ability to reason.
15
"Never has a candidate been so successfully, and wrongly, portrayed as the personification of evil than Hillary Clinton."
I am amused. I was going to expect, "Never has a candidate been so successfully, and wrongly, portrayed as the personification of evil than Donald Trump."
True, in sexual morality, Hillary is miles ahead of Trump, who seems to be miles behind most of America.
But it was Hillary who said about Gaddafi, "We came, we saw, he died." It was Hillary who voted for the Iraq war, whereas Trump suggested that Bush should have been impeached for invading Iraq.
The Democrats have spent a lot of effort concentrating on the person of Trump and Trump is indeed less appealing. But his policies, in November, were less scary than Hillary's policies. Hillary wanted a no fly zone over Syria, a Russian ally, an action which could easily have led to WW3. And all of her sexual loyalty to Bill would not have saved civilization.
I am amused. I was going to expect, "Never has a candidate been so successfully, and wrongly, portrayed as the personification of evil than Donald Trump."
True, in sexual morality, Hillary is miles ahead of Trump, who seems to be miles behind most of America.
But it was Hillary who said about Gaddafi, "We came, we saw, he died." It was Hillary who voted for the Iraq war, whereas Trump suggested that Bush should have been impeached for invading Iraq.
The Democrats have spent a lot of effort concentrating on the person of Trump and Trump is indeed less appealing. But his policies, in November, were less scary than Hillary's policies. Hillary wanted a no fly zone over Syria, a Russian ally, an action which could easily have led to WW3. And all of her sexual loyalty to Bill would not have saved civilization.
The right hates Clinton because of decades of invented scandals pushed by Fox and friends.
The people I know on the left that hate the Clinton's can list all of the conservative policies they pushed, from mass incarceration to bank deregulation to supporting the Iraq War to pushing fracked gas.
In general the Clinton's are in that big empty radical free trade corner of the graph, while the voters are not. Way to triangulate...
The people I know on the left that hate the Clinton's can list all of the conservative policies they pushed, from mass incarceration to bank deregulation to supporting the Iraq War to pushing fracked gas.
In general the Clinton's are in that big empty radical free trade corner of the graph, while the voters are not. Way to triangulate...
If politics is the art of living together in society, the federal government has become too large and too distant from the individual. The centralization of power began after the civil war and continues. However, the revolt against it is growing. Part of the reason Jon Osoff lost in the sixth district of Georgia is that voters resented outside money and the "federal government telling them what to do."
Decentralization has its drawbacks, particularly in regard to civil rights, minority rights, health care, and education, but it may be required to allow us to live together in society.
Decentralization has its drawbacks, particularly in regard to civil rights, minority rights, health care, and education, but it may be required to allow us to live together in society.
3
"Decentralization has its drawbacks".....And the biggest draw back is that it leads to becoming third world country. There are no examples of successful nations that are decentralized. In Fact the United States success is based largely on its homogeneity; on the notion that anyone can become an American. With ever greater freedom of travel and movement within the country this will inevitably become more important not less important. Decentralization leads to differentiation and regionalism - different laws, different standards, different economics, different levels of education....different facts; and America goes down the rat hole.
1
True but Democrats have an inflated version of "civil rights, minority rights," which makes it difficult for the majority to establish something like a common core.
Should gays have an equal right to adopt? I honestly do not know. To me, it is more a pragmatic question and not a civil rights question. If children do well in gay households, fine. If they do less well, then we should be skeptical.
In any case it is not something for nine lawyers in Washington DC to decide. It is a question for psychologists and people who are experts in child welfare.
This is just one example, but making every decision into a decision about civil rights has forced common sense to take a back seat. That is not good.
Should gays have an equal right to adopt? I honestly do not know. To me, it is more a pragmatic question and not a civil rights question. If children do well in gay households, fine. If they do less well, then we should be skeptical.
In any case it is not something for nine lawyers in Washington DC to decide. It is a question for psychologists and people who are experts in child welfare.
This is just one example, but making every decision into a decision about civil rights has forced common sense to take a back seat. That is not good.
1
If the Democratic voters are too far left for the general electorate, and the elected Republicans in Congress are to the right of even most Republican voters, how do the Republicans manage to be dominant in Congress?
3
The Center should be the main supporting pillar of any civilized and reasonably well organized society that is founded, for example, on a mixture of the Ten Commandments and the Constitution. The former are engraved in stone, but the latter in the US has been amended on the average once every 7 years. I regard the Center as all the people of good will without prejudice. For example, I consider myself a progressive liberal of the Center, but my wife says that my published reader's comments are written by an "arch-reactionary".
I like the way Douthat and conservatives talk about how extreme the left is.
Mostly they are proposing universal health care and universal university or trade school similar to so many European countries.
And we would put back some of the tax cuts for wealthy to pay for it.
But Republicans have convinced so many voters that this is extreme.
At the same time, many Republicans would rather pay for prison than pay for preschool.
Mostly they are proposing universal health care and universal university or trade school similar to so many European countries.
And we would put back some of the tax cuts for wealthy to pay for it.
But Republicans have convinced so many voters that this is extreme.
At the same time, many Republicans would rather pay for prison than pay for preschool.
47
There is nothing wrong with proposing universal health care, But there are other things which are less popular.
Wanting common bathrooms for male and female.
Wanting to admit tens of thousands into the country from a religion which, for all its good points, also gives rise to terrorism.
Supporting defiance of our immigration laws by millions whose citizen relatives reliably vote Democratic.
Turning legitimate respect for gays into the pretense that gay relationships and hetero relationships are the same.
Forcing nuns to participate in contraception.
A cause is known by the company it keeps. Democrats have offered us a bundle, and single payer health care is one of the few good things in that bundle.
Wanting common bathrooms for male and female.
Wanting to admit tens of thousands into the country from a religion which, for all its good points, also gives rise to terrorism.
Supporting defiance of our immigration laws by millions whose citizen relatives reliably vote Democratic.
Turning legitimate respect for gays into the pretense that gay relationships and hetero relationships are the same.
Forcing nuns to participate in contraception.
A cause is known by the company it keeps. Democrats have offered us a bundle, and single payer health care is one of the few good things in that bundle.
2
To Aruna, point by point:
Transgenderism is an accepted medical condition. These folks want to use the bathroom corresponding to the sex they identify with. There will still be M and F bathrooms, people are not all forced to use the same bathroom.
Democrats want to admit refugees suffering in war torn, dangerous countries which may be Muslim. The Muslim people accepted here have been extensively vetted by existing law and are not terrorists. Our generosity toward these people represents what decent Americans do to help suffering people in need.
Three quarters of our nation’s field workers are undocumented immigrants that agri-businesses welcome here with open arms because Americans will not do the backbreaking work these folks do for paltry wages. We would not have this problem if farmers used E-verify, a long available method to ensure employees are eligible to work here, but they choose not to.
Homosexual people love each other. Couples want to set up households, and receive the same societal benefits as heterosexual couples. Democrats agree with that. Why don’t you?
We are a country of laws, first and foremost. We are not a religious state. If we have, through an act of Congress, adopted a health care law that requires companies to provide contraception as part of the health services, then companies are required to do so, even if run by nuns. Nuns don’t even pay income taxes per IRC Section 501(c)(3). Maybe they shouldn’t complain.
Transgenderism is an accepted medical condition. These folks want to use the bathroom corresponding to the sex they identify with. There will still be M and F bathrooms, people are not all forced to use the same bathroom.
Democrats want to admit refugees suffering in war torn, dangerous countries which may be Muslim. The Muslim people accepted here have been extensively vetted by existing law and are not terrorists. Our generosity toward these people represents what decent Americans do to help suffering people in need.
Three quarters of our nation’s field workers are undocumented immigrants that agri-businesses welcome here with open arms because Americans will not do the backbreaking work these folks do for paltry wages. We would not have this problem if farmers used E-verify, a long available method to ensure employees are eligible to work here, but they choose not to.
Homosexual people love each other. Couples want to set up households, and receive the same societal benefits as heterosexual couples. Democrats agree with that. Why don’t you?
We are a country of laws, first and foremost. We are not a religious state. If we have, through an act of Congress, adopted a health care law that requires companies to provide contraception as part of the health services, then companies are required to do so, even if run by nuns. Nuns don’t even pay income taxes per IRC Section 501(c)(3). Maybe they shouldn’t complain.
1
Republicans are supposed to talk like that. The problem is that Clinton Democrats also talk like that. Whose side are they on?
After decades of political analysis that has basically sliced the U.S. into two colors, why would anyone believe we can talk about "the center?"
In reality, the center is where things get done, where compromise happens, where new ideas are created and implemented, BUT, all of these things take hard work, empathy and a sense of good faith. It's obvious that Americans are too lazy do do this hard work. Back when I was a teenager in the 70's it was far more common to hear about compromises and teamwork among politicians and among people of differing ideologies. Today, a sense of good faith and team work has simply vanished.
These are truly dark times and I personally don't see the center of anything in the U.S. today.
In reality, the center is where things get done, where compromise happens, where new ideas are created and implemented, BUT, all of these things take hard work, empathy and a sense of good faith. It's obvious that Americans are too lazy do do this hard work. Back when I was a teenager in the 70's it was far more common to hear about compromises and teamwork among politicians and among people of differing ideologies. Today, a sense of good faith and team work has simply vanished.
These are truly dark times and I personally don't see the center of anything in the U.S. today.
9
What happens if you redraw the chart with welfare as a moral issue and immigration as an economic one?
14
The more important question is why are so many Republican voters voting against their own economic self-interest with all these 35 years of trickle-down economics that has mostly helped the very, very rich.
7
Yeah, go ahead and tell GOP voters that they're idiots who don't know their own interest. I'm sure you'll pick up a lot of support this way.....
3
@ Jonathan
So what is your solution?
So what is your solution?
1
Why don't you ask them? Assuming you frame it as a sincere desire to hear their thoughts, you may be surprised by what they say.
Economics is the study of how people allocate finite resources; not just money but time, energy, and in this case, votes. Asking why people use their very limited votes against their own financial interests is too narrow. For many people, money is an important resource, but it's not the only resource and it isn't even their top priority.
The person wearing the MAGA cap is trying to tell us that s/he values a certain vision of America at least as much as financial security, and craves opportunities to be with others who share that vision. Why else would so many working-poor people drive for hours on a work night to attend a rally for a candidate who, until the final weeks of the campaign, had very little chance of winning?
Berating people for backing a racist, misogynistic, fascistic lunatic and loudly questioning their intelligence didn't work very well, did it? And Democrats have been demanding to know why people vote against their own financial interests for almost 40 years. It's gotten us nowhere. Let's try asking real questions, and actually listening to the answers.
What are the three most important things to you?
What will America look like when it is great again?
Then--without making judgements--share your own vision for America. There may be more common ground than you think.
Economics is the study of how people allocate finite resources; not just money but time, energy, and in this case, votes. Asking why people use their very limited votes against their own financial interests is too narrow. For many people, money is an important resource, but it's not the only resource and it isn't even their top priority.
The person wearing the MAGA cap is trying to tell us that s/he values a certain vision of America at least as much as financial security, and craves opportunities to be with others who share that vision. Why else would so many working-poor people drive for hours on a work night to attend a rally for a candidate who, until the final weeks of the campaign, had very little chance of winning?
Berating people for backing a racist, misogynistic, fascistic lunatic and loudly questioning their intelligence didn't work very well, did it? And Democrats have been demanding to know why people vote against their own financial interests for almost 40 years. It's gotten us nowhere. Let's try asking real questions, and actually listening to the answers.
What are the three most important things to you?
What will America look like when it is great again?
Then--without making judgements--share your own vision for America. There may be more common ground than you think.
1
The striking thing about Figure 2, contrary to Ross' observation about diversity among Trump supporters and their centrist tendencies, is that using the two indices selected for x- and y-, the population is like oil and water. You have to look very closely to see any strays that are blue amid the red or vice versa.
So the determinant of Trump supporters can be chosen using either index: keep government out of the economy which is doing fine. and/or forget about immigrants, sexual (mis)orientation and other social issues. And for the Clinton supporters: get government to work in the economy and/or dignity for all.
The lesson here? There isn't much that can be said by the Dems to get more support among Trump voters. Fortunately they are only 1/3 of voters. Unfortunately, only 1/2 of the opposite 2/3 actually votes.
So the determinant of Trump supporters can be chosen using either index: keep government out of the economy which is doing fine. and/or forget about immigrants, sexual (mis)orientation and other social issues. And for the Clinton supporters: get government to work in the economy and/or dignity for all.
The lesson here? There isn't much that can be said by the Dems to get more support among Trump voters. Fortunately they are only 1/3 of voters. Unfortunately, only 1/2 of the opposite 2/3 actually votes.
6
The so-called American Center or the Silence Majority of Nixon's era is just an academic political-sociological concept created to describe the US society in post-WWII short golden years.
The political center started to break down in the second half of the 70s. Initially, impacted by the external oil price shocks, followed by Asian manufactured goods competition and American corporations going totally global.
As an academic concept, the American Center cannot be revived in times of extraordinary technological changes and a new global economy dominated by capital-intensive IT.
How to talk about the American Center when the nation's wealth is now held by 1% of the population? or, when the once thriving middle class is now experiencing fast downward mobility?
The political center started to break down in the second half of the 70s. Initially, impacted by the external oil price shocks, followed by Asian manufactured goods competition and American corporations going totally global.
As an academic concept, the American Center cannot be revived in times of extraordinary technological changes and a new global economy dominated by capital-intensive IT.
How to talk about the American Center when the nation's wealth is now held by 1% of the population? or, when the once thriving middle class is now experiencing fast downward mobility?
12
With only a nod to the issue of race, this essay fails to acknowledge the power and importance of prejudice in our politics. If he has not done so, I have not read all of his columns, I think Mr. Douthat should address the issue in one his columns and focus only on that. It's a very important part of all this. One that is often dismissed by much of the media, not just him. It's seems like a blind spot for him, however. I'd like to know his views.
2
The American center was the result of structural causes, of the "Three Party System" of the narrowly 1940 -1966 period (or more loosely 1948-1994 period) in which Southern Democrats were a major Congressional force and stood ideologically between the GOP and non-Southern Democrats racial issues aside). This overall Southern Democratic moderation was the result of conservative and oligarchic third-party traditions and carreer inducements for Southern Democratic politicians to keep a foot in the Non-Southern (and eventually non-Pacific West) camp. It was the transformation of the GOP into a Dixie (and, eventually, cowboy) and of the Dems into a Pacific, Great Lakes and NorthEastern party that decimated Republican "centrists" as nonBlack Democratic 0nes.
1
“Whether the Sanders or the Clinton faction rules, the demands of its large, consistently liberal core won’t allow much room for the experiments in outreach that a minority party needs.”
Mr. Douthat, Democrats are NOT a minority party. They won the popular vote against Trump by millions of votes. Republicans have largely captured Congress, as well as state legislatures and governorships, through partisan gerrymandering that gives them outsized representation compared to their actual number of voters.
Gerrymandered districts have produced a brand of hard right conservatives whose districts are so lopsided that they have no need to compromise, who go to Washington not to compromise but to obstruct. They are only a minority in the House, but they are now the tail wagging the dog in the Republican Party.
The historic gerrymandering case coming before the Supreme Court this fall could single-handedly change all of that. If districts can be re-drawn to be more balanced between the parties, representatives and their constituents will be forced to find common ground, and Congress will be incentivized to moderate, to truly “reach across the aisle” as politicians endlessly love to say.
“Compromise” will no longer be a dirty word but become the essential oil that lubricates the works in Washington so that Congress can function again for all of the people.
Mr. Douthat, Democrats are NOT a minority party. They won the popular vote against Trump by millions of votes. Republicans have largely captured Congress, as well as state legislatures and governorships, through partisan gerrymandering that gives them outsized representation compared to their actual number of voters.
Gerrymandered districts have produced a brand of hard right conservatives whose districts are so lopsided that they have no need to compromise, who go to Washington not to compromise but to obstruct. They are only a minority in the House, but they are now the tail wagging the dog in the Republican Party.
The historic gerrymandering case coming before the Supreme Court this fall could single-handedly change all of that. If districts can be re-drawn to be more balanced between the parties, representatives and their constituents will be forced to find common ground, and Congress will be incentivized to moderate, to truly “reach across the aisle” as politicians endlessly love to say.
“Compromise” will no longer be a dirty word but become the essential oil that lubricates the works in Washington so that Congress can function again for all of the people.
67
Jenny
You need to be careful of that word-mincer extraordinaire, Mr. Douthat.
He, as is typical of his ilk, will consistently describe the Democratic core as "liberal" or even, as here, "consistently liberal". What a twisty guy he is.
You may agree the Dems are more liberal than the Republicans, maybe they are more liberal than you would like. But they are not liberal in any meaningful sense. We have not had legitimate liberal politics in this country (no, not even Bernie) for decades.
That's a big win for Ross and others like him.
Just by saying over and over again that Nixon, or Reagan, or Bush were too liberal, they have made the US one of the first Leninist democracies the world has ever seen. Or would have, if we had actuality retained any element of a real democracy.
You need to be careful of that word-mincer extraordinaire, Mr. Douthat.
He, as is typical of his ilk, will consistently describe the Democratic core as "liberal" or even, as here, "consistently liberal". What a twisty guy he is.
You may agree the Dems are more liberal than the Republicans, maybe they are more liberal than you would like. But they are not liberal in any meaningful sense. We have not had legitimate liberal politics in this country (no, not even Bernie) for decades.
That's a big win for Ross and others like him.
Just by saying over and over again that Nixon, or Reagan, or Bush were too liberal, they have made the US one of the first Leninist democracies the world has ever seen. Or would have, if we had actuality retained any element of a real democracy.
2
Hear, hear!
However, the hard right isn't the only group that needs to embrace the art of compromise. There is just as much resistance to reaching across the aisle on the hard left. Both ends need to stop browbeating their more moderate party members for doing so, and both need to let go of "my way or the highway" obstructionism.
However, the hard right isn't the only group that needs to embrace the art of compromise. There is just as much resistance to reaching across the aisle on the hard left. Both ends need to stop browbeating their more moderate party members for doing so, and both need to let go of "my way or the highway" obstructionism.
It's not clear that the HRC majority vote was entirely by democrats. I usually vote Republican, but did vote for HRC. I'm pretty sure a lot of normally conservative voters did the same given HRC's surprising vote totals here in GA.
1
Well here's novel idea. Forget partisanship. Make Party affiliation more of "tendency" view on social justice and economic values. Dissolve Party power and put it back in the individuals we elect. Vote on the basis of the ideas and issues the candidates who want your vote present.
The only thing the Party system now has given us is a battle to see who has the deepest pockets and dirtiest tricks. I am better than that? Aren't you? Or are you still going to hold onto partisanship? I am done with it. Both major parties fail but in each there are commendable leaders. Kasich and Burr come to mind as Republicans and Warner and Schumer. I don't have to agree with them on everything but I need to believe they will do their jobs for the country and its people; not the for party and only the wealthy.
The only thing the Party system now has given us is a battle to see who has the deepest pockets and dirtiest tricks. I am better than that? Aren't you? Or are you still going to hold onto partisanship? I am done with it. Both major parties fail but in each there are commendable leaders. Kasich and Burr come to mind as Republicans and Warner and Schumer. I don't have to agree with them on everything but I need to believe they will do their jobs for the country and its people; not the for party and only the wealthy.
3
There is no red America. There is no blue America. There is only the Disunited Gender Colored 'Race' Ethnic Sectarian Socioeconomic Political Educational Historical States of America.
The Republican Party is the party by, for and of a majority of the white European American majority. While the Democratic Party is the party of, by and for the majority of the non-white American minority and a minority of the white majority. Colored caste is more predictive of red conservative and blue liberal politically partisan designations than those based upon socioeconomic educational class. Poor and middle class whites vote for their perceived colored caste values instead of for their real class interests.
No one ever thought that Barack Obama was half-white by biological nature nor all white by cultural nature nor all Protestant Christian by faith. Donnie Trump claimed to have 'proof' that Obama was born in Kenya. In the 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections 57% and 59% of white American voters voted McCain/Palin and Romney/Ryan.
The aging and shrinking white majority still occupies the right-leaning American center.
The Republican Party is the party by, for and of a majority of the white European American majority. While the Democratic Party is the party of, by and for the majority of the non-white American minority and a minority of the white majority. Colored caste is more predictive of red conservative and blue liberal politically partisan designations than those based upon socioeconomic educational class. Poor and middle class whites vote for their perceived colored caste values instead of for their real class interests.
No one ever thought that Barack Obama was half-white by biological nature nor all white by cultural nature nor all Protestant Christian by faith. Donnie Trump claimed to have 'proof' that Obama was born in Kenya. In the 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections 57% and 59% of white American voters voted McCain/Palin and Romney/Ryan.
The aging and shrinking white majority still occupies the right-leaning American center.
4
The most glaring error in this analysis is the insistence on believing the GOP propaganda about the Democratic Party's "liberalism". Ross writes "Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton supporters didn’t differ very much on the actual issues". Well, yes, there is some truth to that in terms of their supporters, but the candidates themselves were miles apart. In fact, Hillary occupies the far RIGHT lower corner of that chart - socially liberal, yes, but pure elite corporate oligarchist on economic issues. Whereas Sanders sits squarely in the center of the blue mass. But you would never know that from the election coverage from any news source. Any attempted political analysis that ignores the constant, never-ending deliberate mischaracterization of candidates actual positions by the media (yes, NYT, I'm looking at you, too) is guaranteed to be way off the mark.
10
I agree with your analysis about Hillary and I voted for Bernie in the primary.
But my guess is that Hillary would like to be a liberal as Bernie if politics would let her.
Bill Clinton helped the Democratic Party combat the huge influx of money going to Republicans in the 80's by courting Wall St.
And Hillary knows that Democrats can't yet do it without some of their money and support.
But my guess is that Hillary would like to be a liberal as Bernie if politics would let her.
Bill Clinton helped the Democratic Party combat the huge influx of money going to Republicans in the 80's by courting Wall St.
And Hillary knows that Democrats can't yet do it without some of their money and support.
2
"But my guess is that Hillary would like to be a liberal as Bernie if politics would let her."
And here we see how that blue mass to the left of the center line could be so easily convinced to vote for her. (Note - I'm talking here about the primaries, not the general). For some reason that I can't fathom, most of her supporters see her as a blank slate onto which they project their own beliefs, and "guess" that she really secretly believes the same things, even though everything she has actually supported during her long time in the public eye pretty well proves that she believes no such thing.
And here we see how that blue mass to the left of the center line could be so easily convinced to vote for her. (Note - I'm talking here about the primaries, not the general). For some reason that I can't fathom, most of her supporters see her as a blank slate onto which they project their own beliefs, and "guess" that she really secretly believes the same things, even though everything she has actually supported during her long time in the public eye pretty well proves that she believes no such thing.
The number of members of the House has been frozen since a BILL passed by a GOP Congress and signed by a Republican President in 1929 (NINETEEN TWENTY NINE). This is NOT in the Constitution or any Amendments. The effect is to increase the relative representation and therefor, POWER of Republicans in less populated rural states in the House and also in the Electoral College. As the US is no longer the over-50% agricultural country it was in 1929, the US government has become less and less representative of the actual composition of the country. This is only going to get worse until and unless it is fixed. If it is not fixed, we are likely to see more and more resistance to the legitimacy of the US Government from the left (which generally supports government through representative democracy) rather than the right (which generally supports government by those with the most money).
3
The report mentioned by Ross Douthat is fascinating. It underlines the narrow path which allowed for Donald Trump to win the presidency but also the disconnect between the democratic party and a the citizenry which, on paper at least, seems to be increasingly liberal. To win again dems need to seriously re calibrate their message, moving away from the party which cares and caters to any minority and/or gives away free perks at the expense of the taxpayers (i.e. free college) to focus on kitchen table issues for the working and middle class.
1
If the chart were weighted for numbers there would be a fainter smear of red and stronger fist of blue. Democrats won the popular vote not just in the presidential race but in the Senate as well, and they do not have numbers in the House commensurate with the votes they get. Geography, gerrymandering, and low voter turnout give Republicans an advantage. Dems won the popular vote despite low turnout and voter suppression. Inspiring greater liberal voter turnout will help Democrats win. Continuing to try to placate the right will do the opposite. Let's use the liberal fist instead of always reaching out for a handshake that gets slapped away anyway.
15
This spread of ideas across an increasing spectrum is simply an argument for a radically different political system. True, it won't happen since the foxes are watching the hen house. But why not have political parties that really reflect what their supporters want?
Instead we engage in the game of making sausage where party leaders head in vastly different directions from their voters. This is why we have one of the highest rates on non-votering every year.
Some say 'what's the use'. Others see what this study points out, that neither party really represents them. Add to this the army of lobbyists and their campaign money and you have an oligarchy, not a democracy.
How bad does it have to get before people demand change? Right now they vote the only way they can--they stay home and say none of the above.
Instead we engage in the game of making sausage where party leaders head in vastly different directions from their voters. This is why we have one of the highest rates on non-votering every year.
Some say 'what's the use'. Others see what this study points out, that neither party really represents them. Add to this the army of lobbyists and their campaign money and you have an oligarchy, not a democracy.
How bad does it have to get before people demand change? Right now they vote the only way they can--they stay home and say none of the above.
4
American politics, like that in many other countries, has always been driven by coalitions to some extent, finding areas where circles overlap and exploiting them for votes. The concept of "wedge" issues is driven by this reality. The power of the major political parties has been fractured by this as well.
The problem we face is that one person's wedge issue is another person's irrelevancy, and there are so many divisive issues on the table that assembling a coalition sufficient in size to overcome those differences, resulting in a meaningfully large voting block or large circle, is becoming increasingly difficult.
This can, and may change, when there is some overriding issue, such as 9/11, that galvanizes Americans sufficiently to offset the lack of overlapping circles in other areas. That's a tragedy, and has led to the perception that we have become the Untied States.
The problem we face is that one person's wedge issue is another person's irrelevancy, and there are so many divisive issues on the table that assembling a coalition sufficient in size to overcome those differences, resulting in a meaningfully large voting block or large circle, is becoming increasingly difficult.
This can, and may change, when there is some overriding issue, such as 9/11, that galvanizes Americans sufficiently to offset the lack of overlapping circles in other areas. That's a tragedy, and has led to the perception that we have become the Untied States.
Great piece. I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis but it won't change anything.
The shrill and consistently loud voices from the 'empty quarters' as you describe them will always pull on us like magnetism. The extremes can be attractive but ultimately fatal.
The shrill and consistently loud voices from the 'empty quarters' as you describe them will always pull on us like magnetism. The extremes can be attractive but ultimately fatal.
Why does the right get to define the "moral issues" as abortion, gay marriage, transgender rights? Why aren't the real "moral issues" defined by those who are humanitarian and humanists, i.e. caring for our citizenry, especially the elderly, the infirm, and the health and well-being of all citizens? Stopping Medicaid is a "moral issue" and eliminating health care is a "moral issue", both matter of true life and death. These are the REAL MORAL ISSUES. Destroying the lives of millions of our U.S. citizens, particularly the least able to help themselves is IMMORAL. It is about time we say so OUT LOUD and that the Republican's agenda to ACTIVELY, PURPOSELY DO HARM to these fellow citizens is IMMORAL and their agenda to do so is UN-CHRISTIAN and UN-GODLY and antithetical to any and all religions of the world. To take money away from our citizens to provide tax rebates to the wealthiest is repulsively immoral. How do these people sleep at night? How do they look their parents and children in the eye? How do they look at themselves in the mirror? They are the abusers of power striking real and extensive terror in the hearts and minds of our people.
They are the ones willingly doing harm to their own constituency. These are the truly immoral ones. And we must trust that they will be punished in accordance with the beliefs of their religions and churches in whatever afterlife they believe in. We must trust that a greater power will judge them for what they are and what they do.
They are the ones willingly doing harm to their own constituency. These are the truly immoral ones. And we must trust that they will be punished in accordance with the beliefs of their religions and churches in whatever afterlife they believe in. We must trust that a greater power will judge them for what they are and what they do.
33
Don't Boo; Vote.
Exactly, so why does the Democratic Party Machine refuse to make those arguments, instead always seeking to compromise with such twisted morality, and by doing that letting them define the debate and the words used in the debate?
If the Democrats are not going to argue for the morality of cooperation and sharing, who will?
If the Democrats are not going to argue for the morality of cooperation and sharing, who will?
I was agreeing with you on the morality issues until you started going on about the churches doing something about them. It is the churches who have been enabling them. And waiting for a "higher power" to intervene and punish them is suicide. There is no higher power. You'll be waiting forever. They need to be reckoned with in the here and now, not after they're conveniently dead.
The parties cannot stray from orthodoxy - not on abortion as Douthat picks or on guns which he does not. Orthodoxy creates the necessary wedge issues to guarantee certain votes.
And the question he does not answer is why he feels Democrats lose votes from the center as they move left (and I dispute that the party moved left; they just haven't moved more right since the 90s) but the Republicans keep getting votes even as the move right becomes toxic and absurd.
I will accept that many were fooled by Trump's lies, feeling he was different sort of candidate. Well he was, just not the different they looking for. But now, seeing that Trump has effectively freed the oligarchy, how is it that these self-proclaimed populists are not screaming their heads off?
Are centrists who align with policy designed to keep people who truly believe the government is coming for their guns, and the 6000 year old planet is cooling, and that gays are trying to make other people gay - are those people truly centrists? Are people who align with policy that will crater health care for a sixth of the population really centrists?
If you know us by our actions, there is nothing centrist about our populism. Selfish, maybe. Centrist? No.
And the question he does not answer is why he feels Democrats lose votes from the center as they move left (and I dispute that the party moved left; they just haven't moved more right since the 90s) but the Republicans keep getting votes even as the move right becomes toxic and absurd.
I will accept that many were fooled by Trump's lies, feeling he was different sort of candidate. Well he was, just not the different they looking for. But now, seeing that Trump has effectively freed the oligarchy, how is it that these self-proclaimed populists are not screaming their heads off?
Are centrists who align with policy designed to keep people who truly believe the government is coming for their guns, and the 6000 year old planet is cooling, and that gays are trying to make other people gay - are those people truly centrists? Are people who align with policy that will crater health care for a sixth of the population really centrists?
If you know us by our actions, there is nothing centrist about our populism. Selfish, maybe. Centrist? No.
9
Are they Centrists? No, they are dumb as rocks. How to fix that? I have no idea.
Somehow, the only solution is to get people who don't think that way to vote. How to fix that? Again, I have no idea.
Somehow, the only solution is to get people who don't think that way to vote. How to fix that? Again, I have no idea.
This will all change with the next great depression which will come due to the ineptitude of Republicans -- and it will, for sure.
The Republican party is quite good at winning elections. But they have no clue how to govern. Elections are immediately effective, for the short term -- lousy governing takes time for people to realize what is happening -- but, in the long run, lousy governing is the dooming factor.
We will have another Franklin Roosevelt to rescue us from the Republican nonsense -- just when it will come remains to be seen. I suspect quite soon.
The Republican party is quite good at winning elections. But they have no clue how to govern. Elections are immediately effective, for the short term -- lousy governing takes time for people to realize what is happening -- but, in the long run, lousy governing is the dooming factor.
We will have another Franklin Roosevelt to rescue us from the Republican nonsense -- just when it will come remains to be seen. I suspect quite soon.
6
I tend to think you are right. They will continue to vote against their interests until a major recession or depression again rears its head. This time around, if Republicans have been able to drastically reduce the Social Safety net, they will finally realize what hit them. They will also be powerless to do anything but suffer through it. If that doesn't wake them up. then there will be no hope.
I hate to see that happen, but I can't feel sorry for them when it does.
When you own bigotry and crazy far out beliefs rule your thinking and your voting, you deserve what comes your way. Sad to say that, but I really have come to feel that way.
Health care and Trumpcare may speed this up, especially when they start going broke over medical costs and thousands of rural hospitals and clinics are gone. At that point, sickness will also bring many down to earth. So sad.
I hate to see that happen, but I can't feel sorry for them when it does.
When you own bigotry and crazy far out beliefs rule your thinking and your voting, you deserve what comes your way. Sad to say that, but I really have come to feel that way.
Health care and Trumpcare may speed this up, especially when they start going broke over medical costs and thousands of rural hospitals and clinics are gone. At that point, sickness will also bring many down to earth. So sad.
Bravo! Thank you for this enlightening piece. I hope that do or die, "heroic " politicians will get the message. The system doesn't work well without compromise and a central core. Swinging from one side to the other every four years is wasteful for us, dysfunctional for our foreign affairs. I'll be studying the report.
2
Democrats will keep losing if they don't tell voters why we should vote for them. I'm not Trump didn't cut it at the federal level in States that normally vote Democrat. Here's why my opponent is unfit for office didn't cut it in the special elections.
As a voter I care about what's in it for me. Tell me what you are going to do to make my life better. Until Democrats figure out that they are losing because they aren't offering voters anything they will keep losing.
As a voter I care about what's in it for me. Tell me what you are going to do to make my life better. Until Democrats figure out that they are losing because they aren't offering voters anything they will keep losing.
4
given that the Republican economic agenda is unpopular and the country has swung left on social issues, why can’t Democrats win more elections?
gerrymandering Ross—GERRYMANDERING!
gerrymandering Ross—GERRYMANDERING!
5
Mr. Douthout,
First of all, liberal Democrats don't favor a totally "open borders" policy, but rather a humane, non-hysterical policy. As soon as I saw you starting to take potshots at Democrats, sigh, - yet again, I thought, "This whole situation is hopeless." I would love to see one conservative, just one, ever, I mean in the entire course of history - write an article that isn't shaded towards demeaning Democrats and everything they stand for.
I, for one, have no interest in finding "the center." I watched the Republican National Convention. I see who's in power. I'm speechless at the fact that the Republican Senate of Vampires is hiding in a basement trying to enact health care legislation. Are you kidding me? Republicans should be up in arms at the sheer obscenity of this. Yet, not a peep. In fact there are right wing blowhards who think this is great.
I want the Blue states to find a way to form their own coalition; bring back states' rights (yup, a Democrat for states' rights) and pass their own health care legislation, climate accord deals, education priorities and, yes, sane immigration policy. Do I say bad things about Republicans and right wing zealots? Now I do. I used to be a conciliator, I used to want to find a center that would hold. But not since the election of Trump, with his cabinet belly crawling to appease and adore him, not since the Republican National Convention, not since Trump supporters exhorted people to take to the streets with guns.
First of all, liberal Democrats don't favor a totally "open borders" policy, but rather a humane, non-hysterical policy. As soon as I saw you starting to take potshots at Democrats, sigh, - yet again, I thought, "This whole situation is hopeless." I would love to see one conservative, just one, ever, I mean in the entire course of history - write an article that isn't shaded towards demeaning Democrats and everything they stand for.
I, for one, have no interest in finding "the center." I watched the Republican National Convention. I see who's in power. I'm speechless at the fact that the Republican Senate of Vampires is hiding in a basement trying to enact health care legislation. Are you kidding me? Republicans should be up in arms at the sheer obscenity of this. Yet, not a peep. In fact there are right wing blowhards who think this is great.
I want the Blue states to find a way to form their own coalition; bring back states' rights (yup, a Democrat for states' rights) and pass their own health care legislation, climate accord deals, education priorities and, yes, sane immigration policy. Do I say bad things about Republicans and right wing zealots? Now I do. I used to be a conciliator, I used to want to find a center that would hold. But not since the election of Trump, with his cabinet belly crawling to appease and adore him, not since the Republican National Convention, not since Trump supporters exhorted people to take to the streets with guns.
15
Don Shipp's point about racial and religious divisions has some support in the survey, as seen in the "toplines and crosstable" but it isn't so simple, even if its methodological weaknesses are taken into account. For example, favorable opinions about immigrants (51-100 ratings) were 53%. However, favorable opinions about Black Lives Matter were 38%. "Wall St Bankers" 22%. Gays and Lesbians 60%. Police Officers 77%. Alt Right 25%. Feminists 47%. Christians 72%. Jews 77%. Muslims 47%. Racially: Asians 75%. Hispanics 71%. Whites 77%. Blacks 71%. Keep in mind, however, that the initial group for the "survey" was self-selected: those who responded on the internet. A real survey defines the "universe" and samples from that. Costs more! And nonresponse is still a significant issue, even for a real survey.
1
The problem seems to be an incredibly corrupt and flawed system for picking candidates. The scientific polls all showed the majority of voters despised both Trump and Hillary, yet those were the nominees. How does that happen in a democracy? Why are there no calls for investigating this travesty? Why does everyone seem to think this is normal and not worth looking at? The people of France just dramatically shifted to the center when a moderate actually got on the ballot, but in the United States, the primaries are dominated by wingnuts who can prevent any moderates from even getting on the ballot. Fix that, and you might find people of goodwill interested in governing willing and able to run for office. You'd certainly find lots of voters anxious to vote for them if they could only get on the ballot.
Trump won because a ton of independents who voted for Obama couldn't stand Hillary Clinton and what they perceived as her self-absorbed, patronizing, liberal constituency.
And guess what? If nothing is done about it Elizabeth Warren (whose political agenda I support) will be our next candidate; and she will get swamped worse than Hillary. What's that definition of insanity again?
And guess what? If nothing is done about it Elizabeth Warren (whose political agenda I support) will be our next candidate; and she will get swamped worse than Hillary. What's that definition of insanity again?
I have no patience for the stupidity/blindness/laziness/self-trighteousness/cluelessness of Americans. An actively practicing Christian, I feel incredibly arrogant, not grandiose, however. My public school education established a high bar - I was all dressed up with no place to go after Ronald Reagan was elected president. From what I can glean, the liberals removed the ability for teachers to discipline/set healthy boundaries and/or consequences. Truth be told, I felt like I was teaching stark naked when I taught public school in the State of Connecticut and was appalled by the corruption and misallocation of funds. Witnessing the actions of a military dictatorship in both Chile and Argentina which were supported by Ronald Reagan and the United States of America, I am impatient with the stupidity of the American people. Wake Up!
1
You cannot triangulate with the party of "No!" Has the democratic base become more liberal, or have they simply lost patience with compromise as a strategy in the face of Republican nihilism?
7
"...the Democrats are now almost an open-borders party..."
a legacy of the outsized influence of SEIU on the DNC. remove the influence of the SEIU from the Democratic party's leadership apparatus and we will see the resurgence of a Democratic Party more reflective of the electorate and more importantly—competence.
a legacy of the outsized influence of SEIU on the DNC. remove the influence of the SEIU from the Democratic party's leadership apparatus and we will see the resurgence of a Democratic Party more reflective of the electorate and more importantly—competence.
1
Where's my tax cut?
1
But, Ross, the big fat ugly elephant in the room is GERRYMANDERING by self centered Republicans, especially in the South. Deal with that factor for representative democracy corruption!
5
The "values" vs. economic issues framing is false & manipulative. The Republicans sell their economics largely on moralistic terms about the values of the selfish poor vs. those of the rich who only want to help everyone. The Democrats frame economic issues in terms of equality between groups whose recognition is seen as a moral imperative, rather than fairness between individuals (which is, for everyone, presumably the point).
And in the realm of policy, as opposed to politics, the division is false. All economic policies involve "values" at the deepest level, whether it's choosing between poor people's access to medical care vs. the taxation of the rich, or the freedom of money to chase cheap labor & low regulation around the world vs. the rights of workers to security.
The issues we characterize as "values," are economic up to their ears: restrictions on abortion, for example, are, in practical terms, restrictions that affect the poor, not those who can afford to pay for, or travel for, an abortion. In one of last year's "values" debates, the North Carolina law which guaranteed employers the right to fire people if they didn't like their sexual orientation or gender identity was debated almost entirely in terms of a silly but cruel requirement to force some people to use the wrong restroom.
Rather than a division between economic and "values" issues, it would be more accurate to speak of a division between economic issues and political pandering.
And in the realm of policy, as opposed to politics, the division is false. All economic policies involve "values" at the deepest level, whether it's choosing between poor people's access to medical care vs. the taxation of the rich, or the freedom of money to chase cheap labor & low regulation around the world vs. the rights of workers to security.
The issues we characterize as "values," are economic up to their ears: restrictions on abortion, for example, are, in practical terms, restrictions that affect the poor, not those who can afford to pay for, or travel for, an abortion. In one of last year's "values" debates, the North Carolina law which guaranteed employers the right to fire people if they didn't like their sexual orientation or gender identity was debated almost entirely in terms of a silly but cruel requirement to force some people to use the wrong restroom.
Rather than a division between economic and "values" issues, it would be more accurate to speak of a division between economic issues and political pandering.
2
I thought Trump won the presidency because he lied? From trade to taxes to health care — he LIED.
How Mr. Douthat explains Trump's LIES: "But this victory, in turn, made the gap between Republican orthodoxy and the party’s coalition that much wider … which could have been an opportunity for the Trump administration to successfully reconfigure the party’s agenda, but instead, because he’s Trump, has just led to political malpractice and general disarray."
Nominating Gorsuch, shredding the Paris Accord, bombing in Syria, Trump's just incompetent and bonkers, that's why he's abandoned the agenda he ran on. Times readers deserve better. There are a million intelligent things a conservative could have to say about Trump. This column never says even one of them.
How Mr. Douthat explains Trump's LIES: "But this victory, in turn, made the gap between Republican orthodoxy and the party’s coalition that much wider … which could have been an opportunity for the Trump administration to successfully reconfigure the party’s agenda, but instead, because he’s Trump, has just led to political malpractice and general disarray."
Nominating Gorsuch, shredding the Paris Accord, bombing in Syria, Trump's just incompetent and bonkers, that's why he's abandoned the agenda he ran on. Times readers deserve better. There are a million intelligent things a conservative could have to say about Trump. This column never says even one of them.
6
Those of us too busy working to go march in protest are all for closing the borders (nothing good we are missing), renegotiating bad trade deals (deficits will ruin us sooner or later) and staying away from foreign conflicts. I hope we are a majority. I know we are mostly silent. Now, back to work.
1
The country is missing one big party. The current GOP should be mainly extreme right small party (Paul Ryan), part of the democrats and moderate republicans will form the center and the rest of the democrats will form the left (Bernie Sanders). The media should stop pushing the 2 parties left against right narrative which brings rating, and help change the political map instead of only reacting to events.
It is still a mystery for me how come many don't understand people voted for ideas and not for Trump. For many it doesn't matter if a monkey is leading any party. People vote for a package of ideas. If I am against abortions, religious, small government fanatic I will vote Republicans without caring who the leader is. If I am pro choice, secular, welfare state fanatic I will vote Democrats even if Trump will be the leader. If I am some mix of those ideas I have no one to vote for so I am staying home.
America can no longer continue with a system of two big corrupt parties controlling the map. The fights inside the Republican Party and inside the Democrats party are indication that the two party system is no longer valid.
And, please, don't tell me that the greens or the independents are an option. There must be a collective effort to form a new major political power.
It is still a mystery for me how come many don't understand people voted for ideas and not for Trump. For many it doesn't matter if a monkey is leading any party. People vote for a package of ideas. If I am against abortions, religious, small government fanatic I will vote Republicans without caring who the leader is. If I am pro choice, secular, welfare state fanatic I will vote Democrats even if Trump will be the leader. If I am some mix of those ideas I have no one to vote for so I am staying home.
America can no longer continue with a system of two big corrupt parties controlling the map. The fights inside the Republican Party and inside the Democrats party are indication that the two party system is no longer valid.
And, please, don't tell me that the greens or the independents are an option. There must be a collective effort to form a new major political power.
1
The tide is turning and people who doubted President Trump are beginning to realize that he's pretty darn good, and far better than Obama ever was.
If the Democrats keep talking about Russia and obstruction of justice, and other such nonsense, it will only serve to distance themselves further from the reality which elected Trump.
If the Democrats keep talking about Russia and obstruction of justice, and other such nonsense, it will only serve to distance themselves further from the reality which elected Trump.
1
Fascinating insight, Mr. Douthat. The Republican Party may not be able to govern forcefully in the near future, but they are in little danger that the Democrats will dislodge them from power. The Democrats will not move out of the ideological corner that is so well illustrated by the Study Group chart. Democrats are constitutionally incapable of doing so, because their ideology is rooted in the idea that their political agenda makes them morally superior to the rest of us. I must confess feeling some shadenfreude at the prospect of these insufferable, self-righteous "elites" being exiled to the political wilderness for the foreseeable future.
2
I have long thought about why elections are won or lost and this is the key in this article. It doesn't come down too, if your left leaning or right leaning but on what you believe. so anyone that is running for elected office, only has to convey a logical path forward that makes sense to the electorate in policy or view and voters believe what is said. In the United States, we all believe, we don't know what to believe. And the liars are winning.
You make the assumption that Trump has a coherent policy stand for which his base voted. That is utter nonsense as he has changed his stands, lurching this way and that: Big Pharma bad - now giving them concessions; build a wall - nope; bring back jobs - nope; improve the ACA - nope, nope; quit NATO - nope. The man has only his anger and impulsivity and whatever lines his pockets and gets cheers from his base (and here I mean it literally).
The problem with enablers of the decimation of the middle class like Ross is they pretend the emperor is wearing a nice Brooks Brothers suit when, in fact, he's buck naked.
The problem with enablers of the decimation of the middle class like Ross is they pretend the emperor is wearing a nice Brooks Brothers suit when, in fact, he's buck naked.
3
No Democrat I know, and I know a lot, advocates anything like an "open border" immigration and travel policy. The Atlantic article linked to made no such claims either. We do not want criminals or terrorists to come in easily. We do not want every impoverished person in the world to come right in and sit themselves down in hopes of getting more money simply by being here, without any intention of contributing to society and trying to become a citizen. I can't take this column very seriously with such a gross misstatement.
3
"if you sought to place the elite consensus on the same chart, it be much closer to the emptiest of quadrants — the land of austerity and open borders, free trade and the permanent sexual revolution, the Simpson-Bowles plan and Emmanuel Macron."
I wish that Douthat would define this "sexual revolution" he seems to love to deride as he brings it up so often in his columns. What is that Mr. Douthat? The idea that women are no longer required to stay home, barefoot and pregnant, thanks to birth control? The realization that human beings (even the females -- gasp!) are sexual beings, as nature and evolution intended? The idea that women are equal to men and not third-class citizens, behind men and fetuses? Or is it that it's now OK to acknowledge that people do indeed have sex outside of marriage and we no longer send unmarried pregnant women away in shame to homes for wayward girls?
Why is Douthat, as well as much of the right and many religions, obsessed with sex and what others do with their own genitals?
I wish that Douthat would define this "sexual revolution" he seems to love to deride as he brings it up so often in his columns. What is that Mr. Douthat? The idea that women are no longer required to stay home, barefoot and pregnant, thanks to birth control? The realization that human beings (even the females -- gasp!) are sexual beings, as nature and evolution intended? The idea that women are equal to men and not third-class citizens, behind men and fetuses? Or is it that it's now OK to acknowledge that people do indeed have sex outside of marriage and we no longer send unmarried pregnant women away in shame to homes for wayward girls?
Why is Douthat, as well as much of the right and many religions, obsessed with sex and what others do with their own genitals?
1
Excellent column, IMO. I would just add that Dems have so far refused to acknowledge that opening borders hurts ANYONE or degrades the social safety net. I have friends who are open borders fanatics; you try to point out that unlimited immigration hurts US workers (and the environment) and they go full John Lennon/Emma Lazurus on you. Meanwhile, Sweden is cutting its social benefits for Swedes to pay for recently arrived "refugees", according to an article I read recently.
All well & good in terms of political analysis, but Douthat says nothing about the imperative of being a patriot, true to our fundamental beliefs and regard for our American democratic principles & institutional practices.
At the end of any analysis, being a true patriot matters more than anything. Let's have a serious article on this topic, please.
At the end of any analysis, being a true patriot matters more than anything. Let's have a serious article on this topic, please.
Trump promised to make life better for American workers by going backwards, more coal, fewer regulations. Many believed the "successful" businessman, didn't see the conman - they were not progressives, instead were desperate to take America back to an earlier, more familiar time when life was better (in their minds). You can't go back again.
Trump promised to build a wall, playing to all the bigots and xenophobes in the country. There are many who actually think that white people are superior, but fewer admit it because deep down they know it is wrong and to do so would reveal their fear and narrow-mindedness. Voters will publicly say they believe in equal rights, but in the voting booth, the truth comes out.
How do you teach bigots and xenophobes that diversity is healthy and will benefit America? It may be impossible to find a candidate who can do that, but we can hope for one who can at least convince the Trumpers that America cannot go back, we can only go forward and adapt to the changing times by educating our children and helping those left behind. A candidate who can convince a certain faction that yes, blue collar workers should be paid a living wage, but being born here does not mean one is privileged and can sit back and expect to be paid as much as someone who has worked to earn a degree, including legal immigrants. We need a candidate who will stand up to big corporations, who will fight for universal healthcare – to put it simply, we need another Bernie!
Trump promised to build a wall, playing to all the bigots and xenophobes in the country. There are many who actually think that white people are superior, but fewer admit it because deep down they know it is wrong and to do so would reveal their fear and narrow-mindedness. Voters will publicly say they believe in equal rights, but in the voting booth, the truth comes out.
How do you teach bigots and xenophobes that diversity is healthy and will benefit America? It may be impossible to find a candidate who can do that, but we can hope for one who can at least convince the Trumpers that America cannot go back, we can only go forward and adapt to the changing times by educating our children and helping those left behind. A candidate who can convince a certain faction that yes, blue collar workers should be paid a living wage, but being born here does not mean one is privileged and can sit back and expect to be paid as much as someone who has worked to earn a degree, including legal immigrants. We need a candidate who will stand up to big corporations, who will fight for universal healthcare – to put it simply, we need another Bernie!
1
Democrats need to study this chart and formulate a new approach to governance. And for sure, Nancy Pelosi's time has passed. The saddest thing of all is that Ms. Pelosi and the Democrats in general don't understand this
2
The divide is due to "alternative facts" and lies. We need laws to protect people from their own disbelief in science, the numbers, and anything that smacks of an intelligent argument. As long as people believe that loud and vile shouting is a sign of courage and truth , we will never gain the sort of sensible voting and policies that people of this country deserve. Like others I am extremely worried about what our country has become. I am not a conspiracy theory advocacy but is this what the defunding and dumbing down of education over decades has brought us?
1
Mr. Douthat is confusing ideology with values, political conviction with disinformation and propaganda, political principle with racist pandering.
What exactly is "the wisdom of the wider public?" Trump? Or Clinton who got way more votes?
And what's the difference between the "elite consensus" you disdain and the "elite contrarian" you belong to?
Trump has really messed things up for you, Mr. Douthat.
As much as you say you loathe him, you loathe liberals and Democrats even more and revel in their outrage as you try to blame them for Trump.
When your conservative intellectual firepower is reduced to citing one of those "killer" charts like the ones that keeps Trump's attention from wandering off during national security briefings, isn't that an early sign of incipient bad faith?
"A better center for our divided polity does exist." Maybe if you get the Republicans to read the Constitution -- or more likely -- have them mass abducted by aliens (Mars or Mexico, doesn't matter), we'd finally get there.
What exactly is "the wisdom of the wider public?" Trump? Or Clinton who got way more votes?
And what's the difference between the "elite consensus" you disdain and the "elite contrarian" you belong to?
Trump has really messed things up for you, Mr. Douthat.
As much as you say you loathe him, you loathe liberals and Democrats even more and revel in their outrage as you try to blame them for Trump.
When your conservative intellectual firepower is reduced to citing one of those "killer" charts like the ones that keeps Trump's attention from wandering off during national security briefings, isn't that an early sign of incipient bad faith?
"A better center for our divided polity does exist." Maybe if you get the Republicans to read the Constitution -- or more likely -- have them mass abducted by aliens (Mars or Mexico, doesn't matter), we'd finally get there.
3
The country is more fiscally conservative than ever before (or at least since 1980). The Dems are more socialist/Marxist than ever before.
That's a bad confluence of trends if you happen to run the Dem Party. But their pain is America's gain.
That's a bad confluence of trends if you happen to run the Dem Party. But their pain is America's gain.
1
MainStream sounds better than "a better center".
Americans are very smart and perceptive. More and more people have no respect for the media with their slanted/erroneous reporting. They will not be manipulated. All this hated is coming back to the liberals. The democrats need new blood. Get rid of Schumer, Pelosi, Sanders and Warren; Americans are not interested in them or their socialism.
1
where is American's center you ask?
'this one chart explains everything'
from 1980 to 2014 the top 0.001 percent of the US’s wealthy saw their pretax income grow by more than 600 percent.
meanwhile The average pretax income of the bottom 50% of US adults has stagnated since 1980
somewhere between those extremes Ross is where you will find the middle with our middle finger angrily and defiantly in your face for what your political progenitors have done to the US’s middle class.
it’s 35 years of the Reaganomics economy stupid!
'this one chart explains everything'
from 1980 to 2014 the top 0.001 percent of the US’s wealthy saw their pretax income grow by more than 600 percent.
meanwhile The average pretax income of the bottom 50% of US adults has stagnated since 1980
somewhere between those extremes Ross is where you will find the middle with our middle finger angrily and defiantly in your face for what your political progenitors have done to the US’s middle class.
it’s 35 years of the Reaganomics economy stupid!
3
Claim it? Are you kidding? I supported Jim Webb in 2016. The Democratic leadership didn't lift a finger to help him raise any money. The "corridor" laughed him off as a "redneck." The techies of Brooklyn and Silicon Valley can't imagine anyone who doesn't mirror them as President. You see what that has wrought?
This is easier than it looks. Instead of vacations at Cancun and Hawaii or Cape Cod, the Democratic base should put it on the calendar this summer to visit Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin,.... by car. If the weather is good perhaps drive through Pennsylvania and even Indiana into Southern Illinois and Missouri. Talk to the people who live there. Mr. Douthat wants to be able to remove the phrase "isolated in its own rigorist liberalism" from his column in 2018.
This is easier than it looks. Instead of vacations at Cancun and Hawaii or Cape Cod, the Democratic base should put it on the calendar this summer to visit Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin,.... by car. If the weather is good perhaps drive through Pennsylvania and even Indiana into Southern Illinois and Missouri. Talk to the people who live there. Mr. Douthat wants to be able to remove the phrase "isolated in its own rigorist liberalism" from his column in 2018.
Well, mister Douthat, can you only tell me who won the popular vote in november by 3 million margin?
After that, can you rewrite your paper with this little element which I understand doesn't seem to be even mentioned by you.
By the way, taking criterias that defined centrism, George W Bush never was a centrist.
After that, can you rewrite your paper with this little element which I understand doesn't seem to be even mentioned by you.
By the way, taking criterias that defined centrism, George W Bush never was a centrist.
1
'one chart to rule them all/ one chart to find them/
one chart to bring them all/ and in the darkness, bind them/'
I just think capitalism picks winners and losers, and democracy takes something from the winners to give back to the losers. When it doesn't, you get a nation in which the top 5% owns 75% of the wealth. And then, government should be all about economics, and nothing about 'morals'. So, your blue quadrant should rule. Why doesn't it? Simple: In today's America, the top 5% pay to convince the other 95% that the 'real' problem with America is a lack of 'morals'. Is wealth inequality a problem? Sure, but first lets end abortion, put a gun in every hand, put black people in jail for smoking pot, and tell the poor to stop being lazy. Haven't you heard? "In America, we don't worship government, we worship God" Thus sayeth the moral center of our amoral Universe. The Putin-love, the Saudi-gifts, the Exxon-State-Dept, the Pruitt: It's all about morals, not money. "We don't worship government, we worship God": one chart to bring them all/and in the darkness... bind them.
one chart to bring them all/ and in the darkness, bind them/'
I just think capitalism picks winners and losers, and democracy takes something from the winners to give back to the losers. When it doesn't, you get a nation in which the top 5% owns 75% of the wealth. And then, government should be all about economics, and nothing about 'morals'. So, your blue quadrant should rule. Why doesn't it? Simple: In today's America, the top 5% pay to convince the other 95% that the 'real' problem with America is a lack of 'morals'. Is wealth inequality a problem? Sure, but first lets end abortion, put a gun in every hand, put black people in jail for smoking pot, and tell the poor to stop being lazy. Haven't you heard? "In America, we don't worship government, we worship God" Thus sayeth the moral center of our amoral Universe. The Putin-love, the Saudi-gifts, the Exxon-State-Dept, the Pruitt: It's all about morals, not money. "We don't worship government, we worship God": one chart to bring them all/and in the darkness... bind them.
2
What's needed is more than just a few Republican lawmakers to reject Trump’s post-truth world and move back to the center, where Democrats have resided for a very long time.
2
The Democratic party is isolated in it's own rigorist liberalism? This at the end of an essay by Douhat that endorses the view that on most social and economic issues a majority of the country is where the Democrats are. Why else are Republicans concocting a massive new healthcare bill in complete secrecy?
29
Pelosi, by herself, removes several percentage points from the democratic party columns. How the party can still have her as its standard bearer is the key question.
2
The "elite" consensus is a myth. Economic elites run the country through a combination of Coke-financed long-term "conservative" strategies and the increasing commodification of politics. Witness the tax cut for the ultra-rich in the health care bill - something with NO rationale.
So those of us who care about children, the elderly, the vulnerable, are not the elite. We are the decent.
So those of us who care about children, the elderly, the vulnerable, are not the elite. We are the decent.
12
Were you referring to Koch, Coca-Cola or cocaine?
2
"Rigorist" Liberalism?
From my perspective Democrats gave up rigorous liberalism back in the day of Bill Clinton. They have suffered ever since as both their party and the Republican party move to the "right."
It's gotten to the point that Republicans are no longer "conservative." They advocate for policies that are ideologically extreme and don't even blush about it. Freedom means the ability to buy whatever you can afford? Give me a break.
The rural-urban division is a big factor. My neighbors here in Upstate NY believe that New York City is taking "our" money. They complain about it all the time. It's just not relevant that they are absolutely wrong. Just as Mississippi gets more federal funding than they pay in, upstate NY gets more. Because we have more poor people.
What we, like the poor red states, need is economic development. We need some economic redistribution that drives resources to individuals and communities that are suffering. Free markets aren't going to do it. Individual responsibility isn't going to do it. Unfortunately, Democrats can't articulate a philosophy that would address the problems and appeal to the masses.
From my perspective Democrats gave up rigorous liberalism back in the day of Bill Clinton. They have suffered ever since as both their party and the Republican party move to the "right."
It's gotten to the point that Republicans are no longer "conservative." They advocate for policies that are ideologically extreme and don't even blush about it. Freedom means the ability to buy whatever you can afford? Give me a break.
The rural-urban division is a big factor. My neighbors here in Upstate NY believe that New York City is taking "our" money. They complain about it all the time. It's just not relevant that they are absolutely wrong. Just as Mississippi gets more federal funding than they pay in, upstate NY gets more. Because we have more poor people.
What we, like the poor red states, need is economic development. We need some economic redistribution that drives resources to individuals and communities that are suffering. Free markets aren't going to do it. Individual responsibility isn't going to do it. Unfortunately, Democrats can't articulate a philosophy that would address the problems and appeal to the masses.
8
Betsy:
This whole concept of states getting more or less from Washington than they pay in taxes has always troubled me.
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Interest on the Debt account for 55% of the budget. Defense is another 20% or so.
Does it matter whether old people or sick people live in a particular state?
Do the red states get more protection from our armed forces than the blue states?
The entire argument seems bogus to me.
This whole concept of states getting more or less from Washington than they pay in taxes has always troubled me.
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Interest on the Debt account for 55% of the budget. Defense is another 20% or so.
Does it matter whether old people or sick people live in a particular state?
Do the red states get more protection from our armed forces than the blue states?
The entire argument seems bogus to me.
2
It seems to matter when votes are counted by the Electoral System.
2
Rich people pay more in taxes than poor people. That's as it should be IMHO. Rich people aren't evenly distributed around the nation. The median income in this country is about $46,000.
In a state like NY the transfer of wealth works the same way as it does nationally. My point is that people living here think they are being ripped off by NYC when the truth is that a lot of what we get from the state is NYC money. Again, that's not bad. We need more redistribution.
Red states may not get more protection from our armed services, but I believe there are statistics that they get more from having military bases within their borders. That means jobs and other benefits. Those federal expenditures are one way the red states get more federal money than blue states.
I don't know, but I wonder if more military recruits come from red states, or red communities in blue states. A lot of people from the community where I live go from high school to the military because there are just no jobs for them here and, for a variety of reasons, they aren't oriented to go on to higher education.
The nature of our economy means we have a lot of retired people living here. A lot of them still have pensions, lucky them, and many purchased their homes back in the day when people with less education could make good livings in this area.
The argument may be bogus, but I'm telling you that the misplaced resentment is genuine. It contributes to many of the divisions in this country.
In a state like NY the transfer of wealth works the same way as it does nationally. My point is that people living here think they are being ripped off by NYC when the truth is that a lot of what we get from the state is NYC money. Again, that's not bad. We need more redistribution.
Red states may not get more protection from our armed services, but I believe there are statistics that they get more from having military bases within their borders. That means jobs and other benefits. Those federal expenditures are one way the red states get more federal money than blue states.
I don't know, but I wonder if more military recruits come from red states, or red communities in blue states. A lot of people from the community where I live go from high school to the military because there are just no jobs for them here and, for a variety of reasons, they aren't oriented to go on to higher education.
The nature of our economy means we have a lot of retired people living here. A lot of them still have pensions, lucky them, and many purchased their homes back in the day when people with less education could make good livings in this area.
The argument may be bogus, but I'm telling you that the misplaced resentment is genuine. It contributes to many of the divisions in this country.
3
American Center comes from Divide and Conquer by creating and capitalizing and demonizing the many human divisions, perpetuated by the myth-makers, the government run media and controlled by a militarized police and social terror.
America never had a center. It was created by slaveholding creatures who loved the rich life, profiting off the suffering of African Americans. The only people who counted were rich white people, male people.
And here we are, just as we started, though economic slavery is not far away, as we find we need to compete with a poverty stricken person in India or China or Mexico.
MLK Jr. was right, that the Constitution was pretty much meaningless without an economic bill of rights alongside the original one.
America will never come together except in time of war of depression and then only to use the labor of the poor to strengthen the power of the rich.
We are Vietnam, we are Sunni, we are Shia.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
And here we are, just as we started, though economic slavery is not far away, as we find we need to compete with a poverty stricken person in India or China or Mexico.
MLK Jr. was right, that the Constitution was pretty much meaningless without an economic bill of rights alongside the original one.
America will never come together except in time of war of depression and then only to use the labor of the poor to strengthen the power of the rich.
We are Vietnam, we are Sunni, we are Shia.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
19
I appreciate your reference to the Democracy Fund, a group that is doing good work.
That being said, I think you underestimate the impact of the way news and information is being presented to the average voter. Charlie Sykes has been quite vocal about conservative media and the misinformation that is presented over and over again in a way that is quite convincing due to the way it triggers an emotional response.
Last week I was in Canton Ohio and my cab driver, when he learned I was flying to D.C. proceeded to tell me the following: Trump is a billionaire who gave up his business to take a cut in salary to be the president (billionaire-possibly, gave up his business-not really, took a cut in salary-yes). Did I hear about all those jobs he brought back to Flint, Michigan? (jobs brought back-no, Flint Michigan- what?) And why are people not more respectful to Trump? He's the president after all. I wasn't really surprised to hear that this Trump supporter believes all of the above info about Trump. I neglected to ask him where he gets his information but I can guess it's a mishmash of his friends, Fox News and Facebook.
Democrats have a tough uphill climb combatting distorted facts, and it would help to acknowledge that as a factor in politics.
That being said, I think you underestimate the impact of the way news and information is being presented to the average voter. Charlie Sykes has been quite vocal about conservative media and the misinformation that is presented over and over again in a way that is quite convincing due to the way it triggers an emotional response.
Last week I was in Canton Ohio and my cab driver, when he learned I was flying to D.C. proceeded to tell me the following: Trump is a billionaire who gave up his business to take a cut in salary to be the president (billionaire-possibly, gave up his business-not really, took a cut in salary-yes). Did I hear about all those jobs he brought back to Flint, Michigan? (jobs brought back-no, Flint Michigan- what?) And why are people not more respectful to Trump? He's the president after all. I wasn't really surprised to hear that this Trump supporter believes all of the above info about Trump. I neglected to ask him where he gets his information but I can guess it's a mishmash of his friends, Fox News and Facebook.
Democrats have a tough uphill climb combatting distorted facts, and it would help to acknowledge that as a factor in politics.
32
It would help if the supposedly "liberal" news organizations weren't pushing their neoliberal economic agenda, on the far right of this graph, popular with almost no one.
If global corporate mass media wasn't constantly pushing a global corporate "free trade" agenda, by picking and choosing pundits and stories that reinforce that view, (a subtle form of fake news) and instead have balanced explanations of issues, and the stories that result from them, there wouldn't be such a market for alt fake news from Fox to Breitbart.
If global corporate mass media wasn't constantly pushing a global corporate "free trade" agenda, by picking and choosing pundits and stories that reinforce that view, (a subtle form of fake news) and instead have balanced explanations of issues, and the stories that result from them, there wouldn't be such a market for alt fake news from Fox to Breitbart.
1
Tim Boyd. Yes, and imagine of the Democratic Party actually followed its base which supports policies to help the working class, how many more disillusioned people would be voting for them.
2
I disagree that the left has gone "extreme left". I would argue that the right has intentionally moved further to the right in an effort to drag the center, "off center"
My observation is that it is by design, that by staking out a position at the extreme right, when democrats compromise (remember republicans don't compromise any more) the new "center" is now further to the right than it should be. Secondly, conservatives have no policies that actually help the population, where are the populist trump promises??. republican policies simply reward the rich at the expense of everyone else. I don't dispute the chart or the findings, just the re written history that supports the conclusions. America is now officially In Decline
My observation is that it is by design, that by staking out a position at the extreme right, when democrats compromise (remember republicans don't compromise any more) the new "center" is now further to the right than it should be. Secondly, conservatives have no policies that actually help the population, where are the populist trump promises??. republican policies simply reward the rich at the expense of everyone else. I don't dispute the chart or the findings, just the re written history that supports the conclusions. America is now officially In Decline
10
Part of the reason we can't find a center is that we do not patiently seek answers to real problems. For example, free trade today also costs a lot of people their jobs. World conditions today are different from the glory days of free trade, so new solutions are called for. Why do neither the Dems nor the Republicans try to square that? What happened to pragmatism--trying to work out one or another solution until one or a bunch of them work? What is the matter with hard work on these problems and serious attempts to solve them?
3
Three things stand out in the article and the report. First, those of us who believe in moderately liberal social policies and moderately conservative economic policies are almost extinct. Second, the report and the article never ask the question whether true equal opportunity has been championed by either party (the actions of both Dems and Reps in state and federal legislatures say no). Third, there was never any discussion of conservation of a clean environment (it is always at the bottom of the list for voter priorities).
2
I've typed this before, and here I go again:
1964. That was the last year a Democrat won a majority of white votes for President.
It took the assassination of a sitting president to get a majority of whites to vote Democrat.
Neither Jimmy Carter nor Bill Clinton (twice) could break the cycle.
It's all about race, and a perception carefully inculcated in white Americans by conservatives that the Democrats give special treatment to people of color.
The cycle must end.
1964. That was the last year a Democrat won a majority of white votes for President.
It took the assassination of a sitting president to get a majority of whites to vote Democrat.
Neither Jimmy Carter nor Bill Clinton (twice) could break the cycle.
It's all about race, and a perception carefully inculcated in white Americans by conservatives that the Democrats give special treatment to people of color.
The cycle must end.
108
I believe you, but it would be helpful if you would please provide the source for the first sentence in your comment.
Then the Democrats must make the elections more about economics, where Republicans are closer to the middle, instead of social issues, which are polarizing.
Identity politics is used by the right to divide the left. The left has to so falling for it. That doesn't mean that you ignore abuses of minorities, but it does mean you make a strong case for economic fairness for all people.
And a case for getting money out of politics.
Identity politics is used by the right to divide the left. The left has to so falling for it. That doesn't mean that you ignore abuses of minorities, but it does mean you make a strong case for economic fairness for all people.
And a case for getting money out of politics.
1
NA, Bernie isn't about San Francisco values, he is about economic issues, where there is far more overlap between Republican and Democratic voters.
There are issues, then there is strategy. From the outcomes of recent elections vis a vis the issue polling that rendered Ross' chart, strategy matters more. Dems have to run against Trump and his turn against those he said he cared so much about.
I often wonder if there are any other moderates like myself in this country that would like to see a party that is neither Democrat nor Republican. In the last presidential election, moderates had two realistic choices for president - both were bad.
13
The missing political centre would emerge in the currently divisive American polity but only after consuming the Trump phenomenon and proving the futility of voting Trump to power while also exposing the Republican betrayal to the public, whether on job front, national security issues, environmental issues, education, innovative scientific research, or the public health.
2
What about the Democrats' betrayal of their base? You don't think that matters?? You don't think that was a factor in Nov. 2016???
2
There are some things said here that are correct and important. It is certainly the case that too many Democrats (particularly in universities) are far too doctrinaire and that the party suffers the consequences. But this is hardly because they are "too liberal." It is not just that political correctness fosters closed-mindedness, but that its central tenets (especially identity politics) are inherently anti-liberal. Where in any of this is there a serious commitment to the kind of economic security that enables individuals as individuals to assert themselves?
On the other side of the coin we are left with an even bigger mystery that Douthat completely ignores. Why has the even more doctrinaire nature of Republican politics not done more to discredit their party? Is it perhaps because conservative pundits have done a poor job of pointing out that Ayn Rand represents an extreme radicalism every bit as menacing as the radicalism of Karl Marx? Why on Earth is it that conservative intellectuals have not acknowledged the destructive nature of Republican politics? Anyone seriously anti-abortion, for instance, would hardly be inclined to support the demonization and degradation of the poor that in the last generation has gone from being a trope of right-wing demagogues to being a matter of official Republican poverty. Who, after all, but the economically degraded are the main clientele for abortionists? Whatever happened to the conservative with a conscience?
On the other side of the coin we are left with an even bigger mystery that Douthat completely ignores. Why has the even more doctrinaire nature of Republican politics not done more to discredit their party? Is it perhaps because conservative pundits have done a poor job of pointing out that Ayn Rand represents an extreme radicalism every bit as menacing as the radicalism of Karl Marx? Why on Earth is it that conservative intellectuals have not acknowledged the destructive nature of Republican politics? Anyone seriously anti-abortion, for instance, would hardly be inclined to support the demonization and degradation of the poor that in the last generation has gone from being a trope of right-wing demagogues to being a matter of official Republican poverty. Who, after all, but the economically degraded are the main clientele for abortionists? Whatever happened to the conservative with a conscience?
31
The Republicans use social issues to get it's base to vote for their radical economic agenda, which the chart shows their base doors not believe in.
Hillary Clinton attempted to do the same thing, using identity politics against Bernie, then running on a free trade platform.
The establishment parties use race, gender, orientation to divide us, while they both push a radical corporate agenda that most people don't want.
It is not an accident. Global corporate mass media is owned by global conglomerates and billionaires, and the editors know what it's supposed to be acceptable economic policy, and to declare what the large majority of the people want to be impossible.
Hillary Clinton attempted to do the same thing, using identity politics against Bernie, then running on a free trade platform.
The establishment parties use race, gender, orientation to divide us, while they both push a radical corporate agenda that most people don't want.
It is not an accident. Global corporate mass media is owned by global conglomerates and billionaires, and the editors know what it's supposed to be acceptable economic policy, and to declare what the large majority of the people want to be impossible.
An ideological analysis of American politics is fundamentally misleading and wrong. What we really have is a Republican Party that has consistently represented the economic elite since 1877--they did some nice work before that. The Party would never win an election based on the people they actually represent, and so they con low information, one issue, voters with a number of "issues" that can be picked up or dropped as polls and election outcomes dictate: abortion, guns, gays, etc. Anti Communism stopped working with the fall of the Berlin wall, so their voters aren't even bothered by Russians stealing an election. They have played to anti tax sentiment for some time, and that works with voters who do not realize cutting the top rate does not cut their taxes. Democrats, on the other hand, lack focus. They represent everybody who is not rich, though those people do not know that. Democrats needs to start running against economic abuse by the wealthy and big business, but they don't have the stomach for it.
29
One of the largest factions in the current Democratic party is affluent professionals earning between $100K and $500K. They supply the ideas, the candidates, and a large part of the money to the Democrats. Alienating them would wipe the Democrats off the map.
This chart supports my assertion that the Democratic Party is designed to lose. Why else would it pick candidates that are in a different quadrant than it's base?
I have been, mostly, a Democrat for my almost 50 year voting life. If the Democratic left is going to aim for some polar equivalent of the House "Freedom" Caucus, they will lose my vote. I am not sure what I might do at that juncture--voting Republican is not an option, given current party stances. I hope the Democratic leadership does not force that decision upon me and quite a few of my friends. It is not clear that their leaders are able to build their own internal consensus, however much they might complain about the unwillingness of the Republicans to work across the aisle.
I agree with a good bit of what Mr. Douthat has written in this column, however much I might not with other opinions he has proffered. It is stunning what congressional Republicans--with a "health care" plan that is thinly disguised longstanding political fundamentalism--are trying to do to the American people.
I agree with a good bit of what Mr. Douthat has written in this column, however much I might not with other opinions he has proffered. It is stunning what congressional Republicans--with a "health care" plan that is thinly disguised longstanding political fundamentalism--are trying to do to the American people.
6
The Drutman Report cited by Douthat is compelling, although descriptive (which means it changes frequently) rather than prescriptive (where are we going from here, which has to be based on more fundamental principles than this week's post-election polling). It certainly doesn't explain how we got here. Given that the Democrats have lost yet another special election, continuing an absolute tidal wave of election losses, the point of the chart for Democrats would seem to be obvious - but reading left/liberal and Democratic opinions, whether posted here or in other forums, apparently it is not. The Democratic party has never grasped the significance of the loss of the Catholic Church over abortion. And the nation has never grasped the political significance of having important social issues decided by the Supreme Court. In any event, Douthat, like political intellectuals of all persuasions, underestimates Donald Trump and the decisive ownership he has assumed over the Republican Party (I wrote in Paul Ryan's name, but I have vowed to never underestimate Trump again). What the chart really demonstrates is that any political strategy that isolates the clustered blue dots on the lower left of Drutman's chart has a great chance of winning everywhere - in every election, at any level, outside of the major urban areas. Because of his personal shortcomings, Trump obscures what otherwise would be fairly obvious, that populism in the Republican tent is very powerful indeed.
5
The holy grail of politics, right, Ross?
I'm not so sure all this poly-sci analysis really explains the Trump phenomenon. Remember he won by 77,000 votes and his base is tiny but committed. I'd say rather than judge the Trumpists by their party allegiance (many have none, I suspect there were many voting for the first time), say, in coal country, look at the candidates.
Because elections are both policy and personality driven. A coal miner hearing Hillary would descend into rage. But listening to Trump, with all his swagger and 5th grade vocabulary, plus his reality show rallies, gave them a hell of lot of fun.
People are going to be assessing 2016 for a long, long time. But the answer, I feel, has a lot more to do with how voters felt in listening. Remember the saying about "you might not remember what they did, or what they said, but you'll never forget how they made you feel."
Trump: made voters feel like they mattered, whether or not that was true. Hillary: reminded them of scolding teachers who questioned whether or not they did their homework.
I'm not so sure all this poly-sci analysis really explains the Trump phenomenon. Remember he won by 77,000 votes and his base is tiny but committed. I'd say rather than judge the Trumpists by their party allegiance (many have none, I suspect there were many voting for the first time), say, in coal country, look at the candidates.
Because elections are both policy and personality driven. A coal miner hearing Hillary would descend into rage. But listening to Trump, with all his swagger and 5th grade vocabulary, plus his reality show rallies, gave them a hell of lot of fun.
People are going to be assessing 2016 for a long, long time. But the answer, I feel, has a lot more to do with how voters felt in listening. Remember the saying about "you might not remember what they did, or what they said, but you'll never forget how they made you feel."
Trump: made voters feel like they mattered, whether or not that was true. Hillary: reminded them of scolding teachers who questioned whether or not they did their homework.
89
"Scolding teachers" equals female authority figures? Does some strain of sexism explain it all?
1
Typical elitist error...speaking for others e.g. "coal miners think/rage/vote". Do you actually know ANY coal miners? Have you ever had even the most casual conversation with anyone who worked in coal mines or, for that matter, anyone who didn't share your opinions and intrinsic bias? This is what is so offensive and infuriating about comments such as yours. I know coal miners. Do NOT speak for them.
1
Ms. McMorrow your analogy in the last paragraph of your comment is right on target. Visceral reactions may have played a greater role in the 2016 presidential election than most people would care to admit.
3
We have zombie political parties. Charts, analyses, and endless critical discussions are perhaps useful for the mornings after, but less so as bases for successful campaigns. Because we are increasingly less united as a nation, as a people, but still constrained by our two major party political structure, we're reduced to stuffing often widely divergent views into each party's ballot box. These fragile alliances offer stark choices with which many of us are increasingly uncomfortable. In some ways, Republican and Democratic labels are insufficient if not incorrect. Certainly, for example, today's Republicans can not legitimately claim to be the party of Lincoln. Were we a parliamentary system, as some have suggested, we'd have a plethora of smaller parties and some interesting and shifting alliances. Instead, for example, we have a Tea Party that was adopted by and in turn virtually consumed the Republican Party. Democrats have their own internal divisions. The result is zombie political parties that need to consume fresh political views to survive as they shuffle from one election cycle to the next. Both parties need to redefine themselves. Previous efforts produced superficial adaptations that meant little to the electorate and didn't disturb the controlling interests. Party planks seem ineffectual. It's too much to hope that the labels themselves can be tossed into the dustbin of history, but we need to realize that those labels say less than ever about each of us.
5
After a rash of misleading poll results, some attention to how this survey was done is warranted. To find the questionnaire, look for "voter-study-group-toplines-crosstabs" That was a panel of 8,000 post-election but pre-inaguration: Nov29-Dec29, 2016. All of the "survey" data was collected via the internet. In a quick look at the full report I found no discussion of nonresponse - i.e. what about people who are not represented in the survey "universe?" This was important to recent survey flops. The "statistical error rates" overstate the accuracy of the results if nonresponse is not accounted for. I've been a professional statistician. Suggestion: to understand this interesting survey, bypass Figure 2, look at the methodology, then the crosstabs. I was curious about "Trade" on Fig 2. The question was specifically about "Free Trade."
16
A Center there once was it seems
Now it is the stuff of dead dreams
Unlimited cash
Outrageously rash
Pushed voting to Koch bound extremes.
Now it is the stuff of dead dreams
Unlimited cash
Outrageously rash
Pushed voting to Koch bound extremes.
41
Douthat's chart captures what the political establishment of both parties consider to be the spectrum of policy options available on any given subject. What it does not do is to capture a fatigued population's desire for no-policy-at-all, and its growing sense that the establishment's purpose is to protect an incomprehensible status quo.
This isn't a search for the "center". If anything, this dynamic looks more like the Anti-Establishment movement of the 1960's.
This isn't a search for the "center". If anything, this dynamic looks more like the Anti-Establishment movement of the 1960's.
2
In Ross Douthat's report on the study and in the study itself, there is no mention of the dramatic and dangerous step Trump took toward having the US exit the Paris Climate Agreement, as well as weakening safeguards that keep the air and water clean. It's as though those things haven't happened.
3
Those things happened after the survey, which ended Dec 2016.
A political "center" isn't the physical thing the mid-points of quadrants suggest. Ideally, it forms as a consequence of compromises made by adherents in all quadrants to further this or that priority that ranks sufficiently higher than others to allow for secondary priorities to be negotiated away in its interest. The "search" is merely the process of getting on with the negotiations and agreements, and the "center" constantly shifts as more and different compromises affect where it rests.
What complicates the process of defining the center is when one group couches its objectives in absolute terms, whether because God says it's right or Bill Maher does. It's hard to argue or negotiate with God, and Bill Maher sits exclusively surrounded by audiences of his own choosing who have no inclination to argue or negotiate with him -- hardly reflective of our political reality.
What will evolve is that those inhabiting quadrants that are least consistent will define the conversation and eventually the center, because they have more things they're willing to trade away than the more consistently conservative or liberal groups. I fully expect us to move forward again, but with our bluest and reddest groups reduced, like the EPA guy in the original "Ghostbusters", to screaming incoherent imprecations at gods who laugh uproariously as he's buried under melted marshmallow.
What complicates the process of defining the center is when one group couches its objectives in absolute terms, whether because God says it's right or Bill Maher does. It's hard to argue or negotiate with God, and Bill Maher sits exclusively surrounded by audiences of his own choosing who have no inclination to argue or negotiate with him -- hardly reflective of our political reality.
What will evolve is that those inhabiting quadrants that are least consistent will define the conversation and eventually the center, because they have more things they're willing to trade away than the more consistently conservative or liberal groups. I fully expect us to move forward again, but with our bluest and reddest groups reduced, like the EPA guy in the original "Ghostbusters", to screaming incoherent imprecations at gods who laugh uproariously as he's buried under melted marshmallow.
5
Hmmm ... I don't really follow your "shifting center" argument but it's clear that Republicans have refused to compromise for years now while Democrats have compromised far too much. Does that make Democrats "the center"? Not according to most conservatives, who paint them as radical socialists. And you can't possibly have actually watched Bill Maher. He almost always includes conservatives on his panel. Often they outnumber the liberals.
3
Bruce:
How many "conservatives" do you find in Maher's picked audiences, which is the group I was referring to?
How many "conservatives" do you find in Maher's picked audiences, which is the group I was referring to?
1
This could be correct but I doubt it. What I see anecdotally, but which I have not seen tested in surveys, is that the country splits into those like the academic elites, the NYT Editorial Board, and others, that focus on identity politics and revile the US for its past mistakes, principally slavery, versus those who identify as American, many with military service in their pasts, who believe race, ethnicity and sexual preferences should not define people or Americans, that we should be a melting pot where past cultures are absorbed into something more fair, colorblind, and that rewards merit and provides opportunity.
The voting splits on these lines so the polls, testing other assumptions like those here, mostly get it wrong, and the politicians, wedded to older notions, provide mostly confused narratives to the voters who cannot select exactly what they want.
Trump understood some of this and went for the people that identify themselves as Americans with the "America First" notion. The NYT Editorial Board would see this as evil, worthy of violent resistance, against its Diversity God, not understanding that mankind can never be at peace until something bigger than identify politics and issues such as race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation simply go away as irrelevant, vestiges of a worse past.
Ossoff in SC understood some of this and got votes because of it but lost because he did not believe what he was saying and it was transparent.
The voting splits on these lines so the polls, testing other assumptions like those here, mostly get it wrong, and the politicians, wedded to older notions, provide mostly confused narratives to the voters who cannot select exactly what they want.
Trump understood some of this and went for the people that identify themselves as Americans with the "America First" notion. The NYT Editorial Board would see this as evil, worthy of violent resistance, against its Diversity God, not understanding that mankind can never be at peace until something bigger than identify politics and issues such as race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation simply go away as irrelevant, vestiges of a worse past.
Ossoff in SC understood some of this and got votes because of it but lost because he did not believe what he was saying and it was transparent.
12
I am also working from anecdotal evidence, but I think that the "American/America First" group is also an identity group. Many of them don't see themselves as part of identity politics because their view of America as a melting pot is that everyone was supposed to end up like them and adopt their beliefs. For them, the system will treat other groups fairly once they have given up their old identities and become real Americans.
9
Great point about the Democrat party: "the party has lost the ability to speak to persuadable voters who disagree with the liberal consensus on a few crucial issues." It's becoming almost impossible to disagree on any points with progressives whose core values and perspective I share.
25
I think Republicans have become even more rigid. I question whether there is a similar "liberal consensus" on issues. Maybe the problem is that Democrats have lined up in opposition to those Republican "values." Opposition alone isn't usually productive.
But what this ignores, is that the Republican and Democratic bases are closer to the middle than the establishment "center" of either party.
If the Democrats followed their base, instead of insulting it, they would be closer to the middle!
If the Democrats followed their base, instead of insulting it, they would be closer to the middle!
The MainStream will expand, thus, no need to search. Neither Republican nor Democrat nor Independent. Just MainStream. ---- Individual Human Rights are not suitable for debate.
1
The 4 things , most important which you don´t acknowledge: gerrymandering, voter supression, the power of the fox news propoganda machine, and the need for congress to kow-tow to special interests who wield election money, not popular sentiment and often get their way against the desires of the majority.
197
The chart showed feelings on specific issues. It had nothing to do with voter suppression or Fox News. Or the GA election, which may be what you were posting about.
Why do Republicans win, Democrats lose yet the country "seems" to be getting more liberal?
In my state, Wisconsin, the answer can be found in one word.
Gerrymander.
As has recently been pointed out in the NYT, Republicans in the state legislature got there with a minority of votes yet occupy the majority of seats in the state house in Madison. Wisconsin isnt the only state in which this is happening. The process has been hijacked and has been a national priority of the GOP for decades. It has worked.
In "Search of the American Center" Ross?
How about searching for what happened to the concept of democratic principles in our electoral process?
In my state, Wisconsin, the answer can be found in one word.
Gerrymander.
As has recently been pointed out in the NYT, Republicans in the state legislature got there with a minority of votes yet occupy the majority of seats in the state house in Madison. Wisconsin isnt the only state in which this is happening. The process has been hijacked and has been a national priority of the GOP for decades. It has worked.
In "Search of the American Center" Ross?
How about searching for what happened to the concept of democratic principles in our electoral process?
258
Tied with gerrymandering, the GOP financial backers have spent a generation focusing on local elections, while the Democratic party has focused on national elections, feeling that down the line the population trends will give them the local elections. So the GOP grabbed hold of state legislatures and was able to use gerrymandering to stem the effects of the population changes.
7
Unfortunately, gerrymander does not explain why Wisconsin re-elected Scott Walker (twice!), or the election of Senator Ron Johnson.
These results can only be explained by the messaging war, which we are losing badly.
These results can only be explained by the messaging war, which we are losing badly.
2
Andy- did WI limit the amount of polling areas in Democratic leaning towns? This matters. Some states have few polling places for 1000's of voters in Democratic districts compared to far more generous polling places in districts that vote Republican. This is another way they suppress the vote-if people can't stand in line for hours to get the chance to vote.
1
It's not that complicated, really. More people vote for Democratic representatives but Republicans control the House because of gerrymandering. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million people, but lost the Electoral vote because it gives disproportionate power to rural states dominated by white people afraid of the future demographics of the country. Add to that rigged system liberals' tendency to make the perfect the enemy of the good and you have a perfect storm that is going to sink the ship of state if we don't right it soon.
292
"rural states dominated by": Not well-educated people. --- I suppose as the MainStream expands, these rural states of poor economy will disappear.
And voter suppression. Gerrymandering and voter suppression, the two prize projects the republicans have been working on for years. Finally, they have what they want - power without needing the majority of voters on their side.
3
You missed the main lesson of the chart. The Clinton wing of the Democratic Party is in a different sector than the base of the Democratic Party. If the a democratic a party followed it's base instead of corporate interests it would get enough votes to overwhelm the electoral college problem.
Democratic "centrists" which are really over in that empty quadrant, trying to forge coalitions that don't exist, are openly hostile to the party's base, which wants government involved in economics, just as half of the Republican voters do (see the chart!).
Democratic "centrists" which are really over in that empty quadrant, trying to forge coalitions that don't exist, are openly hostile to the party's base, which wants government involved in economics, just as half of the Republican voters do (see the chart!).
2
Bill Clinton Rev-1, Barack Obama Rev-1, the candidates who won the Presidency for their first terms, would win again today in landslides. They campaigned to win votes from all of America and people believed in their messages of unity and hope.
Ronald Reagan also campaigned to win votes from all of America with a message of hope (and a little less unity). He would be elected today with an even bigger landslide.
Voters vote for candidates who (act like they) care about them.
Ronald Reagan also campaigned to win votes from all of America with a message of hope (and a little less unity). He would be elected today with an even bigger landslide.
Voters vote for candidates who (act like they) care about them.
36
Voters do not vote for candidates (or parties) that gleefully mock them as "deplorables in a basket".
"Both sides of the Atlantic?" Both sides of the nation, surely?
I believe France is one one side of the Atlantic and the US is on the other -- but that fact may have been changed. Let's ask the president to tweet us the answer.
7
December--- Ah, a Tale of Two Cities. I think the Mayflower came from, England. So, France is on one side, and England is on the other side. Since Macron is much more popular than Theresa May, then: France is winning.
3
One of your better columns of late. Kudos. But I think you underestimate the importance of dogmatic single-issue voters on the Right, and I'm not sure how well your chart captures that reality. How different would our politics be right now if we didn't have so many voters who want to know only what a candidate's stand is on abortion or who care so much about guns that all other issues pale in significance or who vote solely on what they can suss out about a candidate's racial and ethnic commitments?
115
"the party’s base has no patience anymore for the kind of careful triangulation that Bill Clinton practiced"
Exactly. And neither did voters.
It was rejected when Hillary tried it again. It was even rejected in Britain, where it came from, where Tony Blair is very near in hiding.
Douthat wants to encourage that "careful triangulation" because it is his best way to get the things he wants, which is exactly the reason voters rejected it. It is the road to doing Republican while pretending to be a Democrat.
Sanders and Hillary were not the same. She tried to pretend they were, but voters did not believe her.
Actually, Trump and Sanders had much in common. That is why Sanders could have beaten Trump, by stealing his thunder. It is the "populism" which really means the voters, the "ignorant" ones the mainstream Democrats need but hate.
If we can reconcile, it won't be for the values that Douthat pushes. It won't be by promising something else and delivering the values Douthat pushes.
It will be by doing what Bernie was doing, which Trump at least faked doing. It will be by doing what voters have been demanding, turning away from those greedy donors serving themselves at the expense of voters.
Exactly. And neither did voters.
It was rejected when Hillary tried it again. It was even rejected in Britain, where it came from, where Tony Blair is very near in hiding.
Douthat wants to encourage that "careful triangulation" because it is his best way to get the things he wants, which is exactly the reason voters rejected it. It is the road to doing Republican while pretending to be a Democrat.
Sanders and Hillary were not the same. She tried to pretend they were, but voters did not believe her.
Actually, Trump and Sanders had much in common. That is why Sanders could have beaten Trump, by stealing his thunder. It is the "populism" which really means the voters, the "ignorant" ones the mainstream Democrats need but hate.
If we can reconcile, it won't be for the values that Douthat pushes. It won't be by promising something else and delivering the values Douthat pushes.
It will be by doing what Bernie was doing, which Trump at least faked doing. It will be by doing what voters have been demanding, turning away from those greedy donors serving themselves at the expense of voters.
164
political death to 'third way' Democrats! Rockefeller Republicans all.
1
To Mr. Thomason and Mr Douthat (and that survey author).
Spot on. I learned a lot. Especially from Mr. Thomason vis-à-vis the simple explanation for Sanders and Trumps surprisingly large populist appeal. Voting Americans had reached a boiling point with: "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"--aka triangulation--and (finally) decided they "won't get fooled again". Too bad Bernie never got his shot, we might've avoided this train wreck. Still, we are awesome at our core--both red and blue--and will be better, in time. Rebuilding from a disaster builds team unity.
Spot on. I learned a lot. Especially from Mr. Thomason vis-à-vis the simple explanation for Sanders and Trumps surprisingly large populist appeal. Voting Americans had reached a boiling point with: "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"--aka triangulation--and (finally) decided they "won't get fooled again". Too bad Bernie never got his shot, we might've avoided this train wreck. Still, we are awesome at our core--both red and blue--and will be better, in time. Rebuilding from a disaster builds team unity.
4
The fantasy that Sanders could have beaten Trump is a sure way to keep the Democratic party out of Congress and the White House for decades. You ignore the fact that Hispanics and African-Americans did not see Sanders as one speaking for them (even though he clearly courted them). And you ignore the fact that in red states socialism remains a dirty word, rural America connects socialism with state control over their lives (never mind that it is a grotesque distortion). The political language that will appeal to such disparate groups has yet to be found.
3
This is line with the wilfull misreading of voter sentiment on the left. Democrats are losing because the party apparatus is to the right of its voters and after six straight cycles of punishing blows, shows no signs of relenting. Karen Handel ran against Nancy Pelosi. Ossoff lost. In South Carolina, which also had an election, the Democratic candidate came within 4% of winning, without any help from the DNC.
Money in politics is what drives the major parties and voters still aren't having it. What will it take? http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2Ds
Money in politics is what drives the major parties and voters still aren't having it. What will it take? http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2Ds
37
If Jon Ossoff or any other Democratic candidate had embraced Bernie Sanders's policy agenda in the race for Georgia's 6th district he would have lost by 20 points instead of 4. Karen Handel ran against "San Francisco values," and used Nancy Pelosi to personify them.
54
If I understand the population of the district where Ossoff and Handel were contending correctly, the people are well-educated, well-off and traditionally Republican. Bernie Sanders would not be the answer for them. Nor would his principles be the answer here in Upstate NY where I live. Our population is older, poorer, but also traditionally Republican.
It used to be that Democrats and Republicans were both flexible enough to craft their messages to fit the constituency.
That has changed. Republicans pioneered making their ideology so rigid that there was no room for deviation. Democrats seem to be following in an ineffectual effort to use that model. We're actually begin to hear references to DINOs. That is not promising.
And yes, money is the root of a lot of the evil in politics.
It used to be that Democrats and Republicans were both flexible enough to craft their messages to fit the constituency.
That has changed. Republicans pioneered making their ideology so rigid that there was no room for deviation. Democrats seem to be following in an ineffectual effort to use that model. We're actually begin to hear references to DINOs. That is not promising.
And yes, money is the root of a lot of the evil in politics.
5
Agreed. Frankly I feel like Ossoff would've benefited from actually shadowy money: too often brazenly outside money from the left (even those $27 type micro donations) gets played like "evil coastal liberals tryin'ta buy the REAL AMERICA away from us". He could've gone super left, he could've gone even more right of center... but either way he had to fight against years upon years of conservative propaganda
4
The politically dispositive issues that Ross Douthat and other Conservatives pundits choose to ignore are " centered" on race and demonization of the "other". Obviously, that reality is something that conservative pundits don't want to acknowledge. They pontificate on ideological matters, when in fact there is a much simpler reality. There is a racist, anti-immigrant, anti- LGBT, taint to the Republican Party, that is especially dispositive outside urban areas and in relatively homogeneous areas, be it a congressional district or state. The Constitution, by giving every state two senators, regardless of population, allows rural red states to have a disproportionate influence on American presidential elections. The percentage of white voters is still sufficient to make Republicans viable in national elections. That viability will vanish over the next decade, when states like Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and North Carolina, turn irrevocably blue. The attempts at minority voter suppression, through restrictive voter I.D. laws, are a concerted Republican effort to post phone the inevitable. It's about race and "the other", not political ideology.
228
The Democrats should publicize their majorities in vote getting. I did a study a few election cycles back and was astounded at the huge majorities of actual votes that Senate Democratic candidates got over the Republicans, because of the greater populations of the blue states. There is a similar but not quite as dramatic phenomenon in the House of Representatives. Also, for a couple of decades now, polls indicate that Democrats' stand on the issues are preferred. Yet Republicans rule with their policies that seem to demonize and disenfranchise the poor and minorities while rewarding the upper middle class taxpayer. There are other people in the country who work hard, play by the rules, but don't make much money nor pay much taxes. These people are ignored by the Republican priorities. Donald Trump did give the impression that he cared about them during the campaign, but his administration and the halls of Republican led Congress are ruling otherwise.
33
It is, in some larger areas especially the "red" states, about religion. About the "my god is better than your god" and also a rigidity in interpretation of the Bible and using that interpretation to dismantle agencies such as Planned Parenthood.
When Christians say that they are victims because people dislike their religion they are wrong. What is disliked is their insistence on their religion attempting to make everyone adhere to their narrow vision of what this "god" wants for the country as a whole.
When Christians say that they are victims because people dislike their religion they are wrong. What is disliked is their insistence on their religion attempting to make everyone adhere to their narrow vision of what this "god" wants for the country as a whole.
6
amen
3
The Democrats' problem is that they are not consistently ideologically liberal in practice. The Clintons and Obama and Congress have long supported policies that give too much of the real power to the wealthy. The Democrat politicians have said they are working for the masses while not consistently doing so. So, they are lying too.